FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 329
households (0–50% AMI), including 2,256 units specifically for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) residents (0–30% AMI).
To fund these efforts, Oakland secured voter approval for Measure U, an $850 million infrastructure bond allocating $350 million to affordable housing. This builds on the success of 2016’s Measure KK, which funded 1,561 affordable units through new construction, preservation, and conversion projects. Measure U prioritizes deep affordability, with a focus on Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) and ELI units, though their viability depends on securing long-term operating subsidies. Subsequent funding targets low-income housing (30–80% AMI) to retain working-class residents, reflecting feedback from stakeholders who emphasized the need to balance affordability levels for project feasibility.
Key programs under the SAP include new construction, Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH), Homekey initiatives (converting hotels/motels into homeless housing), and preservation/rehabilitation of existing affordable units. Anti-displacement strategies are central, with efforts to protect aging affordable housing through partnerships with community land trusts and limited-equity cooperatives. As funds become available, the City will encourage projects with expiring affordability restrictions to apply for the State of California’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program, which services as a source of capital to repair and extend affordability restrictions on older affordable housing. The City anticipates issuing its next local Preservation Notice of Funding Availability during the Consolidated Plan period, which will make funds available to repair and rehabilitate existing deed-restricted affordable housing.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City of Oakland is advancing a multi-pronged strategy to combat lead-based paint hazards, combining new grant funding with a landmark legal settlement to prioritize effective and proactive solutions. In 2024, The City of Oakland was awarded a $675,800 grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future (PBF) to advance efforts in reducing lead-based paint hazards in older rental housing, prioritizing communities disproportionately affected by housing instability and health risks. The City will use this funding to establish long-term systems for healthier living environments. The initiative builds on Oakland’s existing work with the Green
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 330
and Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI), a consultant hired in 2024 to provide technical guidance on lead abatement. By combining GHHI’s expertise with proactive inspections, the city aims to create scalable models for addressing environmental hazards while ensuring landlords comply with housing safety regulations. This approach aligns with Oakland’s broader housing priorities under its “3P” framework.
With this new grant, Oakland is leveraging $14.4 million from a historic settlement with the lead paint industry—part of a 2001 lawsuit where Oakland and Alameda County joined jurisdictions suing manufacturers for knowingly marketing hazardous lead-based products. Of the $305 million statewide settlement, Oakland and Alameda County received $24 million, with 60% ($14.4 million) allocated to Oakland and 40% ($9.6 million) to Alameda County outside Oakland. In December 2021, Oakland and the county finalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to distribute funds, with $4.8 million (20%) immediately directed to develop the ELHAP lead paint abatement program. This program will be paired with the forthcoming Proactive Rental Inspection Program (PRIP). This program shifts from a passive, complaint-driven model to a proactive, data-informed approach, targeting older, dilapidated rental housing in low-income neighborhoods where lead contamination risks are highest.
Finally, the City of Oakland’s Residential Lending Services program and Alameda County’s Healthy Homes Department (ACHHD) collaborate to reduce lead-based paint (LBP) hazards through outreach, training, technical assistance, and lead-safe repairs (including healthy housing upgrades) for residents and property owners.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families Oakland will continue the implementation of its Living Wage and Minimum Wage Ordinances with wage increases effective annually on July 1 and January 1, respectively.
The City will continue to coordinate in partnership with the Alameda County Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Campaign and provide free tax assistance and preparation to Oakland’s low- income families and individuals at community based Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Sites (VITA) located throughout the City, putting money in the pockets of low-income families.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 331
The City will continue to foster economic development activities that benefit low/moderate- income residents in Oakland, creating and retaining jobs in low/moderate-income areas or for low/moderate-income residents.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
Oakland HCD will continue to coordinate with the various Oakland Departments, including Economic and Workforce Development, Planning & Building, and Human Services, to understand institutional structure and service delivery gaps. This collaboration will enable Oakland HCD to continue exploring strategies and activities to address specific gaps. These strategies, in addition to feedback from partners and community members, will be tracked and evaluated on an ongoing basis so that Oakland HCD can both understand progress being made and pivot efforts if improvements are needed or for new obstacles that may appear. As part of the City’s forthcoming Homelessness Strategic Action Plan, the City and the County of Alameda will also seek to more clearly delineate areas of responsibility for funding homelessness interventions to reduce overlapping funding commitments and enhance program oversight.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
Over the years, City of Oakland staff have actively participated in various organizations that address housing, community and economic development in the City. There are a number of jurisdictions, foundations and non-profit organizations with whom City staff, with the support of management, has developed strong working relationships. City staff have a history and will continue to participate as committee members, board members, and collaborative partners to address housing and community economic development issues in various organizations that benefit the City. Examples of organizations where HCD staff participate:
EveryOne Home, East Bay Housing Organizations, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, and Housing California.
Discussion
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 332
The City of Oakland’s strategies outlined in this section reflect a comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing housing, community development, and economic challenges through alignment with federal priorities. By leveraging federal funds alongside local resources such as Measure U bond proceeds and state programs, Oakland aims to advance affordable housing production, preserve existing stock, and mitigate environmental hazards like lead-based paint. Efforts to reduce poverty through wage ordinances, tax assistance, and job creation initiatives prioritize practical, outcomes-driven solutions for low-income families.
Coordination across city departments, partnerships with external organizations, and proactive engagement with state and federal programs ensure efficient resource allocation and compliance with regulatory standards. These actions collectively support the city’s commitment to meeting Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets, fostering safe and stable neighborhoods, and maintaining fiscal responsibility. Moving forward, Oakland will continue refining strategies to address emerging challenges, prioritize cost-effective interventions, and align with broader goals of housing stability and economic resilience for all residents.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 333
Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
Every year, the City of Oakland anticipates $850,000 in CDBG program income from loan repayments and loan fees. If the program income from loan payments and loan fees exceeds the anticipated $850,000, the additional funds will go into the City of Oakland's Housing Rehabilitation program to allow for additional funding of loans or grants.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.
Table 66 - Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Projects The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed
$850,000
The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and the specific objectives identified in the grantee’s strategic plan.
$34,000,000 for the City of
Oakland’s Section 108 Loan
Pool. These funds will be used to
acquire and ensure long-term
affordability of housing
affordable to Low/Moderate
Income persons. This Loan Pool
is currently identifying eligible
projects.
The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 334
The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan
$-
The amount of income from float-funded activities $-
Total Program Income: $850,000
Other CDBG Requirements
The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate-income. A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate-income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. The overall benefit is expected to reach 70%, measured over one year- FY 2025-2026.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 335
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR
91.220(l)(2)
A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section
92.205 is as follows:
Tax Credit Financing, City of Oakland Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Funds currently being deposited into the AHTF: (1) Jobs/Housing Commercial Impact fee, (2) Former Redevelopment Agency "Boomerang Funds," and (3) Housing Impact Fee, California Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Funds, California Housing and Community Development Department's Multi-Family Housing Program, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program, HUD Project Based Section 8.
A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:
Not applicable. The City of Oakland no longer uses HOME funds for homebuyer activities.
A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:
Not applicable. The City of Oakland will not use HOME funds for purchasing already regulated housing units.
Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:
Not applicable. The City of Oakland will not use HOME funds for refinancing existing debt secured by multifamily housing rehabilitation projects.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 336
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 337
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Reference 91.220(l)(4)
The primary purpose of ESG-funded rapid rehousing and prevention is to reduce entries into homelessness and/or shorten stays in homelessness to the greatest extent feasible. To be eligible to receive ESG prevention or rapid rehousing assistance, participant households in Alameda County must meet both national and local requirements, and this eligibility must be documented with an application and supporting documentation kept in a client file. These requirements include:
• Participants must be homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness, per the applicable HUD definitions in the ESG regulation (§576.2) supported by documentation; • Participants must be one of the locally targeted populations for the program, as specified on the application and eligibility determination form; • Participants must be willing to participate in the program and to meet the terms of a self-developed Housing Stability Plan;
• Participants may not have already received 24 months of ESG assistance during the past 36 months (§576.105(c));
• Participants must meet the local asset policy, including having cash or equivalent assets of less than $2,000 per single individual and $3,000 per couple; In addition:
• Participants receiving prevention assistance must have incomes at or below 30% of the Area Median Income (§576.103). Eligibility for rapid rehousing provides financial assistance and supportive services to individuals or families that are literally homeless, staying in shelter or transitional housing or on the streets or other places not suitable for human habitation, or exiting institutions and having entered from one of these locations. Eligibility for rapid rehousing includes those fleeing domestic violence who are living in one of the places named above.
In keeping with the intentions of the program, rapid rehousing assistance will be used primarily to serve households that are:
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 338
1. Adults or family households able to be rehoused rapidly without anticipation of an ongoing subsidy, with ESG financial assistance anticipated to be of six months or less duration;
2. Adults or family households able to be rehoused rapidly with an ongoing subsidy from another source anticipated within six months of ESG program participation;
3. Transition-age youth, especially those recently discharged from foster care, who are able to be rehoused rapidly without anticipation of an ongoing subsidy, with ESG assistance of eighteen months or less duration.
Prevention assistance will be directed to persons who are not literally homeless but are at imminent risk of homelessness per the HUD Homeless definition. Prevention assistance may include support to a household to retain its current housing or to move to other housing without having to become literally homeless. Prevention services will be targeted to those that are at “immediate risk” defined as: “An individual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence,” provided that:
• The primary nighttime residences will be lost within 14 days of the day of application for homeless assistance; - no subsequent residence has been identified; and, • The individual or family lacks the resources of support networks, e.g., family, friends, faith-based or other social networks, needed to obtain other permanent housing.” Within the category of “imminent risk” special attention and outreach will be done to target those households that are:
• Doubled up with family and friends, must move within 14 days and are seeking to enter shelter;
• Living in a hotel or motel using their own resources , must leave within 14 days, and are seeking to enter shelter;
• Living in their own housing, are being evicted for non-payment of rent, must leave within 14 days and are seeking shelter;
• Fleeing domestic violence;
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 339
• Imminently leaving foster care, or have recently left foster care and are at imminent risk of losing their current housing.
Program operators must determine that potential participants are eligible for assistance, and document this eligibility, including verifying income and housing status. The Program Application and Eligibility Determination Form contains key questions and documentation requirements. Once found eligible, the head of household must sign the ESG Participation Agreement to enroll and staff must complete an HMIS Standard Intake Form (SIF) for all household members.
If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system.
Procedures for Coordination Among Providers
Oakland and other jurisdictions and agencies across Alameda County have established a coordinated entry system that is divided into zones. Individuals and household experiencing homelessness or a housing crisis in Oakland or other zones in the county may access coordinated entry through designated points:
• Calling 211 to get a safety and crisis screening as well as a referral to a Housing Resource Center for an assessment for services.
o Drop-in to a Housing Resource Center in the zone during designated hours to complete an assessment for services.
o Complete an assessment with general or street medicine outreach teams while they are in the field/community.
o Complete assessments through select emergency homeless shelters and drop-in centers that offer general (non-housing specific) support resources.
A standard locally developed tool is used by providers in Oakland and county-wide to assess individuals’ and households’ vulnerability and prioritize them on a By Name List to receive support and services. Individuals and families are then matched from the By Name list to resources, including referrals to mainstream and select health care resources, transitional
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 340
housing, Housing Navigation staff support, rapid rehousing, flexible funding, permanent housing, Permanent Supportive Housing, and tenancy sustaining staff services.
Alameda County’s Coordinated Entry System policy making is overseen by a System Coordination committee (SCC). This committee is comprised of agencies from across the county, meets monthly, and in turn has representatives on the board of the Continuum of Care. At each zone level in Oakland and across the county, the zone lead convenes monthly implementation meetings with providers.
Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations).
HEARTH ESG funds are allocated in support of the City of Oakland Permanent Access To Housing Strategy, a companion to the Alameda County EveryOne Home Plan. The Alameda Countywide EveryOne Home Plan is a roadmap for ending homelessness in the county.
Oakland’s Permanent Access to Housing (PATH) Strategy is an Oakland-specific companion to EveryOne Home plan. EveryOne Home is a comprehensive plan for providing housing and supportive services to homeless people in Alameda County and to those people living with serious mental health illness and HIV/AIDS.
If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and services funded under ESG.
The homeless participation requirement for planning and funding decisions is met through homeless participation in the EveryOne Home planning and general meetings. EveryOne Home is the Alameda County Continuum of Care. In addition, homeless or formerly homeless persons are requested to be part of the City of Oakland Request For Proposals process under Oakland's PATH Strategy, funded by ESG.
Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 341
Performance standards for each ESG recipient are monitored and evaluated monthly and annually to ensure that grant recipients are providing the contracted scope of services at the levels agreed upon and expended. Monthly reports are submitted to the City with each reimbursement request. Staff performs site visits at least annually to view services and compliance of record keeping. All ESG funded recipients are evaluated based on City established and HUD established standards for ESG.
The initial Screening will determine:
• If the combined household income is below 30% AMI;
• If the household has assets that exceed the programs asset limit; • If the household’s living situation qualifies as either literally homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness; and
• For those reporting to be imminently at risk, if the household has one or more additional risk factors established which make shelter entry more likely, if not assisted.
These factors include living currently in a place in which they do not hold a lease, such as doubled up with family or friends, in a hotel/motel or in an institutional setting. Persons holding a lease who have received “pay or quit” notices will be referred to other programs that offer more traditional prevention services. Person with eviction notices will be referred to legal services.
The initial screening also collects certain basic demographic information on the household (HMIS universal data elements) and is used to help qualify household for other services, where appropriate and gather information on those seeking assistance for analysis and program refinement.
Households determined initially eligible will receive a full assessment of housing barriers and household resources. Households may be screened out at this point if 1) the household appears to have other resources or housing opportunities that can be accessed to avoid homelessness or become rehoused without program assistance, or 2) the household has very
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 342
high or multiple barriers to rehousing and other more appropriate referrals or placements can be arranged.
Employing the “progressive engagement” model adopted by PHP, all households will receive an initial assessment and referrals to the appropriate community-based services.
Money management/budget training will be provided for any household receiving more than one-time assistance. Housing resource agencies and providers are expected to work with household to obtain benefits, including income and health coverage, or make referrals to agencies that can assist with this.
Process and Criteria for Awarding Funds
Overview: ESG funds are allocated either through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process or through grant agreement renewals commendable performance during the prior grant performance period.
The following ranking scale is typically used to rank projects within specific funding categories. While there are 100 total points possible for new applicants and 110 for renewal applicants, all points are not available for all types of projects. Projects are compared with other projects of the same type, with the same points available in the ranking process. For example, Homeless Prevention projects are to be compared with other homeless prevention projects. Rapid rehousing projects are to be compared to other rapid rehousing projects, etc.
A. Program is Consistent with Funding Principles and Priorities Up to 30 points will be awarded to programs that meet the priorities laid out in Oakland’s Funding Principles and Priorities. Criteria include:
1. The City of Oakland adheres to a Housing First philosophy and values flexibility, individualized support, client choice and autonomy with regard to housing.
2. The City of Oakland is committed to racial equity and the programs and services funded by the City must approach the work from a racially equitable lens.
3. Every homeless person entering services shall be treated with dignity and shall be directed toward the highest level of housing and economic independence possible.
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 343
4. Service provision will be characterized by flexibility and versatility to meet the diverse and changing needs of consumers.
5. Permanent housing programs are characterized by voluntary services components, with the emphasis on user-friendly services driven by tenant needs and individual goals.
6. Services aim to help people reduce the harm caused by their special needs, such as substance abuse, mental illness or health-related complications.
7. Services focus on helping tenants obtain housing or stay housed by assisting with the management of problems that interfere with their ability to meet the obligations of tenancy.
8. For services to homeless people to be effective, they must be directed toward and linked to permanent housing placements.
9. The Coordinated Entry System (CES) facilitates the coordination and management of resources and services and allows users to efficiently and effectively connect people to interventions that aim to rapidly resolve their housing crisis. Agencies must participate in the Coordinated Entry System.
B. Agency has Experience and Capacity to Provide Services Up to 25 points for new applicants and 35 points for renewal applicants will be awarded based on the demonstrated capacity of the agency to operate programs and deliver services to clients. Criteria include:
1. Up to 10 points will be awarded to renewal projects have consistently met their performance objectives, have participated in PATH meetings and initiatives, have positive client feedback, and have submitted reports and invoices in a timely manner.
2. The agency has a track record of successful service provision to homeless individuals and families, including performance on any past contracts with the City of Oakland. (0-5 points).
3. Agency is currently participating in HMIS or has certified its intention to do so within the first six months of the contract period. (0-5 points).
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 344
4. The agency has established collaborations with qualified community partners to achieve the maximum level of effective services for its clients. (0-5 points).
5. The supportive services staffing plan presented provide adequate coverage for the services proposed, given the target population. (0-5 points).
6. The facility operating staff coverage is consistent with best practices and is adequate, given the target population. (0-5 points).
C. Budget is Reasonable and Cost Effective
Up to 15 points for the program budget will be based on cost appropriateness and cost effectiveness, and strength of leveraging:
1. Costs proposed are eligible and clearly justified. (0-5 points).
2. Proposed cost per person/cost effectiveness. Based on the anticipated number of persons to be served by the agency for the 2014/15 programs, and the proposed target population, the agency has demonstrated an efficient use of funds. (0-5 points).
3. The agency has shown the ability to maximize other funding resources to supplement funding received from the City of Oakland. (0-5 points).
D. Agency has Adequate Fiscal Controls
Up to 10 points will be awarded to agencies that, based on their internal control procedures and history of administering grants, demonstrate the ability to efficiently administer awarded funds, as outlined in Fiscal Standards in Section XII.
E. Sole Source/Special Circumstances
Points may be awarded to agencies that are the demonstrated sole source of a specific service or services to Oakland's homeless community, and to agencies demonstrating special circumstances requiring additional consideration. Criteria for this section include:
1. Degree of benefit and history of effectiveness of sole source service/unique program. (0-5 points).
FY 2025/2026 – 2029/2030 Consolidated Plan OAKLAND 345
2. Demonstration of need and/or special circumstances that dictate additional consideration for the agency. (0-5 points).
F. Agency is a City-Certified Local Business Enterprise/Small Local Business Enterprise or 501(c)(3)
1. Proposal applicants that are certified with the City of Oakland as a Local Business Enterprise or Small Local Business Enterprise will receive up to 5 additional points towards their proposal score. Points received will be determined by the City of Oakland’s Office of Contract and Compliance and Employment Services. (0-5 points).
2. Program is a not-for-profit organization and has provided evidence of its tax-exempt [501 (C ) (3)] status. (0-5 points).
Discussion
The City of Oakland’s Consolidated Plan allocates federal resources to meet housing and community development priorities while ensuring fiscal responsibility and compliance with federal guidelines. CDBG funds prioritize projects benefiting low- and moderate-income populations, with program income reinvested into housing rehabilitation. The HOME program leverages diverse funding sources to expand affordable housing, adhering to restrictions on refinancing and homebuyer activities. ESG resources target homelessness through prevention and rapid rehousing, guided by a coordinated entry system to efficiently serve vulnerable households. This structured approach emphasizes accountability, alignment with federal objectives, and measurable outcomes to address critical community needs. 1 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
TO FAIR HOUSING
2024
This report is a joint effort lead by the County of Alameda in partnership with the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, Unincorporated Alameda County, and the Housing Authorities of the City of Alameda, the County of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, and Oakland.
*DRAFT FOR PUBLICATION*
"UUBDINFOU$
2 HAS YOUR RIGHT TO FAIR HOUSING BEEN
VIOLATED?
Examples of actions that could be discriminatory if based on a person’s Protected Characteristic include:
● Refusal to sell, rent, or lease rooms, apartments, mobile homes, condos, or houses ● Refusal to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of housing ● Informing someone that an apartment is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when it is in fact available
● Denial of a home loan or homeowner’s insurance
● Cancellation or termination of a sale or rental agreement ● Refusal to permit, at a disabled tenant’s expense, reasonable modifications – such as adding a ramp, widening a doorway, or installing a safety bar in a shower – when necessary to accommodate a disability
● Refusal to make reasonable accommodations in housing rules, policies, practices, or services where necessary to provide a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling
● Rules that restrict only on families with children, such as a prohibition against children using an on-site pool or playing in common areas of an apartment complex ● Refusing to rent to a tenant with a section 8 voucher. ● Not complying with the requirements of a rental assistance or subsidy program (such as section 8) by refusing to complete required forms, sign documents, or allow inspections ● Refusing to rent to anyone with a criminal history
● Screening prospective tenants – including when done by a third -party such as a tenant screening company – in a way that discriminates based on a protected characteristic ● Retaliation against someone because they filed a complaint with CRD, requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability, or otherwise tried to protect their rights to be free from housing discrimination
3 If you feel you have experienced discrimination in the housing industry, please contact:
State of California Civil Rights Department
651 Bannon Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811
VOICE: 800-884-1684
TTY: 800-700-2320 or California's Relay Service at 711
EMAIL: [email protected]
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
San Francisco Regional Office
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)
One Sansome Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
VOICE: (800) 347-3739 or (415) 489-6400
TTY: California's Relay Service at 711
FILE A REPORT ONLINE: https://portalapps.hud.gov/FHEO903/Form903/Form903Start.action 4 Contents
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REGIONAL ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING 2024 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 6 Background on AI Requirements ............................................................................................................. 7 Understanding Fair Housing and Impediments to Fair Housing .............................................................. 8 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Community Engagement Process .................................................................................. 14 Outreach Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 14 Outreach Efforts ............................................................................................................................. 15 Community Meetings ............................................................................................................................. 21 Survey ............................................................................................................................. 22 Public Hearings and Public Comment Period ......................................................................................... 26 Chapter 3: Fair Housing Laws and Guidance ................................................................................... 28 Federal Fair Housing Laws ...................................................................................................................... 28 Fair Housing Related Presidential Executive Orders .............................................................................. 29 HUD Fair Housing Guidance ................................................................................................................... 30 Supreme Court Ruling: Bostock v. Clayton County, GA (February 9, 2021): ......................................... 32 Supreme Court Ruling: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (June 25, 2015) .......................................................................................................................... 33 State Fair Housing Protections ............................................................................................................... 33 Hate Crimes ............................................................................................................................. 35 Local Protections for Renters ................................................................................................................. 35 Chapter 4: Fair Housing Practices ................................................................................................... 39 Homeownership Market ........................................................................................................................ 39 Rental Housing Market .......................................................................................................................... 42 Fair Housing Services ............................................................................................................................. 45 Fair Housing Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 5: Fair Housing Analysis..................................................................................................... 48 Demographic Summary .......................................................................................................................... 48 General Issues ............................................................................................................................. 62 5 Disparities in Access to Opportunities ................................................................................................... 91 Education ............................................................................................................................. 96 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 101 Employment ........................................................................................................................... 106 Environmental Health .......................................................................................................................... 107 Disproportionate Housing Needs ......................................................................................................... 109 Resistance to Development ................................................................................................................. 118 Regional Policies Encouraging Development ....................................................................................... 121 Lending ........................................................................................................................... 124 Publicly Supported Housing ................................................................................................................. 152 Disability and Access Analysis .............................................................................................................. 158 Fair Housing Complaint Data ............................................................................................................... 166 Fair Housing Audit ........................................................................................................................... 177 Chapter 6: Assessment of Past Goals, Actions, and Strategies ....................................................... 179 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Findings, Impediments, and Planned Actions .......................................... 180 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 180 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ................................................................................................... 181 Proposed Actions ........................................................................................................................... 184 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................. 205 SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 206 PAST ACTIONS SUMMARY CHART ........................................................................................................ 248
6 Introduction
The County of Alameda, as lead agency, together with multiple participating jurisdictions —the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City and Unincorpo rated Alameda County; the housing authorities for the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, and Oakland; and the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda —have formed a regional collaborative for the purpose of completing an Analysis of Impediments to F air Housing Choice (Regional Analysis of Impediments). This Regional Analysis of Impediments helps to meet the partners’ obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, which is a requirement of recipients of funding from the US Department of Housing an d Urban Development (HUD). HUD requires that an analysis of impediments be conducted every five years, preferably in conjunction with a five -year Consolidated Plan process, which regional members plan to complete by May 15, 2025.
This Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice provides an overview of laws, regulations, conditions, and other possible obstacles that may affect an individual’s or household’s access to housing and is prepared for the purpose of implementing fair housing rules to affirmatively further fair housing.
. This document provides
● A comprehensive review of laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices, and an assessment of how they affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing; and
● An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice.
Definitions
Below are terms frequently used throughout this report:
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means addressing significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. See 24 CFR § 5.151
Alameda County includes all Participating Jurisdictions, as defined below. 7 Consortium includes the geographic areas covered by HOME Consortium members, which are Urban County and Entitlement Cities, excluding Berkeley and Oakland. The Housing Authorities’ service areas are covered by these geographies.
East County includes Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore.
Entitlement Cities are the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City.
Mid/Central County includes Hayward, San Leandro, and the City of Alameda.
North County includes Berkeley, Piedmont, Albany, and Emeryville.
Participating Jurisdictions include all the entities in this regional collaboration: County of Alameda; the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City and Unincorporated Alameda County; and the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, Berkeley Housing Authority, Livermore Housing Authority, and Oakland Housing Authority. Data presented within this document may say Alameda County when referring to the geographic area of Alameda County which includes all these participating jurisdiction geographies.
Protected Characteristics are defined at the Federal and State levels and are discussed in Chapter 4 of this report.
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) is a neighborhood (census tract) that has a poverty rate of 40 percent or more and a racial or ethnic concentration where 50 percent or more of the tract is composed of residents of color.
Region refers to the Alameda County Core Base Statistical Area (CBSA) that is used in comparative analysis. Jurisdictions included in the Alameda County CBSA are Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo.
South County includes Fremont, Newark, and Union City.
Urban County refers to Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and unincorporated County.
Background on AI Requirements
For decades, HUD has required participants of HUD programs, such as states, local governments, insular areas, and PHAs, to engage in Fair Housing Planning. Such planning has previously consisted of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) an d the Assessment of Fair 8 Housing (AFH) and was done in connection with other types of planning required by program requirements, such as the consolidated plan, annual action plan, and PHA plan.
On February 9, 2023, HUD published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”. During proposed rulemaking, the HUD’s 2021 Interim Final Rule (IFR) remains in effect.
HUD’s 2021 Interim Final Rule, “Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications,” requires program participants to submit certifications that they will affirmatively further fair housing in connection with their consolidated plans, annual action plans, and PHA plans. In order to support these certifications, the IFR creates a voluntar y fair housing planning process for which HUD will provide technical assistance and support.
The IFR also rescinded the 2020 Preserving Communities and Neighborhood Choice rule, which caused program participants to certify “compliance” with a regulatory definition that is not a reasonable construction of the Fair Housing Act’s mandate to affirmati vely further fair housing. With the IFR, HUD put itself and its program participants back in a position to take meaningful steps towards improved fair housing outcomes. The IFR does not require program participants to undertake any specific type of fair housing planning to support their certifications.
HUD implements the AFFH mandate in other ways, such as through its collection of certifications from program participants, provisions regarding program design in its notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs), affirmative fair housing marketing and advertising requirements, and enforcement of site and neighborhood standards. The State of California implemented the AFFH mandate through requirements in local Planning Department’s Housing Elements. All Housing Elements must be approved by the State of California.
Understanding Fair Housing and Impediments to Fair Housing In light of the various pieces of fair housing legislation passed at the Federal and State levels, fair housing throughout this report incorporates the concept of fair housing choice and means:
A condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have a range of choices available to them regardless of their characteristics as protected under State and Federal laws.
HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) draws a distinction between housing affordability and fair housing. Economic factors that affect a household’s housing choices are not fair housing issues per se. Only when the relationship between household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors create misconceptions, biases, and differential treatments is where fair housing concerns arise.
9 Tenant/landlord disputes are also typically not related to fair housing. Most disputes between tenants and landlords result from a lack of understanding by either or both parties on their rights and responsibilities. Tenant/landlord disputes and housing di scrimination cross paths when the disputes are based on factors protected by fair housing laws and result in differential treatment.
Within the legal framework of Federal and State laws, and based on the guidance provided by HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
● Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of the characteristics protected under State and Federal laws, which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or
● Any actions, omissions or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of characteristics protected under State and Federal laws.
To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove impediments to fair housing choice.
Methodology
The following steps were taken to update the report:
● Analyze current publicly available data regarding the Alameda County demographics and housing;
● Engage with community members and stakeholders via public meetings and correspondence;
● Identify impediments to fair housing choice for Alameda County residents; and ● Develop strategies and actions for removing impediments and affirmatively furthering fair housing choice.
Data
Analysis of demographic and housing trends was completed using data from numerous sources, including the US Census Bureau’s 2000, 2010, and 2020 Decennial Census data, American Community Survey (ACS) 2018 – 2022 data, Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act Data f rom 2023 and other sources identified throughout the plan.
Throughout this report data is pr esented in a number of ways depending on the source of data and needs for analysis. Data may be presented for the County as a whole, for the Entitlement Cities, for the Urban County, for the Consortium, for individual Participating Jurisdictions, or for different regions of the County. The North, South, East, and Mid/Central regions of the County are shown in the map below for reference.
10 Community Engagement
The community engagement process involved six community meetings and stakeholder interviews as well as a digital survey available in multiple languages. Engagement materials were distributed to service organizations who then distributed it to their served populations. The survey was available in English, Spanish, Farsi, Tagalog, Traditional Chinese, and Vietnamese.
Residents of the participating jurisdictions as well as specific populations were targeted for engagement, including: racial and ethnic minoriti es, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, people residing in R/ECAPs, and people with limited English proficiency.
Stakeholders from a variety of organizations were contacted as well, including organizations that provide housing, housing services, homeless services, youth services, nonprofit social services, services for seniors, services for disabled persons, and HIV/AIDS services, as well as government agencies, advocates, emergency service providers, educational organizations, and economic development organizations.
11 The Community Engagement Process is further discussed in Chapter 2 on Community Participation.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Planned Action
Impediments were identified through an analysis of the collected data and community engagement findings. Regional goals were then developed to address these impediments to create a cohesive strategy and leverage resources. A summary of the proposed actions follows:
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
ACTION 1A: Continue to contract with housing service providers to educate home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders regarding fair housing law and recommended practices, including the importance of reasonable accommodation under ADA, protections for source of income, and the impact of using credit, criminal, and eviction history to assess tenant applications.
ACTION 1B: Create or c oordinate with local organizations on the creation of tenant advocacy materials that will provide easy to understand summaries of tenant rights and information on resources that can help with housing challenges including where to find housing assistance and where to report housing concerns.
These materials will be available in multiple languages and digitally and on paper for those who do not regularly access the internet.
ACTION 1C: Seek ways to increase resident access to fair housing services, such as improved marketing of services, strategies for bringing opportunities into the community through partnership with service organizations, and incorporating fair housing considerations as a routine practice of program administration.
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
ACTION 2A: Encourage landlords in high resource areas to market their available units to Housing Choice Voucher Holders through education, incentives, and interagency coordination that may help to streamline housing navigation and inspection processes.
ACTION 2B: Work to connect tenants at risk of eviction or displacement with services that stabilize housing.
12 ACTION 2C: Monitor the status of units at risk of conversion and work proactively with property owners to identify strategies that will allow units to remain affordable.
ACTION 2D: Explore options for limiting redevelopment of existing affordable housing projects to other uses and to require replacement housing be provided when project will result in loss of low-moderate income housing units.
ACTION 2E: Provide home repair assistance to income -qualified homeowners to allow homeowners to maintain housing safety and remain in their homes.
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
ACTION 3A: Continue to encourage construction of affordable housing throughout the region, including through the use of public land and enhanced coordination with nonprofit developers.
ACTION 3B: Encourage construction of accessory dwelling units.
ACTION 3C: Increase housing density consistent with state requirements and encourage applicants to apply for density bonuses as a tool to produce affordable housing and promote new housing.
ACTION 3D: Explore enhanced incentives for developers of affordable housing including incentives such as reduced fees, expedited processing, and regulatory streamlining.
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
ACTION 4A: Provide accessibility improvements in rehabilitation activities to increase the ability of physically disabled people to obtain and retain appropriate housing and live independently.
ACTION 4B: Facilitate housing development and assistance programs for special needs households, including seniors, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.
ACTION 4C: Continue outreach and engagement efforts to assist unhoused residents in securing safe affordable shelter and associated supportive services. 13 GOAL FIVE: ENHANCE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS TO PROMOTE
COLLABORATION IN MEETING REGIONAL CHALLENGES
ACTION 5A: Actively collaborate across jurisdictions, including through coordination with the Alameda County Housing Portal and attendance at quarterly meetings with the Participating Jurisdictions to discuss fair housing strategies, share information, and provide updates on goals to better coordinate regional fair housing efforts.
14 Chapter 2: Community Engagement Process
Outreach Strategy
Alameda County, along with participating jurisdictions - the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and Unincorporated Alameda County; the housing authorities for the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, and Oakland; and the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda – used a community engagement strategy aimed at gathering a broad and diverse range of responses. There was a focus on reaching residents who are most impacted by fair housing challenges to gain a more qualitative understanding of the experiences, opinions, and feelings of community members. A promotional flyer with information about both the survey and the six (6) community meetings was offered in English. Additionally the Oakl and Housing Authority distributed the flyer in Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Vietnamese as well. The flyer also included contact information to request accessibility accommodations.
A survey titled Alameda County Regional Fair Housing Survey (2024) was distributed across the County through stakeholder organizations working within the community. The survey was offered in English, Chinese, Spanish, Persian, Vietnamese, and Tagalog to reach a diverse range of residents. The survey was offered both elect ronically and in paper format and accessibility accommodation requests were offered. To offer incentive for participating in taking the survey, residents were offered the opportunity to ent er a raffle to win a $100 gift card. In total, 1,621 survey responses were collected. Of the 1,621 responses received, the highest number of responses came from the City of Alameda (38%), Oakland (13%), and Berkeley (9%).
Outreach also included six (6) community meetings held in Hayward, Berkeley, Dublin, Oakland, and Union City. T hese locations were chosen due to their proximity to the highest number of priority groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, people residing in R/ECAPs, and people with limited English prof iciency. Three (3) of these community meetings were also offered as hybrid options where participants could join through Zoom. Participants of th e community meetings were also offered the opportunity to enter a raffle to win a $100 gift card. The community meetings facilitated discussions around the draft report findings, proposed actions to address them, and other fair housing considerations.
Participating jurisdictions also created a list of stakeholders with expertise in various topic areas and who serve diverse populations that were contacted to engage in targeted, topic specific interviews. The focus group discussions included the topics of disability, fa ir housing and legal assistance, health, seniors, housing development, housing advocates, children and families, homelessness, education and employment, general social services, and finance and lending.
Findings from the draft and topics surrounding fair housing were discussed to gather insight and feedback.
15 Outreach Efforts
The table below summarizes the broad outreach efforts of each Participating Jurisdiction.
Table III-1 - Participating Jurisdiction Outreach Efforts Jurisdiction Activities
Alameda County
● The County reached out to: Alameda County HCD staff,
Board of Supervisors, the HCD Advisory Committee, the
Ashland Cherryland Basic Needs Committee, Age Friendly
Council, Service Providers: BOSS, First Pres, Love Never Fails, Women on the Way Recovery Center, Downtown
Streets (Hayward), Fairmont Campus Safe Parking, HARD,
Mandela Partners, RCD, TVHC, YMCA of the East Bay,
Community Child Care Council (4C's), and First 5. Housing Developers: : Resources for Community Development
(RCD), Hello Housing, Allied, Eden Housing, SAHA, EAH,
MidPen, Bridge, Mercy, and more.
●
● AI Information is posted to our website:
Discrimination and Fair Housing – Housing &
Community Development Department (achcd.org)
● 9/7 Castro Valley Fall Festival: County employee
engaged with public
● 9/7-9/10 Published a legal notice advertising
community engagement meetings and resident
survey in Alameda Times-Star, Tri-Valley Herald, Tri-
City Voice, and The Inter-City Express. Alameda
County published this notice on behalf of HOME
Consortium members.
16 Alameda
● Disseminated flyers to local services providers and
stakeholders – Dignity Village, Village of Love,
Building Futures for Women and Children, Eden
Council for Hope and Opportunity, Alameda Food
Bank, Alameda Point Collaborative, Alameda Family
Services, Mastick Senior Center and the Alameda
Free Library.
● Contacted Alameda Collaborative for Children,
Youth, and their Families committee to ask for
assistance with flyer distribution.
● Announced the Regional AI Survey and upcoming
community meetings at the Social Service Human
Relations Board meeting on August 29th.
Berkeley ● The City of Berkeley conducted outreach to all city of Berkeley residents via a community message and
event notice on the Berkeley website, direct
outreach to community agencies, neighborhood
associations, Berkeley based developers, business
groups, commission members, Berkeley housing
authority, via an affordable housing newsletter, and
posting flyers in senior centers, libraries, and
recreation centers.
Fremont ● Emailed contact lists about the survey and
community engagement meetings;
encouraged participation in and forwarded
the survey to clients, colleagues, and other
organizations.
17 Oakland ● For the survey: shared on City's social media channels, through our legal services
providers, through the CoC and committees,
and the HCD’s email listserv.
● Also did a set of community engagement
meetings in August with a targeted list of
community partners, and then 3 community
engagement meetings in October with City
Council members. Fair Housing issues were
brought up at these meetings.
Hayward
● Published on social media the time and place of the
community engagement meeting; also published
link to the survey.
Livermore
● Emailed contacts about the survey and community
engagement meetings; encouraged participation in
and forwarding the survey to clients, colleagues,
and other organizations- August 30, 2024.
● Emailed City of Livermore Human Service
Commissioners about the meeting and survey and
encouraged participation - August 30, 2024.
● Posted on the City of Livermore Housing and Human
Services website- August 28, 2024.
● Placed flyers at our Multi Service Center- August 30, 2024.
● Handed Out Flyers at the Livermore Farmers
Market- August 29, 2024.
● Posted on City of Livermore Instagram and
Facebook Accounts- August 29, 2024 and
September 5, 2024.
18 Oakland Housing Authority
(OHA) ● Presented the flyer to our Board of Commissioners to request survey responses and attendance at the
community meetings.
● Hosting the community event during the Resident
Advisory Board meeting to ensure attendance from
residents.
● Posted on OHA’s website.
● Shared via Tip411 – a mass text communication
service through OHA’s Police Department.
● Sent mailers to public housing residents.
Piedmont
● Piedmont announced the community meetings at
the announcements portion of the City Council
meeting and staff included a brief description of
impediments to fair housing study along with the
community meeting dates in the Fair Housing e-
newsletter and Planning & Building e-newsletter
sent to over 900 households.
Pleasanton
● Emailed announcements about the Alameda County
Regional Fair Housing Survey and about the
community engagement meetings to the City’s
Housing Interest email listserv that includes
residents and individuals and non-profit service
providers.
● Encouraged participation on the survey and
community meetings by posting information on our
housing website and forwarded the flyer and survey
to clients, colleagues, non-profits and other
organizations throughout the Tri-Valley.
19 San Leandro
● Published a notice about AI outreach efforts in a
weekly briefing for City Council.
● Posted information on the community meetings and
survey on the City’s Housing Website.
● Emailed announcement with flyer to housing and
CDBG stakeholders.
Union City
● Placed information on community meetings and
survey on the City’s Affordable Housing website:
https://www.unioncity.org/309/Affordable-Housing.
● Email announcement for participation in the
Analysis of Impediments- Fair Housing survey and
community meeting to the City’s email list serve to
residents & service providers who participate in the
City’s Affordable Housing Interest list and general
City interest list.
● Multiple email announcements were made leading
up to the community meeting and to participate in
the survey.
Berkeley Housing Authority • Efforts are ongoing.
20 Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda ● Posted on website August 29, 2024.
● Included with the August 2024 participant
newsletter.
● Announced at the September 9, 2024, quarterly
meeting with advocates.
● Sent email blast to list-serv on September 5, 2024.
Livermore Housing
Authority ● Published survey announcement on agency website. ● Email blast survey announcement to all HCV tenants
and landlords
● Posted flyer at property and provided copies in
office lobby area
● Emailed to City and Community partner groups
● Announced efforts at Board of Commissioner
meetings
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda ● Posted survey flyer on agency website on August 27, 2024.
● Posted survey flyer to the public in agency lobby on
August 27, 2024.
● Announced at the September 11, 2024, Housing
Commission meeting.
● Sent email blast to participants and landlord on
September 6, 2024
21 Community Meetings
Alameda County and participating jurisdictions, as part of the effort to update its Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing, a five -year plan addressing the County’s greatest housing challenges, facilitated six (6) community engagement meetings. The goal of the meetings was to provide a forum for both the public and nonprofit/housing providers to discuss the challenges and impediments to fair housing faced by the community. Overall, there were ninety- one (91) participants that attended at least one (1 ) of the six (6) community meetings offered.
Community meeting participants lived in various locations throughout Alameda County, including the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, Richmond, Dublin, Pleasanton, Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, and San Leandro, Multiple meetings were offered with both virtual and in -person options to allow for broader participation.
These themes emerged during these meetings:
● Rent amounts are too high, and incomes are insufficient to cover rent, leading to homelessness.
● Deposit requirements and income qualifications make it difficult to secure housing for residents on fixed incomes and for those who work multiple jobs. ● There are not enough accessible housing units or shelters for disabled residents. ● Landlords frequently have policies that prevent the use of housing assistance, or they do not offer this as an option in the application process. ● Residents are being forced into shared living situations (e.g., roommates) to afford rent, reducing personal independence.
● Transitional housing remains insufficient to meet the needs of those at risk of homelessness.
● Residents feel unsupported by the government, and those attempting to bring attention to these issues are often met with dead ends.
● The combination of unaffordability, lack of accessible housing, and inadequate support services puts disabled residents at significant risk of homelessness. ● Affordable housing is often substandard. Local governments are not doing enough to make sure landlords keep buildings safe and livable.
● Maximum occupancy limit ordinances work against families. An extremely low -income household of six can’t afford three bedrooms. They can afford two bedrooms, but that is not allowed.
● Residents have been forced to relocate to areas that make it more difficult to commute and decrease their quality of life.
● Residents report a loss of community due to neighbors leaving and gentrification. 22 ● The number of affordable units in inclusionary zoning is not nearly enough to meet the needs of the community.
● Low-income communities also face challenges like substance abuse and crime. ● Waitlists for low-income housing are too long.
● Developers are buying up distressed properties, fixing them up and driving up rents too high for locals to afford. They prefer to have vacant units than lower the rent. ● Many residents believe they may become homeless in the near future.
Survey
The Alameda County Regional Fair Housing Survey was offered in English, Chinese, Spanish, Persian, Vietnamese, and Tagalog to reach a diverse range of residents. In addition to the survey being available online (using computers, smart phones, and other handheld devices), the survey was also made available to residents in a paper-based version and accessibility accommodations were offered. To offer incentives for participating in taking the survey, residents were offered the opportunity to enter a raffle to win a $100 gift card. In total, 1,621 survey responses were collected. Access to the survey was provided through the Alameda County participating jurisdictions’ websites, through stakeholder email lists, posted in public convening locations, and published in print with QR Codes made available for residents to scan and link to the survey.
Background on the Analysis of Impediments process and definitions of fair housing were provided in the survey introduction. The importance of community participation was al so highlighted in the survey introduction. A summary of the survey results is below. The full survey results can be reviewed in the appendices.
23 Residence: Of the total 1,621 responses received to the survey, the highest number of responses came from the City of Alameda (38%), Oakland (13%), and Berkeley (9%).
Age: 57% of surveys were completed by residents aged 31 -61, 23% were taken by seniors aged 62 or older, and 18% were taken by residents aged 18-30.
Gender: About 65% of surveys were taken by residents who identify as female, 30% identify as male, 3% chose not to say, 1% were transgender, 1% were non-binary, and 1% were questioning.
The County’s overall population is nearly 51% female and 49%.
24 Race: Overall, about 47% of respondents were White, 19% were Black/African American, and 11% were Asian. Additionally, about 9% were Hispanic/Latino. In contrast, the racial composition of the County as a whole is 29% White, 9.9% Black/African American, and 32% Asian. About 22% of residents in Alameda County are Hispanic.
Language: About 5% of respondents stated that the primary language they speak at home is not English. Of those, two percent (2%) stated that their primary language is Spanish, 2% indicated their primary language is Chinese, 1% indicated their primary language is Arabic. About 5% chose the “other” option and specified languages including American Sign Language, Armenian, Ethiopian Amharic, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Korean, Punjabi, Samoan, Tagalog, Tamil, Telugu, and Vietnamese.
Disability: Of the 576 surveys that indicated either living with a disability or having a household member who has a disability, 24% experienced a mobility disability, 17% are living with a chronic illness, 16% experience a mental health disability, 13% experience a n eurological development disorder, and 8% have a hearing impairment. Twenty percent (20%) of surveys indicated that a
25 housing challenge they experience is their home not meeting the needs of their disability, and 16% said that their landlord refuses to modify their unit to accommodate the disability of someone in their home.
Housing Costs: Twenty-six percent (26%) of respondents were residents who pay one -half or more of their gross income towards housing costs. Thirty-one percent (31%) of respondents pay between one-third and one-half of their income toward housing costs, and 35% pay one-third or less of their income toward housing costs. Forty -two percent (42%) of respondents that had to move out of their residence due to housing unaffordability reported that rent had increased to a level that was not affordable anymore.
Fair Housing
Twenty-eight percent (28%) (452 total) of surveys indicated they experienced housing discrimination at some point and 18.6% (302 total) said they were not sure if they had. Race or ethnicity and income level were the highest reasons reported for housing di scrimination. About 8% of respondents (131), said they are a housing voucher holder. For residents who had a housing voucher, 76% reported it being either somewhat difficult or very difficult to find a landlord to accept it.
26 Public Hearings and Public Comment Period
The public comment period for the draft Regional Analysis of Impediments began on [insert] and ended on [insert] for a minimum of 45-day public review period based on housing authority
27 requirements; however, public comments will continue to be accepted until adoption of this document. Public hearings to receive comments on the draft Regional Analysis of Impediments included:
TO BE INCLUDED FOLLOWING COMMENT PERIOD
28 Chapter 3: Fair Housing Laws and Guidance
Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental or lease of housing, and in negotiations for real property, based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status and disability. California fair housing laws build on the federal laws, including age, marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and “any arbitrary discrimination” as the protected categories under the laws.
Fair housing describes a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of their characteristics protected by the law or other arbitrary factors.
Federal Fair Housing Laws
Federal laws provide the backbone for U.S. fair housing regulations. While some laws have been previously discussed in this report, a brief list of laws related to fair housing, as defined on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) website, is presented below:
Fair Housing Act Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and persons securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).
Title VIII was amended in 1988 (effective March 12, 1989) by the Fair Housing Amendments Act.
In connection with prohibitions on discrimination against individuals with disabilities, the Act contains design and construction accessibility provisions for cer tain new multi-family dwellings developed for first occupancy on or after March 13, 1991.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Section 109 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from HUD’s Community Development and Block Grant Program.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Title II prohibits discrimination based on 29 disability in programs, services, and activities provided or made available by public entities. HUD enforces Title II when it relates to state and local public housing, housing assistance and housing referrals.
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The Architectural Barriers Act requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered, or leased with certain federal funds after September 1969 be accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The Age Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.
Fair Housing Related Presidential Executive Orders
Executive Order 11063. Executive Order 11063 prohibits discrimination in the sale, leasing, rental, or other disposition of properties and facilities owned or operated by the federal government or provided with federal funds.
Executive Order 11246. Executive Order 11246, as amended, bars discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Executive Order 12892. Executive Order 12892, as amended, requires federal agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in their programs and activities, and provides that the Secretary of HUD will be responsible for coordinating the effort. The Order also establishes the President's Fair Housing Council, which will be chaired by the Secretary of HUD.
Executive Order 12898. Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency conduct its program, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that does not exclude persons based on race, color, or national origin.
Executive Order 13166. Executive Order 13166 eliminates, to the extent possible, limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and meaningful participation by beneficiaries in all federally - assisted and federally conducted programs and activities.
Executive Order 13217. Executive Order 13217 requires federal agencies to evaluate their policies and programs to determine if any can be revised or modified to improve the availability of 30 community-based living arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Executive Order 13985 titled “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” aimed to strengthen the federal government’s ability to address barriers to equal opportunity faced by underserved communities. The order further directs federal agencies to conduct equity assessments and identify systemic barriers to access faced by underserved communities. President Biden followed up on this Executive Order with a memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies. This Executive Action acknowledged that “… Federal, State, and local governments systematically implemented racially discriminatory housing policies that contributed to segregated neighborhoods and inhibited equal opportunity and the chance to build wealth” for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) , and that those legacies of residential segregation and discrimination remain in existence today – from gaps in homeownership and wealth to environmental inequalities made worse by climate change. The memo outlines multiple ways in which the federal gover nment’s discriminatory policies affected opportunities for safe and affordable housing, jobs, transportation, particularly for Black people. It also addresses the history of the federal government’s disinvestment in communities of color, despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.
Executive Order 13988 directs all federal agencies to review all policies which implement the non-discrimination protections on the basis of sex ordered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (pursuant to the Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton Co unty), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Fair Housing Act and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and to extend these protections to the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity.
HUD Fair Housing Guidance
Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. In April 2016, HUD’s Office of Gen eral Counsel issued guidance on the discriminatory effect of using criminal history to make housing decisions. If a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on a protected class (whether or not that effect is intentional), it is in violation of the Fair Housing Act – unless there is a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest” served by the policy.
31 While it is impossible to know the precise number of people transitioning from a correctional facility at any one point in time, the ability to access safe, secure and affordable housing is critical for a formerly incarcerated person’s reintegration into s ociety. HUD’s guidance is intended to eliminate barriers to securing housing for that population, and jurisdictions can assist by making a clear effort to eliminate any discriminatory barriers these individuals may face. For former inmates to avoid recidiv ism and work in society, they must have access to housing free of discrimination.
Further, for claims for refusing to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, the HUD memorandum emphasizes that, when the disability of an applicant or tenant contributed to the past criminal conduct, the applicant or tenant may ask for an exception to the criminal background screening policy as a reasonable accommodation.
If the criminal conduct at issue arguably raises concerns about risk of harm to property or other residents, HUD explains that, as part of a reasonable accommodation request, the housing provider should consider any mitigating circumstances that may reduce or eliminate the threat, such as engaging in treatment or therapy.
In April 2024, HUD issued proposed rulemaking to update existing screening regulations for applicants to HUD-assisted housing with conviction histories or a history of involvement with the criminal-legal system. Under current policy, public housing authorities (PHAs) and landlords of HUD-assisted housing have broad discretion in evaluating current and prospective tenants. As a result, some PHAs and landlords have created additional barriers for people with conviction and arrest records in need of stable housing. These barriers can make it exceedingly difficult – and, for some with conviction histories, impossible – to obtain housing. The proposed rule clarifies that an arrest record alone may not be used as the basis for denying someone admission to HUD housing. However, an arrest record may be used i n conjunction with other evidence of conduct to assess an applicant’s potential success as a tenant.
Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity
On September 21, 2016, HUD published a final rule entitled “Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual’s Gender Identity in CPD programs.” Through this final rule, HUD ensures equal access to individuals in accordance with their gender identity for all HUD funded programs. This rule builds upon the 2012 final rule, “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity” (2012 Equal Access Rule). This final rule ensures that HUD's housing programs would be open to al l eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status.
32 Furthermore, as HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects the LGBT community, it is important to note that HIV/AIDS is protected under the Fair Housing Act as a disability. HUD specifically states that housing discrimination because of HIV/AIDS is illegal.
The HUD Office of Policy Development and Research conducted a study in 2013, An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples, as the first large-scale, paired-testing study to assess housing discrimination against same -sex couples in metropo litan rental markets via advertisements on the Internet. Two emails were sent out, with the only difference between the two emails was the sexual orientation of the prospective renting couples. The study finds:
“[… same -sex couples experience less favorable treatment than heterosexual couples in the online rental housing market. The primary form of adverse treatment is that same -sex couples receive significantly fewer responses to e-mail inquiries about advertised units than heterosexual couples. Study results in jurisdictions with state-level protections against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unexpectedly show slightly more adverse treatment of same - sex couples than results in jurisdictions without such protections. “
On January 25, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order requiring protections of LGBTQ people in housing, health care, and education. The Executive Order cites the recent Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the prohibit ion against sex discrimination in the Equal Employment Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Executive Order requires the applicable federal agencies, including HUD, to promulgate actions consistent with Bostock and the various civil rights laws.
This Executive Order will result in new HUD regulations explaining the protections of LGBTQ persons under the Fair Housing Act.
Supreme Court Ruling: Bostock v. Clayton County, GA (February 9, 2021):
In Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded its interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination. This law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but not explicitly on the b asis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Court has determined in this decision that Title VII’s protection of employees on the basis of sex also protects employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Under Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Fair Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1522), along with their respective implementing regulations — prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, so long as the laws do not contain sufficient 33 indications to the contrary. HUD’s Office of General Counsel issued a memorandum explaining why the Fair Housing Act's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination because of gender identity and sexual orientation and President Biden issued an Executive Order on Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation in 2021.
Supreme Court Ruling: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (June 25, 2015) On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark fair housing ruling that upheld the ability to bring “disparate impact” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, an integral legislative victory of the Civil Rights Movement , protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying or securing financing for housing. The case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, centered on the question of whether a policy or action has to be intentionally discriminatory, or merely have a discriminatory effect, in order to qualify as a valid basis for a discrimination claim under the Act.
Inclusive Communities, a Dallas-based non-profit, claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was guilty of housing discrimination because the way in which the state allocated Low Income Housing Tax Credits perpetuated racial segregation by limiting the development of affordable housing into areas that were historically impoverished with high concentrations of minorities. The state claimed that no discrimination occurred because its intention was not to promote racial segregation but to revitalize these underserved areas by injecting much needed capital for the development of new affordable housing. Inclusive Communities claimed that regardless of intention, the state’s decision to fund tax-credit projects only in neighborhoods of colors and poverty-laden neighborhoods resulted in segregation, and thus had a discriminatory effect (disparate impact).
Fair housing advocates across the nation watched the case closely and worried if the Supreme Court ruled against disparate impact claims that it would essentially “defang” the Fair Housing Act by removing a key basis for liability. Intent is much harder to prove than effect. In the end the Court ruled 5 -4 to uphold the lower court decisions in favor of Inclusive Communities, salvaging fair housing disparate impact claims.
State Fair Housing Protections
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Part 2.8 of the California Government Code, Code Sections 12900-12996) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices. 34 The Unruh Act (California Government Code Section 51) protects Californians from discrimination in public accommodations and requires equal access to the accommodations. The Unruh Act provides broad protection and has been held by the courts to prohibit an y arbitrary discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics or traits, and applies to a range of types of housing.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) prohibits violence and threats of violence and specifies that housing situations are protected under this Act, which includes houses, apartments, hotels, boarding housing and condominiums. Violators of the Ralph Act can be sued for actual or emotional damages, in addition to civil penalties.
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes. However, convictions under the act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.
California Government Code Sections 111135, 65008 and 65589.5 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the state and in any land-use decisions.
State law also includes specific protections for renters. • The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) effective January 1, 2020 and expiring January 1, 2030, provides the following primary renter protections:
o Requires a landlord to have a “just cause” in order to terminate a tenancy. o Limits annual rent increases to no more than 5% + local CPI, or 10% whichever is lower. CPI refers to the Consumer Price Index, which reflects the inflation rate.
A tenant may not waive their rights to these protections and any agreement to do so by the tenant is not enforceable.
• Renters also received additional protections related to security deposits under State bill AB 12. Effective July 1, 2024, it is unlawful for a residential landlord to require a security deposit in excess of one month's rent, regardless of whether the unit in question is furnished or unfurnished. The bill includes an exception for small landlords, allowing up to two months' rent to be held as a deposit if the landlord (1) is a natural person or a limited liability company in which all members are natural persons, and (2) owns no more than two residential rental properties that collectively include no more than four rental units.
35 • Additionally, effective January 1, 2025, defendants in unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuits in California have more time to file a response in court after receiving the summons and complaint. AB 2347 provides defendants with ten days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and other judicial holidays) to file a response once served with the summons and complaint. This revision to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1167 doubles the current response deadline of 5 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and other judicial holidays).
Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are crimes committed because of a bias against race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In an attempt to determine the scope and nature of hate crimes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Pro gram collects statistics on these incidents.
To a certain degree, hate crimes are an indicator of the environmental context of discrimination.
These crimes should be reported to the Police or Sheriff’s department. On the other hand, a hate incident is an action or behavior that is motivated by hate b ut is protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents can include name calling, epithets, distribution of hate material in public places, and the display of offensive hate - motivated material on one’s property. The freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as the freedom of speech, allows hateful rhetoric as long as it does not interfere with the civil rights of others. Only when these incidents escalate can they be considered an actual crime.
Local Protections for Renters
In addition to state laws that protect renters, the following local ordinances provide additional and clarified protections for renters in their communities Alameda County Ordinances Protecting Renters
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted in December 2022 to approve a suite of tenant protections, including a fair chance ordinance that makes the California county the first county in the nation to prohibit landlords from conducting criminal background checks on rental applicants. The Board of Supervisors also voted to enact a just cause eviction ordinance and to create a rental housing registry. These ordinances will pro vide awaited protections for those living in the unincorporated areas of the County.
The Fair Chance Ordinance prohibits housing providers from inquiring about rental applicants’ criminal history, requiring applicants to authorize the release of their criminal history, or denying housing on the basis of criminal history in the case that this information is made av ailable. Owner -occupied properties of four or fewer units and 36 subleases are exempt from the ordinance. Landlords will still be allowed to check sex offender registries, and they still must comply with federal laws that bar people convicted of certain drug and sex offenses from publicly funded housing. The ordinance also outlaws advertisements of rental housing that indicate, whether directly or indirectly, that applicants with criminal records will not be considered. The Board of Supervisors’ passage of the Fair Chance Ordinance follows the lead of two of Alameda Coun ty’s incorporated cities, Oakland and Berkeley, which passed some of the nation’s strongest fair chance housing policies in 2020.
The Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance protects tenants from arbitrary eviction by requiring landlords to demonstrate compliance with one of the enumerated causes for eviction. These causes include nonpayment of rent, material violation of the lease, substantial damage, certain criminal activi ty, refusal to grant the landlord access to the unit, substantial rehabilitation, owner occupancy, or removal of the property from the rental market under California’s “Ellis Act.” The county’s ordinance also protects families with school-age children and Alameda County school employees from no -fault evictions during the school year. Alameda County’s just cause eviction ordinance builds upon the protections of AB 1482, a statewide just cause eviction law passed in 2019, which does not cover the County’s 6,000 renting households in single -family homes, tenants whose units were built within the last 15 years, or tenants who have lived in their home for less than one year . These renters are protected under the new county ordinance, but residents of owner-occupied properties of four or fewer units are not covered.
The Rental Registration Ordinance will establish a registry of all rental housing units in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County. Property owners must register each rental housing unit and mobile home park space with the county and pay an annual registration fee. This requirement became effective as of January 1, 2024, and registrations must be updated annually. The registry will include information about rental rates and eviction notices, among other key data, and will be used as an enforcement tool for the just cause ordinance.
On February 8, 2003, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance Number 0-2004-48, the Mandatory Notification of Rent Mediation Services Ordinance .
This ordinance requires owners of residential rental properties of three or more units in Unincorporated Alameda County to include specified language on the availability of rent mediation services on rent increase notices to tenants.
City of Alameda Rent Ordinance
Rent Ordinance No. 3250 prevents landlords from terminating a tenancy except for certain allowable grounds and requires a relocation payment in cases where the termination is not the 37 fault of the tenant. The Rent Ordinance also imposes a limit on annual rent increases for most rental units in the City. Known as the Annual General Adjustment (AGA), this cap is calculated at 70% of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. Landlords must also register all rental units with the Rent Program, and tenants in units subject to the AGA receive an annual notice of the maximum rent that their landlord may charge.
City of Albany Rent Review Program
On June 4, 2018, the City of Albany approved an ordinance that adds “Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations” to the City’s municipal code. The Rent Review Program Ordinance No. 2018 - 2 went into effect on November 2, 2018. The Ordinance regulates most residential rental units in the City with a few exclusions.
City of Berkely and City of Oakland Fair Chance Ordinances Rental housing providers in Berkeley cannot ask about or use criminal history and/or criminal background checks in their rental housing advertising, applications, tenant selection process, or decision-making. Specifically, rental housing providers are not allowed to:
• Inquire about criminal history
• Indicate that persons with criminal backgrounds will not be considered for housing, including in rental advertisements, application materials, or verbally • Refuse to rent or terminate a tenancy based on criminal history • Require disclosure or authorization for release of criminal history • Demand higher security deposit or rental amount based on criminal history • Refuse to allow the addition of an immediate family member based on the family member’s criminal history
• Disqualify tenants from rental assistance programs such as Section 8 based on criminal history (subject to certain exceptions below)
• Treating rental applicants or tenants differently based on their criminal history City of Emeryville Rent Relations Program
On April 1, 2017, the City of Emeryville's Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations Ordinance became effective. The ordinance regulates most residential rental units in the City, provides just cause for terminating a tenancy, prohibits harassment of residential tenants, and requires tenants to be properly noticed with their rights under the ordin ance.
38 Certain residential units are exempt from the proposed ordinance, including owner -occupied units where the owner is renting two or fewer bedrooms, housing units owned by a nonprofit hospital, convent, monastery or similar type of development, government ow ned units, units owned by a nonprofit cooperative that is controlled by the residents, and units subject to state or federal regulations that are already subject to a form of just cause eviction protections.
City of Fremont
The City adopted a Rent Review Program in 2018 which provides a review and a formal hearing for proposed rent increases in excess of 5% in any 12 -month period. This covers all residential rental units in Fremont, including single family homes.
City of San Leandro Tenant Relocation Ordinance
The City of San Leandro adopted a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance ( San Leandro Municipal Code Chapter 4.37, the "Ordinance" (PDF) ) to protect tenants "from the adverse health, safety and economic impacts of displacement", effective October 18, 2017. Tenant relocation ordinance is triggered when a tenant's rental agreement is terminated due to landlord- caused terminations as identified in the Ordinance. Eligible tenants may receive relocation assistance of up to $7,000 per unit from their landlord foll owing a landlord-caused termination in order to assist with relocation to a new residence. A housing unit must be located in a parcel that contains two or more tenant-occupied housing units for the tenant to be eligible for tenant relocation ordinance. Therefore, a housing unit located on a single parcel is exempt from the Ordinance.
City of Union City Rent Review Program
On April 11, 2017, the City of Union City approved an ordinance that adds “Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations” to the City’s municipal code. The Residential Landlord and Tenant Relations Ordinance went into effect on May 10, 2017. The Ordinance regulates most residential rental units in the City and requires landlords to provide a specific reason for terminating a lease, prohibits landlords from engaging in specific harassment activity, and require s that landlords provide tenants with a notice of tenant rights.
In addition to eviction protections, the City also enacted the Rent Review Ordinance which allows for conciliation and mediation of rent increases over 7% or one or more rent increases in a 12 - month period.
39 Chapter 4: Fair Housing Practices
This chapter provides an overview of the institutional structure of the housing industry with regard to fair housing practices. In addition, this chapter discusses the fair housing services available to residents in the County, as well as the nature and ex tent of fair housing complaints received by the fair housing provider. Typically, fair housing services encompass the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing/testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information. Tenant/landlord counseling services are usually offered by fair housing service providers but are not considered fair housing services.
Homeownership Market
The following discussions describe the process of homebuying and likely situations when a person/household may encounter housing discrimination. However, much of this process occurs in the private housing market over which local jurisdictions have little c ontrol or authority to regulate. The recourse lies in the ability of the contracted fair housing service providers in monitoring these activities, identifying the perpetrators, and taking appropriate reconciliation or legal actions.
Advertising
The first thing a potential buyer is likely to do when they consider buying a home is search advertisements either in magazines, newspapers, or the internet to get a feel for what the market offers. Advertisements for homeownership, as well as rental, units cannot include discriminatory references such as the use of words describing:
1. Current or potential residents;
2. Neighbors or the neighborhood in racial or ethnic terms;
3. Adults preferred (except for senior or active adult living);
4. Perfect for empty nesters;
5. Conveniently located by a Catholic Church; or
6. Ideal for married couples without kids.
Previous litigation has set precedence for violations in advertisements that hold publishers, newspapers, Multiple Listing Services, real estate agents, and brokers accountable for discriminatory ads.
Lending
Initially, buyers must find a lender that will qualify them for a loan. This part of the process entails 40 an application, credit check, ability to repay, amount eligible for, choosing the type and terms of the loan, etc. Applicants are requested to provide a lot of sensitive information including their gender, ethnicity, income level, age, and familial status. Most of this information is used for reporting purposes required of lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Chapter 5 of this report provides detailed analysis of HMDA data for the County.
Appraisals
Banks order appraisal reports to determine whether or not a property is worth the amount of the loan they will be giving. Generally speaking, appraisals are based on the comparable sales of properties within the neighborhood of the property being appraised. Other factors are taken into consideration, such as the age of the structure, any improvements made, location, general economic influences, etc.
Real Estate Agents
Real estate professionals may act as agents of discrimination. Some unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, may steer a potential buyer to particular neighborhoods by encouraging the buyer to look into certain areas; others may choose not to show the b uyer all choices available. Agents may also discriminate by who they agree to represent, who they turn away, and the comments they make about their clients.
The California Association of REALTORS® (CAR) has included language on many standard forms disclosing fair housing laws to those involved. Many REALTOR® Associations also host fair housing trainings/seminars to educate members on the provisions and liabilities of fair housing laws, and the Equal Opportunity Housing Symbol is also printed on all CAR forms as a reminder.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), are restrictive promises that involve voluntary agreements, which run with the land they are associated with and are listed in a recorded Declaration of Restrictions. The Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Section 1624) requires them to be in writing, because they involve real property. They must also be recorded in the County where the property is located in order to bind future owners. Owners of parcels may agree amongst themselves as to the restrictions on use, but in order to be enforceable they must be reasonable.
The California Department of Real Estate reviews CC&Rs for all subdivisions of five or more lots, or condominiums of five or more units. This review is authorized by the Subdivided Lands Act and mandated by the Business Professions Code, Section 11000. The review includes a wide range of issues, including compliance with fair housing law. The review must be completed and approved 41 before the Department of Real Estate will issue a final subdivision public report. This report is required before a real estate broker or anyone can sell the units, and each prospective buyer must be issued a copy of the report. If the CC&Rs are not approved, the Department of Real Estate will issue a “deficiency notice”, requiring the CC&Rs be revised. CC&Rs are void if they are unlawful, impossible to perform or are in restraint on alienation (a clause that prohibits someone from selling or transferring h is/her property). However, older subdivisions and condominium/townhome developments may contain illegal clauses which are enforced by the homeowners associations.
Homeowners Insurance Industry
Without insurance, banks and other financial institutions lend less. For example, if a company excludes older homes from coverage, lower income households and households of color who can only afford to buy in older neighborhoods may be disproportionately a ffected. Another example includes private mortgage insurance (PMI). PMI obtained by applicants from Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) protected neighborhoods is known to reduce lender risk. Redlining of lower income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color can occur if otherwise qualified applicants are denied or encouraged to obtain PMI.
National Association of REALTORS® (NAR)
The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has developed a Fair Housing Program to provide resources and guidance to REALTORS® in ensuring equal professional services for all people. The term REALTOR® identifies a licensed professional in real estate who is a member of the NAR; however, not all licensed real estate brokers and salespersons are members of the NAR.
Code of Ethics
Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that “REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTORS® shall not be a party to any plan or agreement to discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Additionally, Standard of Practice Article 10 -1 states that “REALTORS® shall not volunteer information regarding the racial, religious or ethnic composition of any neighborhood and shall not engage in any activity which may result in panic selling. REALTOR S® shall not print, display or circulate any statement or advertisement with respect to the selling or renting of a property that indicates any preference, limitations or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Diversity Certification
42 NAR has created a diversity certification, “At Home with Diversity: One America” to be granted to licensed real estate professionals who meet eligibility requirements and complete the NAR “At Home with Diversity” course. The certification will signal to cu stomers that the real estate professional has been trained on working with diversity in today’s real estate markets. The coursework provides valuable business planning tools to assist real estate professionals in reaching out and marketing to a diverse hou sing market. The NAR course focuses on diversity awareness, building cross-cultural skills, and developing a business diversity plan.
California Department of Real Estate (DRE)
The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) is the licensing authority for real estate brokers and salespersons. As noted earlier, not all licensed brokers and salespersons are members of the National or California Association of REALTORs®. The DRE has adopted education requirements that include courses in ethics and in fair housing.
California Association of REALTORS® (CAR)
The California Association of Realtors (CAR) is a trade association of realtors statewide. As members of organized real estate, realtors also subscribe to a strict code of ethics as noted above.
CAR has recently created the position of Equal Opportunity/Cu ltural Diversity Coordinator. CAR holds three meetings per year for its general membership, and the meetings typically include sessions on fair housing issues. Current outreach efforts in the Southern California area are directed to underserved communities and state-licensed brokers and sales persons who are not members of the CAR.
Rental Housing Market
Advertising
Rental housing advertisements may not include discriminatory references, similar to those mentioned in the homeownership unit section above, Further, applicants for rental units only need to demonstrate their ability to pay rent. Whether the applicants intend to pay with wages/salaries, savings, inheritance, or insurance should not matter to the landlord.
Under California’s fair housing law, source of income is a protected class. This includes, but is not limited to, the Section 8 voucher/HCV program, the HUD -VASH program, Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re -Housing programs, Housing Opportunities for Pers ons with AIDS, and security deposit assistance programs that help people afford their rent. The law also protects the use of subsidy programs created by cities, counties, and public agencies to address growing homelessness. The law also protects people from source of income discrimination in housing other than rental housing. Therefore, a rental adverti sement that states Section 8 or any other rental subsidy is not accepted is discriminatory.
43 As with real estate advertising, advertisements for rental units can be published in other languages. However, by law an English version of the ad must also be published.
Responding to Ads
Differential treatment of those responding to advertisements is a growing fair housing concern.
Testing is a method of determining whether landlord practices are discriminatory against those with protected characteristics. By responding to online rental listings using names associated with a particular racial/ethnic group and varying message content grammatically to indicate differing levels of education and/or income (i.e. social class), testing may review discriminatory practices.
Viewing the Unit
Viewing the unit is the most obvious place where the potential renters may encounter discrimination because landlords or managers may discriminate based on race or disability, or judge on appearance whether a potential renter is reliable or may violate any of the rules.
Fair Housing testing programs look for both overt and subtle discrimination. Subtle discrimination is unequal treatment between groups that occurs but is difficult to quantify and may not always be identifiable through common measures such as price differe nces. As an example, subtle discrimination occurs when landlords reply faster and with longer messages to inquiries made from names typically perceived to be White applicants.
Credit/Income Check
Landlords may ask potential renters to provide credit references, lists of previous addresses and landlords, and employment history/salary. The criteria for tenant selection, if any, are typically not known to those seeking to rent. Many landlords often use credit history, criminal background, and eviction history as excuses when trying to exclude certain groups. Legislation provides for applicants to receive a copy of the report used to evaluate applications.
State legislation under SB 267 offers protections against credit -based biases. In instances where an applicant intends to use a governmental rent subsidy (such as a Section 8 voucher) to rent an apartment, this bill makes it illegal for a landlord to use the applicant's credit history as part of the application process without offering the applicant the option, at the applicant's discretion, of "alternative evidence of reasonable ability to pay" the rent for the unit, including, but not limited to, government benefit payments, pay records, and bank statements.
The Lease
Typically, the lease or rental agreement is a standard form completed for all units within the same building. However, the enforcement of the rules contained in the lease or agreement may not be standard for all tenants. A landlord may choose to strictly e nforce the rules for certain tenants 44 based on arbitrary factors, such as race, presence of children, or disability.
Lease-related language barriers can impede fair housing choice if landlords and tenants do not speak the same language. In California, applicants and tenants have the right to negotiate lease terms primarily in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese or Korean. If a language barrier exists, the landlord must give the tenant a written translation of the proposed lease or rental agreement in the language used in the negotiation before the tenant signs it. This rule applies to lease terms of one month or longer and whether the negotiations are oral or in writing. The translation requirement also applies to other consumer contracts specified in California Civil Code §1632.
Security Deposit
A security deposit is typically required. To deter “less -than-desirable” tenants, landlords have historically asked for higher security deposits for individuals they do not wish to rent to as a deterent. Under State bill AB 12, effective July 1, 2024, it is unlawful for a residential landlord to require a security deposit in excess of one month's rent, regardless of whether the unit in question is furnished or unfurnished. The bill includes an exception for small landlords, allow ing up to two months' rent to be held as a deposit if the landlord (1) is a natural person or a limited liability company in which all members are natural persons, and (2) owns no more than two residential rental properties that collectively include no more than four rental units.
During the Tenancy
During tenancy, the most common forms of discrimination a tenant may face are based on familial status, race, national origin, sex, or disability. Usually this type of discrimination appears in the form of varying enforcement of rules, overly strict rules for children, excessive occupancy standards, refusal to make a reasonable accommodation/modificaiton for handicapped access, refusal to make necessary repairs, eviction notices, illegal entry, rent increases, or harassment.
These actions may be used as a w ay to force undesirable tenants to move on their own without the landlord having to make an eviction.
California Apartment Association
The California Apartment Association has developed the California Certified Residential Manager (CCRM) program to provide a comprehensive series of courses geared towards improving the approach, attitude and professional skills of on -site property managers and other interested individuals. The CCRM program consists of 31.5 hours of training that includes fair housing and ethic. The CAA supports the intent of all local, State, and federal fair housing laws for all residents.
Members of the CAA agree to abide by the provisions of their Code for Equal Housing Opportunity.
45 National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) The National Association of Residential Property Managers promotes a high standard of property management business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices within the residential property management field. NARPM is an association of real estate p rofessionals who are experienced in managing single -family and small residential properties. Members of the association adhere to a strict Code of Ethics to meet the needs of the community, which include the following duties:
1. Protect the public from fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices of property managers.
2. Adhere to the Federal Fair Housing statutes.
3. Protect the fiduciary relationship of the client.
4. Treat all tenants professionally and ethically.
5. Manage the property in accordance with the safety and habitability standards of the community.
6. Hold all funds received in compliance with state law with full disclosure to the client.
NARPM offers four designations to qualified property managers and property management firms and various educational courses as part of attaining these designations.
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a nonprofit organization created in 1945 for the exclusive purpose of promoting and protecting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California. W MA assists its members in the operations of successful manufactured home communities in today's complex business and regulatory environment. WMA has over 1,600 member parks located in all 58 counties of California.
WMA offers a manager accreditation program as well as numerous continuing education opportunities. The Manufactured Housing Community Manager (MCM) program is a manager accreditation program that provides information on effective community operations. WMA’ s industry experts give managers intensive training on law affecting the industry, maintenance standards, HCD inspections, discrimination, mediation, disaster planning, and a full range of other vital subjects.
Fair Housing Services
In general, fair housing services include the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written materi al, workshops, and seminars.
Landlord/tenant counseling is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and 46 tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection legislations as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords. This section reviews the fair housing services available in the County.
The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) ECHO Housing was founded in 1964. ECHO Housing is a publicly supported, non -profit housing counseling agency established to provide comprehensive housing counseling services to residents of Alameda County. ECHOHousing provides resources, counseling, mediat ion, and education on fair housing issues. It also conducts investigations and enforcement in response to reports of housing discrimination. A Fair Housing Audit of properties in AlamedaCount y for fiscal year 2023 – 2024 is available on its website.
Housing Equity Rights Project (HELP)
Provides free fair-housing education, counseling, and investigation services to tenants and landlords anywhere in California.
Phone: 415-797-4357
Email: [email protected]
Fair Housing Enforcement
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints for jurisdictions . According to the HUD website, any person who feels their housing rights have been violated may submit a complaint to HUD via phone, mail or the Internet. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation) , disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. HUD refers complaints to the California DCR, which has 30 days to address the complaint. As a substantially equivalent agency, DCR's findings are usually accepted by HUD. Thereafter, HUD tracks the complaint and its issues and outcomes as a “dually filed” complaint. An analysis of Fair Housing complaint data is included in Chapter 5.
California Department of Civil Rights (DCR)
The mission of the Department of Civil Rights (DCR) is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, state funded programs and activities, professional relationships, hate violence and human trafficking. To achie ve this mission, DCR keeps track of and investigates complaints of housing discrimination, as well as complaints in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence.
Investigations begin with the intake of a complaint. Complainants are first interviewed to collect 47 facts about possible discrimination. Interviews are normally conducted by telephone. If the complaint is accepted for investigation, the DCR drafts a formal complaint that is signed by the complainant and served. If jurisdictional under federal law, the co mplaint is also filed with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As a substantially equivalent agency, DCR's findings are usually accepted by HUD. The recipient of the complaint (usually a landlord, seller, property manager, seller, or agent) is required to answer and has the opportunity to negotiate resolution with the complainant. If the case is not resolved voluntarily, the DFEH conducts a formal investigation.
If the investigative findings do not show a violation of the law, DCR will close the case. If investigative findings show a violation of law, the DCR schedules a formal conciliation conference.
During the conciliation conference, the DCR presents information supporting its belief that there has been a violation and explores options to resolve the complaint. If formal conciliation fails, the DCR Housing Administrator may recommend litigation. If litigation is required, the case may be heard before the DCR or in civil court. Potential remedies for cases settled by the DCR include out- of-pocket losses, injunctive relief, access to the housing previously denied, additional damages for emotional distress, and civil penalties up to $10,000 for the first violation. Court remedies are identical to DCR remedies with one exception; instead of civil penalties, a court may award unlimited punitive damages.
48 Chapter 5: Fair Housing Analysis
Demographic Summary
This section describes population and housing trends throughout the participating jurisdictions.
Over 1.6 million people live in Alameda County.
● The population of Alameda County has grown by approximately 387,000 people since 1990, which equates to 30% increase. The growth has been slower since 2010, where the population has grown by 153,000 people, which equates to 10% increase. ● However, population has dropped by 1.11% in the last 2 years based on the 2020 Decennial and 2022 5-year ACS data projections. The decrease has been consistent across all cities and the region.
● Overall, most growth has been in foreign -born residents and residents of color. As of 2022, 33% of the population in Alameda County are foreign born; 70% are minorities; 20% are under the age of 18; 65.38% are between the ages of 18 and 64; and 14.62% are over the age of 65.
Population Patterns
Alameda County experienced population growth between 2000 and 2020, with significant increases happening between 2008 and 2020. Between 2020 and 2022, the County saw a population decline of about –1%.
49 The following table presents population trends from 1990 to 2022 for all participating jurisdictions as well as the region (the CBSA, defined in Section II as Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties). Note that the row titled Alameda C ounty demonstrates the total population for all participating jurisdictions. Alameda County has grown approximately 30% since 1990 with 10% increase since 2010. Along a similar trend, the region has grown approximately 27% since 1990 with 8% since 2010. The cities with the most growth during 2010 to 2022 were Emeryville and Dublin following the trend since 1990, growing approximately 27% and 54%, respectively. However, the population has declined in the last 2 years by 1.21% across the region.
TABLE V-1 - POPULATION GROWTH AND PERCENT CHANGE
Source: Decennial Census 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020; 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Demographic Trends
● The County has experienced a steady increase in foreign -born residents in Alameda County; approximately 33% of residents are foreign-born. The trend is similar for the region. ● The number of Black and White residents in Alameda County ha s decreased following the pattern from 1990 to present. The White residents have decreased from 52.87% in 1990 to
29.3% in 2022, and the Black residents have declined from 17.58% in 1990 to 9.94% in 2022.
The number of Hispanic residents in Alameda County has risen from 14.28% in 1990 to 22.21%
50 in 2022, but the population has remained steady since 2010 hovering between 21% to 23%.
The trend is similar for the region.
● Most of the growth in Alameda County has been due to an increase in Asian or Pacific Islander residents, which has increased from 14.46%in 1990 to 32.65% in 2022. The trend is similar for the region.
● The male to female distribution has remained consistent since 1990, where the female population is within 2% points more than males. The trend is similar for the region. ● The residents with limited English proficiency have declined from the 2010 peak of 18.79% to
16.32% as of 2022.
● The number of families with children in Alameda County has decreased from a peak of 48.04% in 2010 to 44.10% in 2022. The region has dropped from a peak of 47.23% in 2000 to 42.26% in 2022.
The tables below present data for demographic trends of the participating jurisdictions and the region between 1990 and 2022.
TABLE V-2 - DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS, ALAMEDA COUNTY AND REGION, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2022
51 52
53 54
55 56
Source: Decennial Census 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020; 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates Note: National Origin and LEP are derived from the 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates
57 Patterns in Tenure
Homeownership has increased from 20 20 to 2022 in Alameda County by 2.39% after declining from 2000 to 2020. The homeowners in Alameda County are 41.51% White homeowners followed by 35.04% Asian or Pacific Islander homeowners.
The table below presents data for change in tenure between 2000 and 2022. As a whole, the percentage of homeowners and renters has remained relatively the same; only a decrease of
0.81%in homeownership and an increase of 0.81 percent in renting has occurred. A decrease of
0.02 people per household has also occurred. The cities of Emeryville, Pleasanton, Fremont and Union City have seen the biggest homeownership decreases at 4% or more.
58 TABLE V-3 - TENURE AND AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 2000 TO 2022
59 The tables below display homeownership and rental rates by race and ethnicity. In most jurisdictions, White, non -Hispanic residents have the highest ownership rates, and Asian or Pacific Islander residents have the second highest rate. Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents have the lowest rates of homeownership. These same patterns are also visible across the region.
It is important to note that the City of Livermore, City of Berkeley, City of Pleasanton, and City of Alameda have more than 50 percent of all ownership units owned by White residents. Only the City of Livermore and City of Berkeley have over 50% White population resulting in a disproportionate share of homeownership.
TABLE V-4 - HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY, JURISDICTIONS AND REGION
60 61
62 Source: Decennial Census 2020
General Issues
Segregation/Integration
This section will analyze patterns of segregation by racial/ethnic groups, national origin, and limited English proficiency groups, and how they have changed over time. It will also identify areas with high levels of segregation and displacement.
Race/Ethnicity Trends
The number of Black and White residents in Alameda County has decreased following the pattern from 1990 to present. The White residents have decreased from 52.87% in 1990 to 29.3% in 2022, and the Black residents have declined from 17.58% in 1990 to 9.94% in 2022. The trend is similar for the region. The number of Hispanic residents in Alameda County has risen from 14.28% in 1990 to 22.21% in 2022, but the population has remained steady since 2010 hovering between 21% to 23%. The trend is similar across the region. Most of the growth in Alameda County has been due to increases in Asian or Pacific Islander residents, which has increased from 14.46%in 1990 to
32.65% in 2022. The trend is similar across the region.
The following maps highlight the racial and ethnic population trends between 2017-2022.
63 ● Map V.1 shows a population growth of Asian residents of over 100% in some North County tracts, along with some tracts in the East County near Livermore, and one tract in the South County. The Tri-Valley area of the County saw an Asian population growth upwards of 27%, along with some tracts in the North County and the Mid/Central County. Some tracts throughout the west saw population declines of over 40%. ● Map V.2 shows that the Black or African American population has seen a decline throughout the County between 2017-2022. There are some areas that saw extreme growth (over 45%) spread throughout the County, with l arger pockets of this growth being in Livermore, the upper area of South County, and North County. Some tracts saw a population decline of Black or African American residents, indicated by darker orange shading. ● Map V.3 highlights the change in White residents in Alameda County between 2017 -2022.
There has been a decline of about 11% -23% in many areas of the County. There were some areas of growth over 6%, indicated by dark blue shading. These tracts are located throughout South County, Mid/Central County, and North County. The Tri-Valley area only saw a decline of White residents – there were no tracts that had growth. ● Map V.4 shows the areas of Hispanic/Latino residents being primarily in the Mid/Central County, North County, and near Dublin and Pleasanton. There were also some tracts dispersed throughout the County that saw extreme growth of nearly 90% , indicated by dark blue shading.
● Map V.5 shows growth of the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population . T racts that experienced growth were primarily distributed among South County, Mid/Central County, and the Tri-Valley area. Some areas saw growth of over 180%, indicated by dark blue shading.
64 MAP V.1 - Asian Population % Change
65 MAP V.2 - Black/African American Population % Change
66 MAP V.3 - White Population Percent Change
67 MAP V.4 Hispanic/Latino Population % Change
68 MAP V.5 - Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander % Change
National Origin and Limited English Proficiency
Overall, most population growth in Alameda County has been in foreign -born residents and residents of color. As of 2022, 33% of the population in Alameda County are foreign born; 70% are minorities; 20% are under the age of 18; 65.38% are between the ages of 18 and 64; and 14.62% are over the age of 65. The residents with limited English proficiency have declin ed from a 2010 peak of
18.79% to 16.32% as of 2022.
2022 Census data suggest that 33.27% of Alameda County’s population were foreign -born – a
1.13% growth from 2017. Map V.6 shows the predominant countries of birth for residents as of 2018. Mexico was the number one place of birth for Alameda County. In some areas, there were also higher populations of people born in China, India, and the Philippines. The tables below list the predominant place of birth by city and the predominant places of birth by census tract (excluding China, Mexico, India, and the Phili ppines). Map V.7 highlights the countries of origin
69 in 2018 for the census tracts in North County, which has the most diversity of national origins and is also where the County’s R/ECAP areas are located.
Table: Predominant Country of Birth Among the Foreign-Born Population by City, 2018
City Predominant Country of Birth
Alameda China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Albany China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Ashland Mexico
Berkeley China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Castro Valley China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Cherryland Mexico
Dublin India
Emeryville China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Fairview Mexico
Fremont India
Hayward Mexico
Livermore Mexico
Newark Mexico
Oakland Mexico
Piedmont China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
Pleasanton India
San Leandro China - excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
San Lorenzo Mexico
Sunol Mexico
Union City Philippines
Source: 2014-2018 Census
Table: Predominant Country of Birth Among the Foreign-Born Population By Census Tract (excluding Mexico, India, China, and Philippines), 2018 Census Tract Predominant Country of Birth
6001400100 Iran
6001400300 Ethiopia
6001400500 Sierra Leone
6001400700 Guatemala
6001400900 Other Northern Africa
6001401000 El Salvador
6001401100 Vietnam
70 6001401600 Guatemala
6001402500 Yemen
6001403502 Other Middle Africa
6001403600 Eritrea
6001403800 Hong Kong
6001403900 Ethiopia
6001404000 Iran
6001404300 Canada
6001404400 France
6001404501 Vietnam
6001404700 Australia
6001405302 Vietnam
6001405500 Vietnam
6001405700 El Salvador
6001405800 Vietnam
6001405902 Vietnam
6001406400 Vietnam
6001406601 El Salvador
6001407900 Vietnam
6001408100 Hong Kong
6001409900 Jamaica
6001421100 Germany
6001421300 England
6001421800 England
6001422000 Japan
6001423601 Japan
6001423800 France
6001425104 Korea
6001428301 Hong Kong
6001428400 Vietnam
6001430101 Hong Kong
6001430900 Egypt
6001450300 Vietnam
6001451102 Canada
6001981900 Brazil
6001982000 Vietnam
6001983200 Canada
Source: 2014 - 2018 Census
71 MAP V.6 Country of Birth of foreign-born population
72 MAP V.7 - Country of Birth - North County
Map V.8 highlights the percent change in LEP residents between 2017-2022. There is a large area in the central area of the County, to the east of Hayward and Union City, along with some areas in North County and the Tri -Valley area , that saw increases of more than 76% of the LEP population. Chinese LEP residents grew from 3.65% to 4.44% between 2017 -2022. Map V.9 illustrates the areas with the highest growth of Chinese LEP residents – these areas are spread throughout the County and are indicated by dark blue shading. Between 2017 -2022, the population of Spanish LEP residents declined by 1.47% (or from 7.05% to 5.58%). Although there were some areas of the County that saw increases of Spanish LEP residents upwards of 90%, many areas of the County saw decline between -13% and -41%.
73 MAP V.8 LEP percent change
74 MAP V.9 Chinese LEP residents
Segregation
HISTORY OF SEGREGATION
This section presents a brief summary of the history of racial and ethnic segregation in the Bay Area. The history presented here is important to understand as it demonstrates that fair housing issues are not novel but have existed since the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and persisted despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. It also acknowledges that federal, state, and local laws, policies, and practices have discouraged protected classes’ housing choices and perpetuated segregation.
In 1942, during World War II and after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which allowed military commanders to exclude people of “enemy ancestry” in designated “exclusion zones.” All Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans living on the West Coast, approximately 110,000 people, were forced into internment camps.
75 Approximately 8,000 internees were held in the Tanforan Assembly Center camp in 1942 . During this time, Japanese property was stolen or sold, leaving many with nowhere to live upon release (Truman Library, 2017).
The state of California enacted several Jim Crow laws between 1850 and 1947. People of color were not allowed to testify in favor of or against White men; marriage between a White person and person of color was illegal; any person who could not read Englis h was not allowed to vote; Chinese immigrants were not allowed to vote; and Asian immigrants could not own property.
Redlining was a practice in the 1930s in which the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) graded 239 cities in the United States based on race and income to determine loan risk (Anti Eviction Mapping Project, 2019). This resulted in mortgage lenders denying majority Black, Asian, and Hispanic neighborhoods mortgages while granting mortgages to White neighborhoods. This created a wealth disparity between White neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color. The cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Pied mont, Albany, and Emeryville were all graded by HOLC. Neighborhoods fronting the San Francisco Bay received the worst scores (Richmond, 2019).
If families of color were approved for a mortgage, they would often have to buy homes in less desirable areas. In addition, restrictive covenants placed on the trust deeds in White neighborhoods contained language barring sales of homes to non -White buyers. Additionally, homes that families of color could buy would not appreciate in value in the same way that homes in White neighborhoods would, continuing the disparity of wealth.
During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, many large cities in the country lost a significant portion of their White population and saw growth in their Black and Hispanic populations. The Civil Rights Act, desegregation of schools, and White people’s access to credit and mortgages contributed to this phenomenon, which is now called “White flight.” White families were able to access mortgages that allowed them to leave diverse cities for racially homogenous suburbs. This left cities with a high population of peopl e of color, a smaller tax base, and decreased investment leading to poor conditions. The City of Oakland is a notable example of a city deeply affected by White flight. Gentrification is a reversal of White flight trends, where more affluent, often White families move back into the city from suburban communities.
Gentrification is demarcated by renewed investment in communities and significant increases in rent. Low-income families of color find it hard to pay rent and opt to move to lower rent areas in often worse conditions and with less opportunity. The cities o f Oakland and Berkeley are currently experiencing high levels of gentrification, where many Black and Hispanic families are moving into outlying suburban communities while White families are moving in, per the UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project.
76 TENURE AND SEGREGATION
Maps V.10 and V.11 show the percentages of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units throughout Alameda County between 2018 and 2022. The areas with the highest percentages of homeowners are generally areas with higher concentrations of white residents. The areas with the highest percentages of renters are generally areas with higher concentrations of residents of color.
MAP V.10 Housing Tenure - Homeowner Households
77 MAP V.11 Housing Tenure - Renter Households
Concentrated Areas of Poverty
2018-2022 ACS data says that 9.15% of people were living in poverty in Alameda County, which was a more than -2% decline from the poverty rate from 2013-2017 estimates. The chart below shows the poverty rate by race in the County. Black residents experience poverty at a higher rate (16.6%) than other racial or ethnic categories. Compared to the State of California, Alameda County has lower rates of poverty in all categories.
78 ● Maps V.12 and V.13 show that the areas with higher rates of poverty are in North County and Central County, with some census tracts seeing a rate of 21% or higher. ● Although the overall percentage of people living in poverty in the County has declined, Map V.14 highlights that many areas have seen large increases in poverty rates. The dark blue shaded areas indicate increases in poverty of over 38%. ● Map V.15 shows the area of highest poverty for Black/African American residents being the South County. There are also tracts spread throughout Mid/Central County and North County with high poverty rates.
● Map V.16 shows the percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents living in poverty is highest in the Tri-Valley area, as well as in the North and Central Counties.
79 MAP V.12 - Poverty
80 MAP IV.13 Poverty –North County and Central County
81 Map V.14 Poverty Percent Change
82 MAP V.15 Black/African Americans People in Living in Poverty
83 MAP V.16 Hispanic or Latino People Living in Poverty
The following tables highlight the areas of the County with high poverty rates by census tract, zip code, and County subdivisions. The North County and Central County areas see the highest rates of poverty.
84 Census Tracts with >25%
poverty
2022
Census Tract % in poverty
402900 25.11%
403301 25.57%
402500 27.61%
401400 30.26%
403000 30.45%
Zip codes with >15%
poverty
2020
Zip Code % in poverty
94606 16.67%
94601 18.72%
94607 19.45%
94709 19.61%
94720 19.89%
94621 19.92%
94612 20.16%
94613 46.67%
94704 47.51%
% in Poverty - County
Subdivisions
2022
Subdivision % in poverty
Livermore-
Pleasanton 4.49%
Fremont 5.41%
Alameda 7.14%
Hayward 8.86%
Oakland 12.94%
Berkeley 16.40%
ACS data suggest that between 2013 -2017 and 2018 -2022, the median income in Alameda County increased by 42.9% and was $122,488 in 2022. This is higher than the State of California’s median income of $91,905. However, 21.54% of households in Alameda County had an annual income of less than $50,000 in 2022. The table below highlights the median income by race and ethnicity. Black or African American residents’ median income is almost half of the County median income. This disparity reflects the high percentage rate among Black residents at 16.64%.
Hispanic or Latino residents and American Indian and Alaska Native residents also have median incomes that are significantly lower than the County average.
85 Median Household Income and Poverty by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Annual Income % in Poverty
2013-2017 2018-2022
White $93,773 $136,751 7.15%
Black/African American $45,807 $67,235 16.64%
Asian $106,898 $158, 717 7.28%
American Indian and
Alaska Native $61,773 $95,370 11.10%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander $78,807 $114,089 13.60%
Hispanic or Latino $66,728 $93,205 11.15%
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPS) The non-White population in Alameda County in 2022 was 70.7% of the total population, which is about a 3% increase since 2017. Map V.17 shows that most areas of the County have concentrations of people of color over 24%. The darkest shaded areas highlight the areas where concentration of people of color is over 70%.
To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPS), HUD has developed a definition that involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. R/ECAPS must have a non-White population of 50% or more and census tracts must have 40% or more of people living in poverty or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the MSA area – whichever is lower. Alameda County is part of the San Francisco - Oakland- Berkeley, CA Metro Statistical Area (MSA), which has a poverty rate of 8.61% – 3 times this would be 25.83%. Knowing this, Map V.18 (below) highlights the R/ECAP areas in Alameda County. The table below lists out which census tracts these R/ECAP areas are in along with their corresponding percentages of poverty and population of non-White individuals.
86 Map V.17 Non-White Population
87 MAP V.18 R/ECAP areas
88 There were two racial/ethnic groups that had a population 20% or more in census tracts that also had 26% or more individuals living in poverty – Black/African American residents and Hispanic/Latino residents. Maps V.19 and V.20 below show where these areas are indicated by dark blue shading overlayed by diagonal lines (circled in maps). Poverty creates barriers for individuals accessing services or amenities that provide quality of life including healthcare, quality nutrition, transportation, and safe and decent housing.
89 MAP V.19 Black/African American R/ECAP
90 MAP V.20 Hispanic R/ECAP
Census data shows a decline in poverty rates between 2017 and 2022. Alameda County, the Metro Statistical Area, Metro Division Area, and California all show a decline in poverty rates (seen in the chart below). As the poverty rates decline in certain censu s tracts, it may result in less R/ECAP areas based on HUD’s definition of the areas that qualify.
91 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
This section discusses the level of access protected classes have to resources, which generally indicates economic opportunity. These include education, employment, transportation, and quality of life factors. These factors are referred to as “access to opportunity.” Map V.21 highlights Limited Supermarket Areas (LSA Areas), which are block groups that when combined have at least 5,000 residents who need to travel almost twice as far for a full -service supermarket relative to residents in block groups with similar popu lation density and above average incomes. These LSA areas have red borders on the map and are generally in census tracts with higher rates of poverty and higher populations of residents of color. Map V.23 shows that the North County and Mid/Central County areas, which have higher rates of poverty and higher concentrations of people of color, are at greater risk of food insecurity.
Map V.22 highlights areas that have a higher prevalence of utility threats. The darker shaded areas indicate areas with a higher prevalence of households who reported that an electric, gas, or oil company threatened to shut off services at any point during 2022. The North County and Central County areas see higher rates of utility threats, especially in R/ECAP areas. Map V.24 highlights Medically Underserved Areas (MUA) as of 2024, which correlate to the areas with higher threats of food insecurity and utility threats. Medically Underserved Areas are designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration as having too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty, and/or a high elderly population.
92 MAP V.21 Limited Supermarket Access Areas
93 Map V.22 Utility Service Threats
94 Map V.23 Food Insecurity
95 Map V.24 Medically Underserved Areas
96 Education
Educational opportunities and attainment are strongly correlated with future job success and income opportunities. The chart below highlights the disparity in annual income between males and females. When comparing the annual incomes among men and women wi th the same educational attainment, the median incomes for women was much less than the median incomes for men. This could have an impact on female householders finding decent, affordable housing.
97 Median earnings in the past twelve months (in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars) by sex, by educational attainment for the population 25 years and over
Alameda County
Education, by sex
Annual
Income
Male $81,943
Less than high school graduate $40,381
High school graduate (includes equivalency) $49,227
Some college or Associate's degree $63,557
Bachelor's degree $102,471
Graduate or professional degree $163,352
Female $62,249
Less than high school graduate $28,258
High school graduate (includes equivalency) $38,728
Some college or Associate's degree $45,121
Bachelor's degree $77,216
Graduate or professional degree $102,480
Map V.25 shows that in 2021, the school districts that had a less than 80% graduation rate for LEP students were all located along the western edge of the County. The school districts and their corresponding graduation rates are listed in the table below. Please note that some school districts did not have this data available. Map V .26 shows that all the areas in Alameda County that had 25% or more people with less than a high school diploma were also areas that had high concentrations of people of color (75% or more) – this is indicated by the dark blue areas overlayed by diagonal lines. According to data from the California Department of Education, t he rate of individuals obtaining at least a high school diploma has been declining since 20 20. In 2020, the high school graduation rate was 68.4%, in 2022 it was 35.6%, and in 2024 it was 21.1% The only racial/ethnic group that saw a decline in obtaining a high school diploma between 2017 and 2022 was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders – this group saw a decline from 86.19% to 84.92%.
98 MAP V.25 LEP graduation rate
LEP student graduation rates <80%
2021
School District Graduation Rate
Hayward Unified 40% - 59%
Newark Unified 40% - 59%
Oakland Unified 40% - 59%
New Haven Unified 60% - 79%
Berkeley Unified 60% - 79%
Fremont Unified 60% - 79%
San Leandro
Unified 60% - 79%
San Lorenzo
Unified 60% - 79%
99 MAP V.26 More than 25% with less than a high school diploma and over 75% non- White
100
Asian residents in the County are more likely to attain a bachelor’s degree or more while Hispanic residents are more likely to attain only a high school degree or less.
101
Transportation
Transportation and access to transportation is important for individuals to have access to good jobs, schools, grocery stores, healthcare, and other quality of life enriching amenities. Map V .27 shows that parts of the County with 25% more people taking public transit to work correlates with areas where the R/ECAP areas were concentrated. Map V.28 shows the areas in which 25% or more people have longer than a one -hour commute to work. The whole Tri-Valley region to the west of Livermore has high rates of long commutes to work. Map V.29 shows the percentage of residents who reported a lack of reliable transportation keeping them from medical appointments, meetings, work, or from getting things needed for daily living.
MAP V.27 More than 25% taking public transportation to work
102
MAP V.28 Work commute longer than one hour
103
Map V.29 Lack of reliable transportation to work
Maps V.30 and V.31 display the Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit System Overview Map and the Transbay Bus Lines. Additional transit options include BART, Capital Corridor, Emery-GO Round, LINKS, among others.
104
Map V.30 - AC Transit System Overview, AC Transit
105
Map V.31 Transbay Bus Lines
106
Employment
BLS data estimates that the unemployment rate in Alameda County in 2023 was 4.1%, which is a –0.7% decrease since 2015. In comparison, the estimated unemployment rate in the State of California was 4.8%. The chart below shows that both Alameda County and C alifornia experienced an increased spike in unemployment between 2019 and 2020 which was a direct impact of COVID-19. The unemployment rate then decreased between 2020 and 2022 and saw a slight increase by 2023.
107
Environmental Health
Map V.32 shows the Environmental Justice Index (EJI) rank by census tract throughout the County. The Environmental Justice Index scores census tracts using a percentile ranking which represents the proportion of tracts that experience cumulative impacts of environmental burden and injustice. A higher percentile rank means the census tract faces more severe impacts relative to other census tracts nationwide. The areas with a high EJI rank correlates to the areas of the County with higher rates of poverty, higher concentrations of people of color, and R/ECAP areas.
Map V.33 shows the ranking of risk to all natural hazards compared to other communities in 2023. A community has a higher index rating if there is a high concentration of people, buildings, or agriculture at risk for natural hazards in that community. A higher index rating and greater social vulnerability increases the risk index, while community resilience lowers the risk index. There are very few census tracts in Alameda County that have low index ratings, with most low rating tracts being in the North County.
108
Map V.32 Environmental Justice rank
109
Map V.33 Risk to all natural hazards.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
HUD defines "disproportionate housing needs" as a situation where certain groups (often based on race, ethnicity, income level, disability status, or family status) experience housing challenges at significantly higher rates than the general population. Th ese housing needs are typically measured in terms of cost burden, overcrowding, inadequate housing, and homelessness or risk of homelessness. Disproportionate housing needs are identified by comparing these housing challenges across different demographic groups to the general population. When certain groups experience these issues at notably higher rates, it may indicate systemic barriers, discrimination, or inequities in housing access.
Housing Costs
On average, household income has not risen at the same pace as housing costs in Alameda County. The table below shows that between 2017-2023, the median household income rose by
48.9% while the median gross rent rose by 39.8% and the median home value rose by 64.5%.
110
While both the median home value and the median gross rent both increased between 2022 and 2023, the median household income decreased by –3.1%. It is unlikely that the housing market will shift to increase the number of affordable owner -occupied or renter-occupied units. As the price of housing and related cost burdens continue to rise, it is likely that fewer affordable units will be available.
Change in cost of housing and income over time
2017 2022 2023
Percent Change 2017-
2022
Percent Change 2017-
2023
Median Home
Value (owner
occupied) $649,100 $999,200 $1,067,800 53.9% 64.5%
Median Gross Rent $1,547 $2,229 $2,303 44.1% 48.9%
Median Household
Income $85,743 $122,488 $119,931 42.9% 39.8%
111
HOMEOWNERSHIP UNITS
Alameda County has seen the median home value increase between 2000 and 2023. The median value increased steadily between 2000 and 2017 and then began significantly increasing between 2017 and 2022. Since then, the median home values have been increasing steadily, increasing by
6.9% between 2022 and 2023. The high median home values are spread throughout the entire County and only 3 census tracts have median values less than $480,000; these census tracts are:
16001409500, 16001432601, and 438204. The sharp increase in home values reflects the rising cost of housing across the state and the nation and creates further barriers to access and resources for the lower-income population.
RENTAL UNITS
The median rent has also significantly increased between 2017 and 2023. Between 2017 and 2023, Alameda County’s median rent price increased by nearly 49%. There was a 3.3% increase in the median rent price between 2022 and 2023 alone, highlighting the continued rise in housing costs. Map V .33 shows the change in median rent prices between 2017 and 2022. The darker shaded areas on the map indicate the areas that have had the largest increases.
112
MAP V.33 Median gross rent percentage increase
HOURLY WAGE NEEDED TO AFFORD RENTAL HOUSING IN THE REGION To afford a two-bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in Alameda County without being cost -burdened, a household should not spend more than 30% of its gross income on housing. The FMR for a two-bedroom unit in Alameda County is $2,682 per month. Therefore, a household would need to earn approximately $51.58 per hour or $107,280 annually to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the FMR in Alameda County without spending more than 30% of their income on housing.
It's important to note that actual rental prices can vary based on location, amenities, and other factors. Additionally, housing assistance programs may have different income eligibility requirements.
LOCATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Many affordable rental units are provided in areas with higher concentrations of minorities. See Maps V.43 and V.44 for the geographic distribution of housing assisted through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program and HUD’s assisted housing programs.
113
According to 2018 -2022 ACS data, only 15.5% of 2 -bedroom rental units in Alameda County would be affordable to a 4 -person family earning 50% of the AMI, highlighted in Map V .34. The greatest concentration of rental units for this category is located in the eastern area of the County,which is not a densely populated area . There are also greater concentrations of affordable two-bedroom units in tracts east of Hayward, Union City, and Fremont. The lighter shaded purple areas indicate fewer affordable units being available. O nly 13.5% of 3 -bedroom rental units in the County would be affordable to a 6-person family earning 50% of the AMI.
MAP V.34 Rental Affordability for 4-person family earning 50% AMI
Differences in Housing Problems
This section discusses the level of access protected classes have to resources, which generally indicates economic opportunity. These include education, employment, transportation, environmental health, and living in an area with a lower rate of poverty. The level of access for each group is referred to as “access to opportunity.”
114
Housing Conditions
The year a house is built is heavily correlated with whether it is in substandard condition. Older homes are more likely to need regular maintenance to provide a safe and secure living environment for residents. When looking at the age of a home an important factor is whether it was built before 1978. Prior to 1978 lead-based paint was used in many homes and the presence of that paint can cause significant health problems for residents, particularly for children, the elderly, and those with compromised immu ne systems. Seniors or those on a fixed or limited income oftentimes cannot afford to maintain their home or to make necessary safety accommodations. As costs of materials for new builds continue to rise, rehabilitation assistance for low-income families a nd those on fixed incomes such as seniors and those with disabilities will be an important tool in allowing them to maintain their housing and lessen the risks of homelessness.
2018-2022 ACS data reports that about 67% of all housing units in Alameda County were built prior to 1980. The chart below shows that Alameda County’s median year for a home being built is earlier than both California and the United States’. Map V.35 shows that the areas with larger densities of housing units built prior to 1980 are located in the North County, Mid/Central County, and South County. There are also some higher density tracts in the Tri -Valley area, particularly between Dublin and Pleasanton and in south Livermore. ,
115
MAP V.35 Housing Units built before 1980
9.41% of owner-occupied housing units had at least one housing issue in Alameda County in 2022.
This percentage has remained relatively stable since 2017. In comparison, nearly 52% of all renter housing units in Alameda County have at least one housing iss ue. This is almost a -2% decline since 2017. Renter households are much more likely to experience housing problems than homeowner households. The areas of the County with higher populations of renter households are also in higher concentration areas of people of color. Map V.36 highlights the areas of the County that have at least 50% of a non-White population and at least 50% of rental units with at least one housing problem, indicated by blue shading overlayed by diagonal lines.
116
MAP V.36 Non-White population and housing problems
Housing Affordability
Between 2018-2022, there were 71,390 homeowner households with a mortgage that were cost burdened by paying more than 30% of their income towards housing costs and 29,073 homeowner households with a mortgage who were severely cost burdened by paying more than 50% of their income toward housing costs. Map V.37 shows the percent change of cost burdened homeowners between 2017 -2022. The areas that are lighter purple shaded and darker blue shaded are all areas that saw an increase in cost burdened homeowners. The darker blue shaded areas all show an increase in cost burdened homeowners of over 36%.
117
MAP V.37 Percent Change in Number of Cost-Burdened Homeowners
Between 2018-2022, 125,598 renters in Alameda County were cost burdened by paying more than 30% of their income towards housing costs. Of this number, 19.02% were aged 65 or older.
There were 62,391 renters who were severely cost-burdened and paying more than 50% of their income on housing costs. The table below shows the breakdown of cost -burdened renters by annual income. 22.46% of cost -burdened renters in Alameda County make less than $20,000 a year.
Cost burdened renters by Annual Income
2018-2022
Annual Income Number Percent
Less than $20,000 28,213 22.46%
Less than $50,000 69,335 55.20%
Less than $75,000 95,698 76.19%
Map V.38 shows the percent change of cost burdened renters between 2017-2022. The darker blue shaded areas all saw increases of over 43%.
118
Senior households are a population struggling with housing affordability and stability. 2022 ACS data suggest that 59% of renters who are 65 years or older are cost burdened and 32.5% of homeowners who are 65 years or older are cost burdened. Seniors or those on a fixed or limited income oftentimes cannot afford to maintain their home or to make necessary safety accommodations. As costs of materials for new builds continue to rise, rehabilitation assistance for low-income families and those on fixed incomes such as seniors and those with disabilities will be an important tool in allowing them to maintain their housing and lessen the risks of homelessness.
MAP V.38 Percent Change in Number of Cost Burdened Renters
Resistance to Development
Alameda County contains fundamental diversity, expanding from an urban core to a rural periphery and encompassing 14 cities and several unincorporated communities. Some jurisdictions in Alameda County have implemented growth management programs intended to concentrate urban development and preserve agriculture and open space. This is accomplished through the establishment of a development boundary or an overall cap on new residential
119
development. Growth management programs can achieve important goals of curbing urban sprawl and protecting open spaces but can limit a jurisdiction’s ability to address its housing needs. In an effort to support critical housing needs, some jurisdictions h ave recently amended growth management programs or adopted new measures to support the production of housing, particularly affordable housing.
Alameda County Measure D
Alameda County voters approved Measure D (the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative) in 2000, which established a County Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that focuses urban development in the unincorporated County in currently developed areas near ex isting cities.
Measure D draws boundaries around Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore that can only be changed by public vote. In establishing the County UGB, growth was halted on 3,200 acres north of Livermore, effectively removing 12,500 dwellings planned for that area.
Measure D does accommodate the County’s RHNA, which is a state-imposed housing obligation.
Sites inside the County UGB are prioritized to the maximum extent feasible; however, if necessary, the County voters may approve an extension of the UGB. While the a mount of land available for new residential housing is limited by the County UBG, the provisions to meet RHNA requirements do not substantially constrain housing production in unincorporated Alameda County.
Berkeley Measure O
In an effort to support affordable housing development in the City, Berkeley voters adopted Measure O in November 2018. In response to the City’s housing crisis, Measure O authorizes $135 million in bond funding to finance the acquisition and improvement of real property for the purpose of constructing, rehabilitating, or preserving affordable housing for low-, very low-, and middle-income households, including teachers, seniors, veterans, persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations.
Measure O will allow the City to support housing production on a larger scale than has been feasible in the past.
Dublin Urban Growth Boundaries
In 2000, voters in Dublin approved Measure M, which created an UBG on the western city limits so the foothills to the west of Dublin could not be rezoned and approved for residential development without voter approval. The foothills were preserved as agricultural and open space areas. This measure was approved by approximately 60 percent of Dublin voters.
In 2014, a citizen -initiated measure called the “Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014” was adopted by the City Council to preserve the Doolan Canyon area east of the city as well as the 120
foothill area to the west. The initiative removed the Council’s authority to control the property, effectively preventing any urban development, residential or commercial. Only Dublin voters can authorize development in these areas. Dublin currently does n ot provide public services to the Doolan Canyon area and future development in this area would have to pay for its own infrastructure and public services. While the UBG reduces land available for housing production, the installation of infrastructure to se rve the development would likely be cost prohibitive for affordable housing developments.
Emeryville Measure C
On June 15, 2018, over two -thirds of Emeryville voters approved Measure C, which allowed the City to issue $50,000,000 in bonds to finance the cost of providing or enhancing the acquisition or improvements of real property to provide affordable housing for extremely low, very low and low income individuals and families, including vulnerable populations. The City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Bond Administration and Expenditure Plan in March 2021, which outlines a variety of housing preservation and housing production programs the City will implement utilizing Measure C and other local housing resources.
Livermore Housing Implementation Program
The City of Livermore uses its UGB to manage the rate of development. Livermore’s UBG is intended to promote infill development and protect existing agricultural uses and natural resources from urban development. First, Livermore voters passed the South Li vermore UGB Initiative in 2000 to establish boundaries along the City’s southern border. This was closely followed by the Northern Livermore UGB initiative, which created the boundary on the northern border. The Northern Livermore UGB limits development to within city limits, but, similar to the Alameda County UGB, it includes provisions that allow development outside the UGB so long as there is no land available within the UGB.
Pleasanton Growth Management Program
Pleasanton most recently updated its growth management program in 2015 (by Ordinance No. 2112) to allow ABAG’s RHNA plan to generally direct the number of new residential building permits the City would issue. In 2015 Chapter 17.36.080(c) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code was modified to allow the City Council to borrow from previous and/or future years of growth management allocations to accommodate developments with affordable housing units should the allocations during a particular year be unavailable. As required by its Housing Element Program 30.2, Pleasanton will continue to present its growth management reports to the City Council and to its residents.
121
Regional Policies Encouraging Development
Measure A1: Affordable Housing Bond Issuance
In November 2016, the Countywide Affordable Housing Bond (Measure A1) for $580 million was passed by over 73 percent of the voters. It funds three programs related to homeownership and two rental housing development programs. The goal of Measure A1 funds is to increase affordable housing opportunities as soon as possible while ensuring that the income levels, target populations, and geographic distribution meet the requirements related to the general obligation bond financing.
Rental Housing
The goal of the Measure A1 Rental Housing Development Fund is to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable rental housing for vulnerable populations. The total allocation to this fund is $425 million over the course of the bond program. Under t he program summary, the Rental Housing Development Fund will serve a variety of target populations, including a range of income levels and people who are homeless, disabled, seniors, veterans, or transition-age youth, or those dealing with reentry and/or a re part of the low -income workforce. It is expected that the majority of the housing units financed will serve very low -income households with incomes between 30 percent to 60 percent of AMI. A portion of the funds are allowed to subsidize units for households at or below 80 percent of AMI, to create affordable housing for a mix of lower - income levels within developments. The program also includes a requirement that at least 20 percent of the rental units will be reserved for extremely low-income households at or below 20 percent of AMI. This income level includes homeless households, seniors, and people with disabilities on social security income, and others.
Under law and the policies of the Affordable Housing Bond, all Measure A1 developments are required to comply with fair housing law. Some units will be specifically designated for particular target populations but, as a whole, the Rental Housing Development Fund supports the creation of housing units which will serve all of the target populations, although not every development will contain units specifically designated for all of the named target populations.
Since the approval of the implementation plan in January 2017, $375 million has been allocated to affordable rental housing developments from the Rental Housing Development Fund. The 53 projects approved are located in all regions of the County (cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Unincorporated, and Union City ) and contain nearly 4,000 new affordable units for a variety of income levels and target populations, including
● 941 units for households at 20 percent AMI
● 160 units for veterans
122
● 120 units for homeless households
● 194 units for people with disabilities
● 473 units for seniors
Implementation of the bond programs is expected to be substantially completed over an eight - year period. The image below shows the progress on development of affordable rental units and the locations of projects throughout the County.
Source: https://acmeasurea1.wpengine.com/progress/
Homeownership
Further, Measure A1 provides
assistance to home owners and
homebuyers. The Measure A1
homeownership programs are
designed to make ownership
more accessible to low -income
households and to help preserve
those homes currently owned by
low-income families. They are
open to all households that
qualify, and additional attention
is focused on ensuring
123
participants in the homeownership programs reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Alameda County. The following chart shows the ratio of homeownership assistance across the Count y’s programs.
Downpayment Assistance: The Down Payment Assistance Program, now called “AC Boost,” was created to assist middle-income, first -time homebuyers with a down payment so that they can get into a home and start building generational wealth and familial stability.
Eligible households have annual incomes at or below 120% of Area Median Income.
Qualifying households are eligible to receive an AC Boost loan of up to $210,000 to first - time homebuyers who live or work in Alameda County or have been displaced from Alameda County within the last ten years. Educators and first responders receive preferences for AC Boost loans.
AC Boost loans are structured as shared appreciation loans, with no interest and no monthly payments. At time of sale (or in some circumstances, when refinanced or transferred) the AC Boost loan principal will be repaid, along with a percentage of the increase in value of the property on a pro-rata basis. Eligible buyers are required to invest a very small amount of their own funds as a portion of the down payment and must qualify for a first mortgage from a participating lender.
Number of Downpayment Assistance Loans by City
124
Home Preservation: Renew AC provides attainable, low-interest loans that allow seniors, people with disabilities, and other low -income homeowners earning up to 80% AMI to make much-needed improvements to their homes. This program also provides services to navigate those home improvements. In some cases, this means providing temporary housing.
Renew AC provides 1% deferred interest loans up to a maximum of $150,000 for eligible home improvement projects specifically to address health and safety conditions in owner- occupied homes. This work helps homeowners to stay in their homes as they age, fac e disability, or would otherwise be unable to renovate and upgrade major home systems.
Number of Home Preservation Loans by City
For more information on Measure AI see this link.
Lending
Lending practices were analyzed using data gathered from lending institutions in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The HMDA was enacted by Congress in 1975 and is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board as Regulation C. The intent of the Act is to provide the public with information related to financial institution lending practices and to aid public officials in targeting public capital investments to attract additional private sector investments.
Since enactment of the HMDA in 1975, lending institutions have been required to collect and
125
publicly disclose data regarding applicants including: location of the loan (by Census tract, state, and MSA); income, race and gender of the borrower; the number and dollar amount of each loan; property type; loan type; loan purpose; whether the property is owner‐occupied; action taken for each application; and, if the application was denied, the reason(s) for denial. Property types examined include one‐to‐four family units, manufactured housing and multi‐family developments.
HMDA data is a useful tool in accessing lending practices and trends within a jurisdiction. While many financial institutions are required to report loan activities, it is important to note that not all institutions are required to participate. Depository lending institutions – banks, credit unions, and savings associations – must file under HMDA if they hold assets exceeding the coverage threshold set annually by the Federal Reserve Board; have a home or branch office in one or more metropolitan statistical areas (MSA); or originated at least one home purchase or refinancing loan on a one‐to‐four family dwelling in the preceding calendar year. Such institutions must also file if they meet any one of the following three conditions: status as a federally ins ured or regulated institution; originator of a mortgage loan that is insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a federal agency; or originator of a loan intended for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. For‐profit, non‐depository institutions (such as mortgage companies) must file HMDA data if: 1) the value of the home purchase or refinancing loans exceeds 10 percent of their total loan originations or equals or exceeds $25 million; 2) they either maintain a home or branch office in one or more MSAs or in a given year execute five or more home purchase, home refinancing, or home improvement loan applications, originations, or loan purchases for properties located in MSAs; or 3) they hold assets exceeding $10 million or have executed more than 100 home purchase o r refinancing loan originations in the preceding calendar year.
It is recommended that the analysis of HMDA data be tempered by the knowledge that no one characteristic can be considered in isolation but must be considered in light of other factors.
For instance, while it is possible to develop conclusions simply based on race data, it is more accurate when all possible factors are considered, particularly in relation to loan denials and loan pricing. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), “with few exceptions, controlling for borro wer‐related factors reduces the differences among racial and ethnic groups.” Borrower‐related factors include income, loan amount, lender, and other relevant information included in the HMDA data.
The following analysis is provided for the Alameda County summarizing 2023 HMDA data (and data between 2018 and 2023) where applicable. When specific details are included in the HMDA records, a summary is provided below for loan denials, including information regarding the purpose of the loan application; race of the applicant; and the primary reason for denial.
For the purposes of analysis, this report will focus only on the information available and will not make assumptions regarding data that is not av ailable or was not provided as part of the mortgage application or in the HMDA reporting process.
126
2023 County Overview
In 2023, there were approximately 37,125 applications within Alameda County for home loans to purchase, refinance or make home improvements for a single -family home (not including manufactured homes). Of those applications, nearly 16,112 (44%) were approved and originated.
This represents a decline from prior years – the peaks were 2020 and 2021. The loan originations have declined to approximately 16% from its peak in 2020 and approximately 50% from 2023.
The national decline from 2022 to 2023 is 34.5%.
Of the remaining 21,013 applications, approximately (23%) of all applications were denied. The top three application denial reasons within the County were debt -to-income ratio (47%), Collateral (14%) and credit history (13%), representing about 75% of the County’s total denials.
It is important to note that financial institutions are not required to report reasons for loan denials, although many do so voluntarily. Also, while many loan applications are denied for more than one reason, HMDA data reflects only the primary reason for the denial of each loan. The balance of the approximately 16,000 applications that were not originated or denied were closed for one reason or another, including: 1) the loan was approved but not accepted by the borrower; 2) the application was closed because of incomplete information or inactivity by the borrower; or 3) in many instances the application may have been withdrawn by the applicant.
Disposition of Application by Loan Type and Purpose, 2023
Single Family Homes (excluding manufactured homes)
Loan Type Home Purchase Refinance Home Improvement
Total Applications
Conventional 17,538 8,126 4,515
FHA 917 593 14
RHS/FSA 9 1 0
VA 195 132 0
Loan Originated
Conventional 9145 2709 2025
FHA 424 195 6
RHS/FSA 7 0 0
127
VA 105 27 0
Application approved but
not accepted
Conventional 362 164 160
FHA 19 18 0
RHS/FSA 0 0 0
VA 3 3 0
Application Denied
Conventional 943 1065 1444
FHA 122 121 3
RHS/FSA 0 0 0
VA 22 36 0
Application withdrawn by
applicant
Conventional 2543 977 324
FHA 166 140 1
RHS/FSA 1 0 0
VA 32 37 0
File closed for
incompleteness
Conventional 349 520 266
FHA 20 56 1
RHS/FSA 1 1 0
VA 4 20 0
Source: 2023 HMDA
A further examination of the 4971 denials within Alameda County during 2023 indicates that approximately 29% were applicants seeking to do home improvement on existing mortgages for owner-occupied, primary residences. Refinance at 21% and Home Purchase at 19% were the next two reasons.
The top three application denial reasons within the County were debt-to-income ratio (47%), Collateral (14%) and credit history (13%). The majority of Home Improvement denials were due to debt-to-income ratio. Typically, homeowners seeking to refinance their existing home 128
mortgage are able to use their home as collateral. When the denial reason given for a refinance is a lack of collateral, this could indicate the home is worth less than the existing mortgage and, therefore, refinancing is not an option. These homes are com monly referred to as “under - water” or the borrowers are “upside -down” in their mortgage. Shown below, the lack of collateral as a share of refinance denials has declined since the peak of the housing crisis, suggesting that the number of “under -water” homes in Alameda County are increasing again since the lows of 2020 and 2021.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
Home Purchase Lending in Alameda County
Of the 98,658 home purchase loans for single family homes that originated in 2023, approximately 94% were provided by conventional lenders, higher than the national conventional home purchase share of 73%. The remaining 6% of home purchase loans in Alameda County were provided by federally backed sources such as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Non -conventional loans have relatively lower down -payment requirements in comparison to conventional lenders.
Home Purchases by Type, 2023
Originations Share of Total Approval Rate
129
Conventional 17,538 93.99% 52.14%
FHA 917 4.91% 46.24%
RHS/FSA 9 0.05% 77.78%
VA 195 1.05% 53.85%
Total 18,659
Source: 2023 HMDA
The share of applications and percentage of loan application denials for traditional home purchase loans in Alameda County varies by race/ethnic groups. The largest applicant group in 2023 were Other Race (43%) followed by Asians at 29% and White at 16%. Blacks represented 4% of all home purchase applications. Whites were least likely to be denied for conventional single-family home purchases at a rate of 16%, followed by Asians at 14%. Black population applications denial rate was highest at 29% and Hispanics were denied at a rate of 27%.
Source: 2023 HMDA
130
Alameda County’s Single-Family Lending Market, 2018-2023 The following section will examine HMDA data for Alameda County between 2018-2023.
Highlighted below, the number of single -family loan originations in Alameda County followed a dynamic, though broadly downward trajectory between 2018-2023. At the onset of the housing boom due to low interest rates, originations increased 45% between 2019 and 2020, followed by a decrease of 195% between 2021 and 2022. The decrease was due to higher interest rates. The originations further decreased by 100% from 2022 and 2023.
In contrast to originations, the number of application denials within Alameda County demonstrated similar behavior. In 2020 and 2021, the denial rate was 15.46% and 13.21% respectively. In 2022 and 2023 as loan originations decreased, the application denia ls increased with 26% and 31%.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
Shown below, much of the year-to-year fluctuations in total originations that occurred between 2018 and 2023 were the result of refinancing originations. Refinancing was the dominant loan for all years examined with the exceptions of 2022 and 2023. Refinan ce loans grew significantly between 2018 and 2021 as interest rates were broadly low (discussed further below). In 2021 the US 30 YR conventional loans were around 3% and gradually increased to 7% in mid-2023. As
131
of 2023, home purchases and refinances comprised 49% and 11% of the state’s total originations respectively. Home purchases have steadily declined in 2022 and 2023.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
The share of refinance originations in Alameda County appears to move generally with the 30 - year fixed rate mortgage average (shown below). For example, in 2020 when the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage was at its lowest level of all the years examined, refinance originations reached the highest share in absolute and percentage terms of all data years analyzed. Similarly, when interest rates rose between 2021 and 2023, the share of refinance originations fell from
73.5% to 18.2%. The increase in the annual average of the 30-year fixed mortgage rate between 2018 and 2023 is consistent with Alameda County’s reduction in the number of refinance loan originations over the same time period.
132
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
Income, Race, and Single-Family Loan Denials in Alameda County Denial rates for single-family loans in Alameda County over time vary by race and ethnicity. The charts below indicate that between 2018 and 2023, White and Asian applicants were less likely to be denied relative to Blacks and Hispanics. Additionally, Black applicants were the most likely to be denied relative to other groups for all years analyzed. In addition to the overall denial rate, this pattern is evident in both home purchase and refinance loans.
133
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
134
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
135
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
136
A view of single -family denial rates by applicant income group within Alameda County (highlighted below) shows the expected outcome of higher income groups experiencing lower denial rates than lower income groups. The denials across all income groups have risen since 2022 due to higher interest rates and stagnant wages. However, the percentage of denials by income group has risen with very Low-Income applicants (50% or less of Area Median Income) at 43% compared to 13% for High Income groups. The variation in the denial rates is considerably higher for lower income groups – while the high-income group denial changed from 11.56% to
12.74% from 2022 to 2023, the very low-income group went from 32.28% to 43.32%.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
137
Unlike overall denial rates by income group, home purchase applications denial rates by income group show little variation from year to year within the income group. The denial rates due to refinancing is the major contribution to the income group variatio ns – the very low -income groups are denied at 30.45% in 2023 compared to 16.90% for High income.
Source:2018- 2023 HMDA
138
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
Denial rates by neighborhood income group (defined as median income of property’s Census tract) similarly shows higher income neighborhoods are less likely to be denied compared to lower income neighborhoods.
139
Source: 2018-2013 HMDA
140
As a percentage of total applications within Alameda, the distribution among neighborhoods by income group shows that for every year examined, Middle and High -Income neighborhoods represented most applicants (83% as of 2023).
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
141
Within Alameda, Very Low -Income and Low -Income neighborhoods represent 27% of the County’s total neighborhoods, although they are represented by approximately 16% of total originations and 15% of applications as of 2023 (shown below). This suggests that Low and Very Low-Income neighborhoods within the County are less likely to participate in the single -family lending market relative to other neighborhoods. By contrast, loan applications and originations within Alameda are disproportionately likely to occur for properties in Middle and particularly High-Income neighborhoods.
Source: 2023 HMDA
142
Additionally, a closer look at home purchase denial rates by race/ethnicity and income group within Alameda County (shown below) demonstrates that High-Income Asians (earning greater than 120% of Area Median Income) were more likely to be denied for a single-family home purchase.
Source: 2023 HMDA
143
Application Denial Reasons by Income Group
The charts below compare denial reasons among White, Black, Hispanic and Asian applicants in Alameda Count for 2023 by income group.
As of 2023, the leading denial reason for all applicants across all income groups was Debt -to- Income Ratio. Credit History was the next reason for Black and Hispanic applicants. This is reflective of high home prices in Alameda County coupled with high interest rates.
Source: 2023 HMDA
144
Source: 2023 HMDA
Source: 2023 HMDA
145
Source: 2023 HMDA
146
The Subprime Market and Predatory Lending
According to the Federal Reserve, “prime” mortgages are offered to persons with excellent credit and employment history and income adequate to support the loan amount. “Subprime” loans are loans to borrowers who have less -than-perfect credit history, poor employment history, or other factors such as limited income. By providing loans to those who do not meet the credit standards for borrowers in the prime market, subprime lending can and does serve a critical role in increasing levels of homeownership. Households that are interested in buying a home but have blemishes in their credit record, insufficient credit history or nontraditional credit sources, might otherwise be unable to purchase a home. The subprime loan market offers these borrowers opportunities to obtain loans that they would be unable to realize in the prime loan market.
Subprime lenders generally have interest rates that are higher than those in the prime market and often lack the regulatory oversight required for prime lenders because they are not owned by regulated financial institutions. In the past decade, however, ma ny large and well -known banks became involved in the subprime market either through acquisitions of other firms or by initiating loans that were subprime directly.
Most subprime loans provide families with payments for the first few years at a low “teaser” rate.
After that, the loans reset every six months or year to a higher, fully indexed rate, which can cost borrowers hundreds of extra dollars each month. This ext ra expense has increased the housing cost burden of many families and for many has ultimately resulted in foreclosure.
With an active housing market, potential predatory lending practices by financial institutions may arise. Predatory lending involves abusive loan practices usually targeting homeowners of color or those with less -than-perfect credit histories. The predatory practices typically include high fees, hidden costs and unnecessary insurance and larger repayments due in later years. One of the most common predatory lending practices is placing borrowers into higher interest rate loans than called for by their credit status. Although the borrowers may be eligible for a loan in the “prime” market, they are directed into more expensive and higher fee loans in the “subprime” market. In other cases, fraudulent appraisal data is used to mislead homebuyers into purchasing overvalued homes, or fraudulent or misrepresented financial data is used to encourage homebuyers into assuming a larger loan than can be afforded. Both cases almost inevitably result in foreclosure.
Data available to investigate the presence of predatory lending are extremely limited. At present, HMDA data are the most comprehensive available for evaluating lending practices. However, the HMDA data lack the financial details of the loan terms to conclude any kind of predatory lending.
Efforts at the national level are pushing for increased reporting requirements in order to curb predatory lending.
147
Source: 2018-2013 HMDA
148
The subprime loans in 2018 were more in Non -Conventional applications but are now almost entirely (99.16%) in the Conventional applications.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
149
Subprime originations by race/ethnicity show that Asian and White loan recipients had the highest share compared to other groups for nearly everyone examined.
Source:2018- 2023 HMDA
150
Subprime shares by loan recipient income group show that since 2018, income groups have diverged, with High-Income remaining much higher than other income groups.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
151
Subprime loans have been characterized by growth in home improvements in recent years. As a percentage of all subprime loan originations within Alameda County, home improvements represented 44.95%% in 2023, up from its share of 23.63% in 2018.
Source: 2018-2023 HMDA
Lending Practices Conclusion
Mortgage lending activity in Alameda County is consistent with many of the broader trends that have occurred in the wake of high inflation and high interest rates.
Further, Alameda County exhibits slowing mortgage market fundamentals from the highs of 2020 and 2021 when the interest rates were lower and housing supply was low. Home purchase originations have decreased by 100% from 2022 and 2023, suggesting signs of declining housing demand and a housing market recovery within the County. Additionally, the share of refinance applications has reduced drastically. Debt-to-Income ratio is the most common reason for denial across all income groups reflecting high inflation and stagnant wages, coupled with high interest rates. Down Payment Assistance programs can sometimes help address debt to income ratio issues for prospective homebuyers. Programs like Alameda Count y’s Boost with a mission to address racial inequalities is an example of an action that can be taken to address debt to income impediments for potential homebuyers.
152
Some trends, however, have continued despite business cycle fluctuations, such as higher denial rates for Black and Hispanic applicants relative to White and Asian applicants, in addition to higher denial rates for lower income applicants and neighborhoods.
Publicly Supported Housing
HUD’s 2023 Picture of Subsidized Households estimates that 3.62% of Alameda County’s population was living in subsidized housing – this is a –0.14% decline from 2018. Comparatively, it is estimated that 2.34% of the State of California’s population was liv ing in subsidized housing in 2023. Maps V.39 to V.41 shows the percentage of households living in subsidized housing who are Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. Black residents living in subsidized housing have higher concentrations in the North and Central County, particularly between the City of Alameda and the City of San Leandro, and in north Oakland. . Asian or Pacific Islander residents living in subsidized housing are spread throughout the County - both along the entire western border of the County and the Tri-Valley area. Hispanic residents living in subsidized housing have higher concentrations in the Central County near Hayward and Union City, with other high density tracts near Fremont and in Livermore. Map V.42 shows the percentage of households living in subsidized housing that have a disability - there are higher concentrations in the South County near Fremont, in the Mid/Central County near Hayward, and in the Tri -Valley area near the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.
153
MAP V.39 Percent of Households Living in Subsidized Housing Who Are Black
154
MAP V.40 Percent of Households Living in Subsidized Housing Who Are Asian or Pacific Islander
I
155
MAP V.41 Percent of Households Living in Subsidized Housing Who Are Hispanic
156
MAP V.42 Percent of Households Living in Subsidized Housing Where a Person Has a Disability
157
Map V.43 shows LIHTC locations and Map V.44 shows the locations of HUD Public Housing and Multifamily housing units.
MAP V.43 LIHTC Locations
158
MAP V.44 HUD Public Housing and Multifamily Locations
Disability and Access Analysis
According to 2018 -2022 ACS data, 9.6% of residents in Alameda County were living with a disability, which was lower than California’s average of 11%. The rate of disability has not changed since 2013 -2017 ACS estimates. The two most common types of disabil ity are independent living and ambulatory. Pleasanton has the lowest rate of those living with a disability at 7.9%, which is a 1% increase from 2013-2017 ACS estimates. San Leandro has the highest rate of disability at 11.5%, which is a 0.6% increase from 2013-2017 estimates.
Map V.45 shows the concentrations of people living with disabilities throughout the County. The darker shaded areas have higher concentrations of people living with disabilities. .
Map V.46 shows the percentage change of disability over the past 5 years. The darker orange shaded areas all saw a decline in the percentage of people with a disability, while the dark blue indicates an increase of at least 36.8%.
159
Table: Percent of People with Disabilities by Type of Disability Jurisdiction
% with
Disability
% with
Hearing
Disability
% with
Vision
Disability
% with
Cognitive
Disability
% with
Ambulatory
Disability
% with
Self-Care
Disability
% with
Independent
Living
Disability
Alameda County 9.6% 2.3% 1.8% 4.0% 4.9% 2.3% 5.1%
Alameda 9.3% 2.3% 1.9% 3.8% 4.5% 2.2% 4.3%
Berkeley 10.0% 2.1% 1.6% 4.8% 4.1% 1.9% 4.3%
Fremont 7.0% 1.7% 1.2% 2.7% 3.8% 2.1% 4.5%
Hayward 9.8% 2.4% 1.7% 3.8% 5.5% 2.9% 5.7%
Livermore 8.9% 2.8% 1.7% 3.4% 4.0% 1.9% 4.4%
Oakland 11.0% 2.5% 2.2% 5.1% 5.7% 2.4% 5.5%
Pleasanton 7.9% 2.5% 1.6% 2.5% 3.5% 1.7% 3.9%
San Leandro 11.5% 3.1% 2.3% 4.0% 6.4% 3.0% 5.9%
Union City 9.8% 2.4% 1.3% 4.2% 5.5% 2.9% 6.3%
Source: 2018-2022 ACS
160
MAP V. 45 Percent of People with One or More Disabilities
161
MAP V. 46 Percent Change in the Number of People with One or More Disabilities Between the Periods of 2013-2017 and 2018-2022
30.8% of those aged 65 or older in the County are living with a disability. Oakland has the highest rate of those who are 65 years or older and living with a disability at 34.1%. The rate of disability for those aged 65 or older has decreased since 2017 – both for the County and for each jurisdiction except for San Leandro. San Leandro saw an almost 3% increase.
162
Map V.47 highlights the prevalence of seniors living with a disability and Map V.48 highlights the change in disability rates for seniors over the past 5 years. The darker purple and darker blue shaded areas indicate a higher rate of disability. The table below lists the census tracts with the highest rates of disability for those 65 or o lder – these tracts all have 55% or more of disability.
The top census tract has a rate of 76.1% disability for seniors.
Table Percent of Seniors 65+ with a Disability
Jurisdiction Seniors % with a disability
Alameda County 73,441 30.8%
Alameda 3,579 28.4%
Berkeley 5,143 26.9%
Fremont 8,257 28.2%
Hayward 6,626 32.3%
Livermore 3,773 30.5%
Oakland 20,638 34.1%
Pleasanton 3,588 29.1%
San Leandro 5,228 33.6%
Union City 3,743 30.2%
Source: 2018-2022 ACS
163
MAP V. 47 Estimate of People 65 or Older with One or More Disabilities between 2018 - 2022
164
MAP V. 48 Estimate of People 65 or Older with One or More Disabilities between 2018 - 2022
165
Table: Disability for 65+ by Census
Tract
Census Tract Percent
06001409100 76.1%
06001450607 70.9%
06001401400 67.7%
06001409400 67.6%
06001409000 66.7%
06001436301 65.6%
06001435400 65.4%
06001403301 65.3%
06001406400 64.6%
06001403701 62.6%
06001420401 62.5%
06001442302 61.6%
06001406000 60.6%
06001401500 58.5%
06001406202 57.9%
06001433103 57.8%
06001408800 57.3%
06001441923 57.1%
06001433700 55.4%
Source: 2018-2022 ACS
166
American Indian and Alaska Native residents and Black or African American residents experience the highest rates of disability compared to any other racial or ethnic group.17.4% of American Indian or Alaska Native residents and 16.9% of Black or African American residents are living with a disability.
Table: Disability by Race and Ethnicity, Alameda County
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent
White 58,465 12.4%
Black or African
American 25,474 16.9%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 2,880 17.4%
Asian 46,299 8.5%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander 984 8.3%
Some other race 22,02 10.1%
Two or more races 22,383 11.2%
Hispanic or Latino 40,085 10.7%
Source: 2023 ACS
Fair Housing Complaint Data
The US Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is charged with implementing and enforcing fair housing protections. However, many cases are resolved on the local level. From 2016 to 2023, 375 fair housing discrimination cases were forwarded to the Off ice of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The table below shows the breakdown of cases file d across Participating Jurisdictions. The largest number of complaints were filed in Oakland with 36% of the total complaint filed. The next largest number of complaints came from Berkeley with about 15% of complaints filed. The year with the largest number of complaints filed was 2017.
167
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of complaints filed per year throughout the County Year
Number of
Complaints
Across
County
Alameda
(city) Berkeley
Castro
Valley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland San
Lorenzo Pleasanton
San
Leandro
Union
City
2016 49 8 5 1 3 2 4 4 1 2 12 1 1 4 0
2017 53 2 4 3 1 1 5 9 3 0 20 1 2 1 3
2018 39 2 9 0 0 3 2 6 0 0 11 1 0 3 1
2019 34 3 6 0 0 1 4 3 1 2 10 0 0 1 2
2020 39 5 8 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 12 1 2 3 2
2021 32 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 17 0 0 2 1
2022 48 2 10 1 0 1 2 3 0 0 22 0 2 2 0
2023 50 2 11 0 0 2 3 6 3 0 15 0 1 5 0
2024 31 0 1 3 0 1 0 4 1 2 11 0 1 6 1
TOTAL 375 26 55 11 5 12 25 38 10 6 130 4 9 27 10
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
168
Fair Housing complaints often include more than one issue as a basis for the complaint. Below is a breakdown of the reasons cited in complaints between 2016 and 2024. Disability was cited more frequently at 43.2%. The next most often cited reason for complaints was Race at 9.9%.
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year across County
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TOTAL %
Disability 32 33 26 28 25 17 26 37 22 181 43.2%
Retaliation 1 4 5 6 1 2 6 3 3 26 6.3%
Familial Status 7 11 3 3 5 1 0 3 2 17 4.1%
Race 4 2 4 0 4 10 13 8 2 41 9.9%
Religion 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2%
National Origin 2 2 4 0 2 0 5 1 1 13 3.1%
Sex 0 5 2 2 1 5 2 4 3 19 4.6%
Color 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 8 1.9%
Total Bases 49 59 46 39 39 36 53 59 34 414 100%
Total Complaints 49 53 39 34 39 32 48 50 31 375 –
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Fair Housing complaints are closed for varying reasons. Below is a breakdown of the reasons cited for closure in complaints between 2016 and 2024. No cause determination was cited as the top closure reason at 53.4%. Conciliation or successful settlement was the next most often cited closure reason at
26.9%.
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Closure reasons by year across County Closure Reason 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percen
tage
Unable to locate
complainant 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.9%
Complainant failed
to cooperate 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.8%
169
No cause
determination 9 28 39 22 25 23 13 24 14 121 53.2%
Complaint
withdrawn by
complainant after
resolution 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 0 11 4.9%
Conciliation/Settle
ment successful 7 17 10 7 11 6 13 9 15 61 26.9%
Dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 6 2.6%
Complaint
withdrawn by
complainant
without resolution 1 1 1 0 5 0 3 6 5 22 9.7%
Total Closures 18 48 54 31 43 30 32 47 34 227 100%
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
There are multiple jurisdictions within Alameda County. Below are the Fair Housing complaint breakdowns for the individual jurisdictions by City. All of the jurisdictions have disability cited as the most frequent basis for complaint.
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Alameda
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 TOTAL %
Disability 6 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 18 60.0%
Retaliation 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 6.7%
Familial Status 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3.3%
170
Race 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 10.0%
Religion 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.3%
National Origin 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 6.7%
Sex 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 10.0%
Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total Bases 10 2 3 3 5 2 2 3 0 30 100%
Total Complaints 8 2 2 3 5 2 2 2 0 26 –
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Berkeley
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 2 2 7 5 6 1 8 11 0 42 68.9%
Retaliation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Familial Status 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 9.8%
Race 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4.9%
171
Religion 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.9%
National
Origin 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.9%
Sex 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4.9%
Color 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.6%
Total Bases 7 4 14 10 7 1 9 11 1 61 100%
Total
Complaints 5 4 9 6 8 1 10 11 1 55
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Dublin
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percenta
ge
Disability 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 80.0%
Race 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 20.0%
Total Bases 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 100%
Total
Complaints 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Emeryville
172
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 10 62.5%
Retaliation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6.3%
Race 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 31.3%
Total Bases 3 1 3 1 0 1 2 2 2 16 100%
Total
Complaints 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 12
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Fremont
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percenta
ge
Disability 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 12 30.8%
Retaliation 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 7 18.0%
Familial Status 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 15.4%
Race 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 10.3%
Religion 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.1%
National Origin 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 7.7%
173
Sex 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 5 12.8%
Total Bases 11 6 3 5 1 4 2 7 0 39 100%
Total
Complaints 4 5 2 4 1 3 2 4 0 25 –
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Hayward
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 3 6 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 22 42.3%
Retaliation 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 11.5%
Familial
Status 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 7.7%
Race 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 8 15.4%
National
Origin 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 5.8%
Sex 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 6 11.5%
Color 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 5.8%
174
Total Bases 6 12 9 4 2 1 4 9 5 52 100%
Total
Complaints 4 9 6 3 2 1 3 6 4 38
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Livermore
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 50.0%
Race 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 33.3%
Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 16.7%
Total Bases 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 5 1 12 100%
Total Complaints 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 9
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Oakland
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 7 12 6 8 8 9 11 12 8 81 49.1%
Retaliation 3 4 3 5 0 2 2 0 0 19 11.5%
175
Familial
Status 3 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 12 7.3%
Race 0 3 2 0 1 7 10 0 1 24 14.5%
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1.2%
National
Origin 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 3.6%
Sex 0 6 2 3 0 2 2 0 1 16 9.7%
Color 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 3.0%
Total Bases 14 28 18 16 12 21 29 16 11 165 100%
Total
Complaints 12 20 11 10 12 17 22 15 11 130
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of Pleasanton
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 7 53.9%
Retaliation 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 15.4%
Familial Status 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7.7%
176
Race 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 15.4%
National Origin 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.7%
Total Bases 1 2 0 0 3 0 5 1 1 13 100%
Total
Complaints 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 9
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - City of San Leandro
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 16 43.2%
Retaliation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 10.8%
Familial
Status 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5.4%
Race 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 9 24.3%
Sex 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 8.1%
Color 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 8.1%
Total Bases 7 1 4 2 3 3 3 7 7 37 100%
Total
Complaints 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 5 6 27
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
177
Table: HUD Fair Housing Complaints - Number of times basis for complaint was cited per year - Union City
Basis for
Complaint 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Percent
age
Disability 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 7 50.0%
Retaliation 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 14.3%
Race 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14.3%
Religion 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1%
National Origin 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1%
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7.1%
Total Bases 0 4 2 3 2 1 0 0 2 14 100%
Total
Complaints 0 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 10
Source: HUD, FHEO 2024
Fair Housing Audit
Every year the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) conducts an audit of rental properties in local communities to see how well they are conforming to fair housing. In 2024, ECHO focused on Disability. Specifically, it wanted to see if a potential renter who uses a wheelchair would face barriers in obtaining the housing of her choice. In 1988, the Federal Fair Housing Act was amended to include Disability as a protected class. It is illegal for housing providers to deny or treat an applicant differently based on their disability. This protection covers people with mental, intellectual, or physical impairments. ECHO tested 217 properties in 16 jurisdictions. The testing was conducted from March 2024 to May 2024. ECHO found that in 6% of the tests, the disabled tester faced different and/or unfair treatment in her search for housing. 178
Below is a graph from ECHO’s audit report showing the results by jurisdiction. The blue bars show the precent of tested cases with no discriminator y treatment. The red bars show the percent of cases with discriminatory tr eatment. Alameda City, Alameda County, Berkely, Livermore, Oakland, San Leandro, and Union City all had findings for discriminatory treatment. Livermore had the highest percentage of any jurisdiction at 20% with 2 out of 10 properties engaged in discriminatory treatment.
Source: ECHO Housing, Fair Housing Audit Report, FY 2023-2024
179
Chapter 6: Assessment of Past Goals, Actions, and Strategies Outcomes of the planned actions in the 2020 AI are summarized in the table located in the appendices. Responses identify the level of effectiveness that the goal or action had in addressing previous fair housing issues. Most of the past goals that were in the previous analysis of impediments have either been accomplished or are still ongoing.
180
Chapter 7: Fair Housing Findings, Impediments, and Planned Actions
This section summarized the findings, impediments and planned actions resulting from the analysis presented in this plan.
Findings
As a result of detailed demographic, economic, and housing analysis, along with a range of activities designed to foster public involvement and feedback, the following findings were made and impediments identified.
Demographic Shifts:
● Alameda County's population has grown since 1990 but recently declined slightly. Growth has been driven by foreign -born residents and residents of color , especially among Asian and Pacific Islander populations, while White and Black populations have decreased.
Housing Affordability and Cost Burden:
● Housing costs have significantly increased, outpacing income growth. Median home values rose by 64.5%, and median rents increased by nearly 49% from 2017 to 2023, intensifying affordability challenges for lower-income residents.
● A household would need to earn $107,280 annually to afford a two -bedroom apartment without being cost-burdened.
● Renters and seniors face significant affordability challenges; nearly 52% of renter households experience at least one housing issue.
Segregation and Displacement:
● Patterns of segregation persist, with residents of color more concentrated in rental -heavy, lower-income neighborhoods.
Homeownership and Racial Disparities:
● White and Asian households have the highest homeownership rates, while Black, Hispanic, and Native American households have the lowest rates.
● Certain cities, like Livermore and Berkeley, have disproportionately high White homeownership rates relative to their demographics.
Poverty and Income Disparities:
181
● Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents experience disproportionately higher poverty rates. Median incomes for Black and Hispanic residents are significantly lower than those of White and Asian residents, highlighting income disparities.
Disproportionate Housing Needs:
● People of color and low-income groups face higher rates of cost burden, overcrowding, and inadequate housing, underscoring systemic barriers in housing access. Cost -burdened households are mostly renters, including a large number of seniors.
Publicly Supported Housing:
● About 3.62% of Alameda County’s population resides in subsidized housing, slightly higher than the state average, but insufficient to meet the growing needs for affordable housing.
Education and Transportation:
● Low graduation rates for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students and high transit dependency in lower-income areas highlight educational and mobility challenges, particularly in areas with high populations of people of color.
● Educational attainment varies, with lower graduation rates in areas with high populations of people with color. Women earn significantly less than men with similar educational levels, impacting housing affordability.
Disability Access:
● Approximately 9.6% of residents live with disabilities, with higher concentrations among Black and American Indian residents. Many elderly residents with disabilities face housing affordability and accessibility issues.
● There are higher rates among American Indian, Alaska Native, and Black populations. The highest concentration of disability occurs in Oakland and areas with higher poverty and older housing stock.
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs):
● R/ECAPs in Alameda County are in the North and Central County aligning with regions of high populations of people of color and poverty, illustrating the intersection of race, income, and geographic disparity.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
According to HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, and based within the legal framework of federal and state laws, impediments to fair housing choice are:
182
● Any actions, omissions or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation or any other arbitrary factor that restricts housing choices or the availability of housing choices, or
● Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation or any other arbitrary factor.
To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove impediments to fair housing choice.
In addition, the participating jurisdictions, as part of the process to have their Housing Element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), completed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. The g oal of AFFH is to combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, undo historic patterns of segregation and lift barriers that restrict access in order to foster inclusive communities and achieve racial equality, fair housing choice, and opportunities for all residents.
The Participating Jurisdictions have identified the following impediments to fair housing:
1. Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections.
Analysis indicates that continued outreach and enforcement is needed to educate property owners, tenants, and those in the lending market about rights and obligations around fair housing protections and potential discriminatory practices.
2. Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities.
Fair housing laws offer protections for those with protected characteristics, however, data shows that people still experience discrimination despite these pro tections - particularly based on disability , race, and source of income . Further, some chara cteristics are not protected by law and are the most cited areas of discrimination, including criminal background, eviction history, and credit history . These barriers may prevent people from accessing housing in areas that offer the opportunities they may be seeking.
3. The region lacks the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the demands of low to moderate income households.
Consistently, throughout consulta tion stakeholders and the public cited the lack of affordable units as the number one barrier to housing o pportunity. Analysis of the cost of housing show significant increase in home val ues and the rental marketing making it 183
increasingly difficult for renters to find units they can afford and for residents to achieve homeownership.
4. Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
As property values climb, more property owners look to sell their units to realized profits.
When landlords sell properties with tenants residing in them, tenants face possible displacement due the units turning over from rental units or because of increasing rent costs. Community members cited displacement as a major impediment to accessing jobs close to home and maintaining connections that are rooted in community.
5. Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity.
As rents in crease, renters are forced to move farther from amenities to find afforda ble housing costs . The result of this displacement is difficulty in accessing jobs, reaching needed services, and increases in transportation costs in lieu of housing costs.
6. The region lacks the accessible units and supportive housing units needed to meet the demands of special needs households.
While affordable housing is la cking in general, accessible affordable housing is even more scarce. According to community stakeholders, t hose with physical disabilit ies and supportive housing needs are the most difficult to house.
7. Increasing rent costs have disparate impacts on special needs households that tend to have fixed incomes and fewer options for housing that accommodates their needs.
Individuals with fixed incomes are the most vulnerable in areas with significant affordability challenges. As housing costs and other costs of living rise, their fixed incomes often see no or little increase s making them most at ri sk for homelessness. Households with fixed incomes include seniors and people with disabilities.
8. Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities.
Community residents expressed concerns about the inability to navigate systems that might provide support for their housing and other basic needs. They often do not know where to start or do not have the means to navigate the pro cess of follow up, documentation requirements, access to transportation to make appointments, and other logistics required to secure assistance, especially when they are already facing homelessness or struggling to maintain their housing.
184
9. Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
As a region, Alame da County has many resources that se rve its residents. However, the challenges to meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income people as well as people with special needs while simultaneously addressing discrimination are significant. To make the most impact on the barriers to housing opportunity, a coordinated approach is needed.
Proposed Actions
The following chart summarizes the proposed actions to be undertaken by the Participating Jurisdictions to meet the needs of the region as identified in the findings and impediments.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GOALS AND ACTIONS
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
ACTION 1A: Continue to contract with housing service providers to educate home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders regarding fair housing law and recommended practices, including the importance of reasonable accommodation under ADA, protections for source of income, and the impact of using credit, criminal, and eviction history to assess tenant applications.
ACTION 1B: Create or coordinate with local organizations on the creation of tenant advocacy materials that will provide easy to understand summaries of tenant rights and information on resources that can help with housing challenges including where to find housing assistance and where to report housing concerns. These materials will be available in multiple languages and digitally and on paper for those who do not regularly access the internet.
ACTION 1C: Seek ways to increase resident access to fair housing services, such as improved marketing of services, strategies for bringing opportunities into the community through partnership with service organizations, and incorporating fair housing considerations as a routine practice of program administration.
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
ACTION 2A: Encourage landlords in high resource areas to market their available units to Housing Choice Voucher Holders through education, incentives, and interagency coordination that may help to streamline housing navigation and inspection processes.
ACTION 2B: Work to connect tenants at risk of eviction or displacement with services that stabilize housing.
ACTION 2C: Monitor the status of units at risk of conversion and work proactively with property owners to identify strategies that will allow units to remain affordable.
ACTION 2D: Explore options for limiting redevelopment of existing affordable housing projects to other uses and to require replacement housing be provided when project will result in loss of low-moderate income housing units.
ACTION 2E: Provide home repair assistance to income-qualified homeowners to allow homeowners to maintain housing safety and remain in their homes.
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ACTION 3A: Continue to encourage construction of affordable housing throughout the region, including through the use of public land and enhanced coordination with nonprofit developers.
ACTION 3B: Encourage construction of accessory dwelling units.
ACTION 3C: Increase housing density consistent with state requirements and encourage applicants to apply for density bonuses as a tool to produce affordable housing and promote new housing.
ACTION 3D: Explore enhanced incentives for developers of affordable housing including incentives such as reduced fees, expedited processing, and regulatory streamlining.
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS ACTION 4A: Provide accessibility improvements in rehabilitation activities to increase the ability of physically disabled people to obtain and retain appropriate housing and live independently.
ACTION 4B: Facilitate housing development and assistance programs for special needs households, including seniors, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused.
ACTION 4C: Continue outreach and engagement efforts to assist unhoused residents in securing safe affordable shelter and associated supportive services.
GOAL FIVE: ENHANCE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS TO PROMOTE COLLABORATION IN MEETING REGIONAL CHALLENGES ACTION 5A: Actively collaborate across jurisdictions, including through coordination with the Alameda County Housing Portal and attendance at quarterly meetings with the Participating Jurisdictions to discuss fair housing strategies, share information, and provide updates on goals to better coordinate regional fair housing efforts.
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities. ● Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections. ● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 1A:
Continue to
contract with
housing service
providers to
educate home
seekers, landlords,
property managers,
real estate agents,
and lenders
regarding fair
housing law and
recommended
practices, including
the importance of
reasonable
accommodation
under ADA,
protections for
source of income,
and the impact of
using credit,
criminal, and
eviction history to
assess tenant
applications.
X X X X X X X X X X X
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities. ● Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections. ● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Human
Services
Eden
Council
for Hope
and
Opportuni
ty
Recreatio
n &
Communi
ty
Services
w/ECHO
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services,
contract
with
ECHO
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Contract w
ECHO
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
and
contracted
legal
services/com
munity
organizations
Housing
Division
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
us
Annually continuou
s
Every 4
years
Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually
during
planning
period
Annually Ongoing
Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
6.G
Program
13, 9
Program 5 Program DD Program
5.1.1 (A)
Program 17 Program HE-
6.(A)
ACTION 1B:
Create and/or
coordinate with
other local
organizations on
the creation of
tenant advocacy
materials that will
provide easy to
understand
summaries of
X X X X X X X X X
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities. ● Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections. ● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
tenant rights and
information on
resources that can
help with housing
challenges
including where to
find housing
assistance and
where to report
housing concerns.
These materials will
be available
digitally and on
paper for those
who do not
regularly access the
internet.
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Human
Services
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities. ● Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections. ● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
us
Continuou
s
Start Mid
2025, then
ongoing
Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
6.B and
6.G
Program
13 Program 5 New action-
Program QQ
Program 18 Program
HE-6.E
ACTION 1C:
Seek ways to
increase resident
access to fair
housing services,
such as improved
marketing of
services, strategies
for bringing
opportunities into
the community
through
partnership with
service
organizations, and
incorporating fair
housing
considerations as a
routine practice of
program
administration.
X X X X X X x x X X X
GOAL ONE: PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION THROUGH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities. ● Residents, homebuyers, and property owners have insufficient understanding of fair housing requirements and protections. ● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division,
with
ECHO
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Ongoing Ongoing Annually Annually Continuously Annually Ongoing Ongoing Annually Annually Annually Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
6.G
Program 5 Program FF
& PP
Program
5.1.1 (D)
Programs 17
& 18
Program
HE-6.A,B
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 2A:
Encourage
landlords in high
resource areas to
market their
available units to
Housing Choice
Voucher Holders
through education,
incentives, and
interagency
coordination that
may help to
streamline housing
navigation and
inspection
processes.
X X X X X X X X X X
Responsible Entity Housing
and
Human
Services
Division
Housing
Authority
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Annually Ongoing/
Annually
Annually Biennially Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
12 Program CC Program
3.4.2 (B)
Program HE-
4.B
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 2B:
Work to connect
tenant at risk of
eviction or
displacement with
services to stabilize
housing.
X X x X X X X X X x X X X X
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Human
Services
Eden
Council
for Hope
and
Opportuni
ty
Recreatio
n &
Communi
ty
Services
w/ECHO
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division,
with
ECHO and
Eviction
Defense
Center
Economic
Development
and Housing
Division
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Contract w
ECHO &
Centro Legal
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Community
& Recreation
Services
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
us
Annually continuou
s
Continuo
usly with
contracto
rs
Annually Continuous Continuously Continuous Annually during
planning
period
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing ongoing
Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
6.F.
Program
13 Program 5 Program QQ Program
3.4.2(D)
Program 9 Program HE-
7.B
ACTION 2C:
Monitor the status
of units at risk of
conversion and
work proactively
X n/a X X X X X x X N/A N/A N/a
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
with property
owners to identify
strategies that will
allow units to
remain affordable.
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Community
Development
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
usly
Annually Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
2.K.
Program
15, 17
Program AA Program
3.5.1 (A)
Program 3 Program HE-
3.A
ACTION 2D:
Explore options for
limiting
redevelopment of
existing affordable
housing projects to
other uses and to
require
replacement
housing be
n/a X X x X N/A N/a
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
provided when
project will result in
loss of low-
moderate income
housing units.
Responsible Entity Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Planning &
Building
Department
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
usly
Continuous Continuous
Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
2.L.
Program 3 Program HE-
3.A
Policies HE-
3.1-3.4
ACTION 2E:
Provide home
repair assistance to
income-qualified
homeowners to
allow homeowners
to maintain
housing safety and
X X x X X 2025
Implementati
on
X X x x N/A N/A
GOAL TWO: ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF DISPLACEMENT AMONG RESIDENTS IN HIGH COST AND GENTRIFYING AREAS.
IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
remain in their
homes
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and
Human
Services
Division
Recreatio
n &
Communi
ty
Services
w/CBDG
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
us
Continuo
us
continuou
s
Continuo
usly
Ongoing Continuously Continuously annually
Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
5.A., 5.B.
Program
17 Program
6 Program X Program 1 Program HE-
5.A
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the demands of low to moderate income households. ● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 3A:
Continue to
encourage
construction of
affordable housing
throughout the
region, including
through the use of
public land and
enhanced
coordination with
nonprofit
developers.
X X x X X X X X X X X X X
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and Human
Services
Division
Planning,
Building,
and
Transporta
tion
Departmen
t
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Planning
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuou
s
Continuous continuou
s
Ongoing,
with RFPs
Ongoing Continuous Continuous Continuous Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
2, 3
Programs
8,9,10
Program
4 Program G Program
3.2.2 (A-D)
Program 10 Program HE-
2.A, B
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the demands of low to moderate income households. ● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 3B:
Encourage
construction of
accessory dwelling
units.
X X x X X X X X x X N/A X N/A
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and Human
Services
Division
Planning,
Building,
and
Transporta
tion
Departmen
t
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
and
Planning
Departme
nt
Planning
Division
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Planning
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division,
Building
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuou
s
Continuous continuou
s
Continuou
s
Ongoing Continuous Continuous Continuous Ongoing Ongoing 2025 - ongoing
Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
1.K, 2.C.,
2.J.
Program 4,
5, 17
Program
1 Program D Program
1.3.1 (A)
Program 13 Program HE-
2.D
ACTION 3C:
Increase housing
density consistent
with state
requirements and
encourage
X X x X X X X x X N/A
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the demands of low to moderate income households. ● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
applicants to apply
for density bonuses
as a tool to
produce affordable
housing and
promote new
housing.
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and Human
Services
Division
Planning,
Building,
and
Transporta
tion
Departmen
t
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
and
Planning
Departme
nt
Planning
Division
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Planning
Planning &
Building
Department
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
X
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuo
us
Continuous continuou
s
Continuo
us
Ongoing Continuous Continuous Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
1.A, 2.A.
3.G.
Program 6 Program
4, 6
Program A Program
3.1.2 (A)
Programs 5
& 10
Policy HE-2.4
ACTION 3D:
Explore enhanced
incentives for
developers of
X X x X X x X N/A X
GOAL THREE: CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the number of affordable housing units needed to meet the demands of low to moderate income households. ● Increasing rent costs are pushing residents out of communities where they wish to live and where they have connections to support systems and opportunity. ● Property turnover is resulting in displacement of residents and high costs of housing leave few options accessing new housing that is safe, decent, affordable, and near opportunity areas.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
affordable housing
including incentives
such as reduced
fees, expedited
processing, and
regulatory
streamlining
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
Housing
and Human
Services
Division
Planning,
Building,
and
Transporta
tion
Departmen
t
communit
y
Develpme
nt
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
and
Planning
Departme
nt
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Planning &
Building
Department
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuous continuou
s
Continuou
s
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing ongoing
Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
2 Program 8,
9, 21
program
4 Program 10 Program HE-
2.B
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the accessible units and supportive housing units needed to meet the demands of special needs households. ● Increasing rent costs have disparate impacts on special needs households that tend to have fixed incomes and fewer options for housing that accommodates their needs. ● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
ACTION 4A:
Provide
accessibility
improvements in
rehabilitation
activities to
increase the ability
of physically
disabled people to
obtain and retain
appropriate
housing and live
independently
X X X X X X N/A X
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Agency
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Community
Developmen
t &
Engagement
Unit
Housing
Preservation
Services Unit
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the accessible units and supportive housing units needed to meet the demands of special needs households. ● Increasing rent costs have disparate impacts on special needs households that tend to have fixed incomes and fewer options for housing that accommodates their needs. ● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
Timeframe for
Implementation
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
Housing Element
Tie Back
Program
4 Program X Program 1 Program HE-
7.A
ACTION 4B:
Facilitate housing
development and
assistance
programs for
special needs
households,
including seniors,
farmworkers,
persons with
disabilities, and the
unhoused.
X x X X X X x X X X X X
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
community
developme
nt &
Recreation
&
Communit
y Services
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division,
Planning
Division
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Housing
Developmen
t Services
Divisions
Housing
Division,
Planning
Division,
Building
Division,
Engineering/
Transportati
on
Department.
Public Works
Department,
Human
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the accessible units and supportive housing units needed to meet the demands of special needs households. ● Increasing rent costs have disparate impacts on special needs households that tend to have fixed incomes and fewer options for housing that accommodates their needs. ● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
Services
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
continuous Ongoing Ongoing Continuous Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
4 Program 2,
3 Program K, O
& BB
Program
1.5.3 (B, C, E
& F)
Programs 15
& 16
Program HE-
7.D
ACTION 4C:
Continue outreach
and engagement
efforts to assist
unhoused residents
in securing safe
affordable shelter
and associated
supportive services.
X x X X X X X X N/A N/A
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Developm
ent
Departme
nt (HCD)
recreation
&
Communit
y Services
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Division
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Housing &
Human
Services
Housing &
Community
Developmen
t
Department
Community
Homelessnes
s Services
Unit
Housing
Division
Housing
Division,
Human
Services
Department,
Alameda
County, Non-
profits
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
Development
Department
Alameda
County Non-
GOAL FOUR: EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● The region lacks the accessible units and supportive housing units needed to meet the demands of special needs households. ● Increasing rent costs have disparate impacts on special needs households that tend to have fixed incomes and fewer options for housing that accommodates their needs. ● Discriminatory barriers prevent tenants from accessing housing opportunities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of
Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authority
profit
partners
Timeframe for
Implementation
Continuou
s
ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Continuous Continuous Ongoing Ongoing Housing Element Tie
Back
Program
4.I
Program 3,
6 Program BB Program
3.4.3 (B)
Program 16 Program HE-
7.B, E, F
GOAL XXX: ENHANCE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS TO PROMOTE COLLABORATION IN MEETING REGIONAL CHALLENGES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authorit
y
ACTION 5A:
Actively
collaborate
across
jurisdictions,
including through
coordination with
the Alameda
County Housing
Portal and
attendance at
quarterly meetings
with the
Participating
Jurisdictions to
discuss fair housing
strategies, share
information, and
provide updates on
goals to better
coordinate regional
fair housing efforts.
X X x X X X X X X X X X X
Responsible Entity Alameda
County,
Housing
and
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Housing
and
Human
Services,
Alameda
County
HCD
Communit
y
Developm
ent,
Alameda
County
HCD
Housing
and
Communit
y Services
Division
Economic
Development
& Housing
Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Housing
Division
Housing Housing &
Community
Development
Department
Economic &
Community
GOAL XXX: ENHANCE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONS TO PROMOTE COLLABORATION IN MEETING REGIONAL CHALLENGES IMPEDIMENTS ADDRESSED:
● Systems feel disjoined and hard to navigate for people seeking affordable housing options and access to opportunities. ● Significant housing challenges require coordinated approaches to meeting the needs of communities.
County
of
Alameda
City of
Alameda
Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro
Union
City
Housing
Authority
of the City
of Alameda
Alameda
County
Housing
Authority
Berkeley
Housing
Authority
Livermore
Housing
Authority
Oakland
Housing
Authorit
y
Departme
nt (HCD)
Development
Department
Timeframe for
Implementation
Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing ongoing Housing Element
Tie Back
N/A Program 6 NA N/A
205
APPENDICES
206
SURVEY RESULTS
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
1. I am completing this survey for:
Myself My organization
0 500
1000
1500 1565
96%
69 4%
2. What City do you live within Alameda County?
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
a. Alameda
q. Oakland
d. Berkeley
h. Dublin
m. Hayward
k. Fremont
t. San Leandro
x. I do not live in Alameda County
b. Albany
w. Union City
s. Pleasanton
i. Emeryville
o. Livermore
f. Castro Valley
c. Ashland
e. Castlewood
p. Newark
g. Cherryland
u. San Lorenzo
j. Fairview
r. Piedmont
l. Happy Valley
v. Sunol
n. Hillcrest Knolls
589 36%
222 14%
142 9%
79 5%
73 4%
67 4%
63 4%
51 3%
49 3%
44 3%
40 2%
35 2%
34 2%
31 2%
28 2%
26 2%
17 1%
13 1%
12 1%
8 0%
5 0%
2 0%
2 0%
1 0%
3. What City do you work within Alameda County?
0 100 200 300 400 500
a. Alameda
x. I do not work in Alameda County
q. Oakland
d. Berkeley
m. Hayward
k. Fremont
h. Dublin
b. Albany
t. San Leandro
f. Castro Valley
s. Pleasanton
i. Emeryville
w. Union City
o. Livermore
c. Ashland
g. Cherryland
e. Castlewood
u. San Lorenzo
p. Newark
r. Piedmont
j. Fairview
v. Sunol
n. Hillcrest Knolls
l. Happy Valley
423 20%
358 17%
263 12%
149 7%
112 5%
91 4%
86 4%
73 3%
72 3%
60 3%
60 3%
54 3%
52 2%
47 2%
46 2%
34 2%
32 1%
31 1%
29 1%
21 1%
20 1%
15 1%
12 1%
9 0%
4. Which of the following best describes where you currently live? 0 200 400 600
a.I own my home
b.I pay rent to live in my home
f.I am a housing voucher holder
e.I live in public housing or other subsidized housing (e.g. you have regularly occurring income certi cations) c.I live rent free in a friend’s or family’s home
d.I live in temporary housing or transitional housing
h.I do not live in a shelter, but I am experiencing homelessness (e.g. live in car, live outside, live in a safe parking program area) g.I live in a shelter (provided by an organization/church) for those experiencing homelessness Other entries
620 38%
555 34%
128 8%
117 7%
84 5%
48 3%
35 2%
8 0%
30 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
5. If you receive a housing voucher of any kind, how di cult was it to nd a landlord that accepted your voucher? b. Somewhat di cult a. Very di cult c. Not di cult d. Easy 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 54
42%
43 34%
22 17%
9 7%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
6. If given the opportunity, would you move?
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
YES
NO
1033 64%
584 36%
7. Why do you want to move?
0 50 100 150 200
a.I want to live in a safer neighborhood
p.I want more a ordable rent
b.I want to live in a healthier neighborhood
k.I need a bigger house/apartment
f.I want a home in better interior condition
Other entries
n.I want to buy a home
h.I want a home with better amenities (kitchen/laundry/internet facilities, outdoor space, common areas, community o ce, pool) g.I want a home with better accessible features for my disability c.I don't want roommates anymore
e.I want better access to good schools
i.I want to be closer to friends and/or family
d.I do not feel welcome in my neighborhood
o.I am living with friends/family who want me to leave
j.I want better access to parks/open space
l.I need a smaller house/apartment
s.I want to be closer to my job
w. Other (please specify)
q.I want better access to transportation
r.I want better access to services/stores
v.I want to be closer to a community where more people speak my language t.I want better access to job opportunities
m.I want better access to health facilities
u.I want to be closer to a place of worship
192 18%
105 10%
94 9%
86 8%
84 8%
70 7%
83 8%
77 7%
42 4%
40 4%
40 4%
29 3%
24 2%
23 2%
10 1%
9 1%
9 1%
7 1%
6 1%
4 0%
3 0%
2 0%
1 0%
1 0%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
8. Do you currently live with a disability, or does a member of your household live with a disability? c. No a.Yes, I live with a disability b.Yes, a household member lives with a disability. 0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1044
62%
397
24%
240
14%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
9. What disabilities are experienced by you or your household member? 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
a.Mobility impairments
f.Chronic illness (e.g. asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV) g.Mental health (e.g. depression, bipolar disorder)
e.Neurological development disorders (e.g. sensory impairments, ADHD, ADD, Autism, Tourette Syndrome) c.Hearing impairments
b.Visual impairments
d.Learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia, dyscalculia)
h.Prefer not to answer.
i. Other (please specify)
Other entries
260 24%
185 17%
176 16%
145 13%
87 8%
83 8%
83 8%
31 3%
8 1%
27 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
10. Do you and/or a household member experience any of the following housing challenges? 0 50 100 150
a.The home I live in does not meet the needs of myself/my household member with a disability g.I do not experience any housing challenges in my neighborhood. b.I am afraid my rent will go up if I make a request for an accommodation for myself/my household member with a disability e.Housing with appropriate accommodations for myself/my household member with a disability is not a ordable d.It is di cult for myself/my household member with a disability to get around my neighborhood because there is a lack of accessible paths of travel c.My landlord refuses to modify our unit to accommodate myself/my household member with a disability f.My landlord did not accept my service/emotional support animal or the service/emotional support animal of my household member. h. Other (please specify)
Other entries
160 20%
145 18%
133 16%
122 15%
72 9%
68 8%
21 3%
17 2%
69 9%
11. If used, please rank the level of di culty in using speci c transportation methods in your community from very di cult (0) to very easy (5). 1 2 3 4 5 N/A Radio-Button0
0 200 400 600
Walking
Wheelchair
Driving (Someone else drives)
AC Transit
Tri Valley Wheels Bus
BART
East Bay Paratransit
Wheels Bus Dial-A-Ride
Uber Assist or Uber WAV
Accessible taxi service
Parking
Other
6%
4%
4%
6%
3%
5%
3%
3%
3%
4%
6%
1%
9%
8%
6%
7%
5%
9%
5%
4%
4%
4%
7%
3%
16%
11%
12%
15%
10%
14%
9%
7%
9%
7%
16%
7%
16%
10%
20%
19%
9%
18%
9%
7%
12%
8%
16%
7%
38%
9%
34%
20%
10%
21%
10%
9%
15%
11%
19%
7%
7%
39%
12%
17%
39%
11%
36%
40%
29%
35%
8%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
18%
11%
15%
24%
22%
28%
30%
29%
30%
29%
38%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
12. Rank your agreement with the following statements from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (5). Select your choices. 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 100 200 300 400 500
I live near high quality parks and recreation facilities I live near grocery stores with healthy and convenient options I live a convenient distance from healthcare facilities I live near supportive friends/family/community members Housing in my neighborhood is in poor condition or needs repair I live in an area with a higher rate of crime
It is di cult to nd good schools in an area that I can a ord I live in an area with easy access to job opportunities I have di culty getting to places I want to go because of problems with transportation I feel the water, air, and soil is healthy where I live 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8%
7%
6%
8%
13%
15%
10%
7%
13%
7%
13%
11%
12%
11%
13%
16%
9%
14%
12%
12%
23%
20%
24%
18%
20%
19%
17%
23%
16%
20%
21%
23%
25%
23%
16%
12%
14%
18%
9%
19%
21%
27%
23%
23%
12%
14%
14%
12%
10%
14%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
13. In the past ve years, have you had to move out of your residence in Alameda County when you did not want to move? 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
NO
YES
1240 76%
385 24%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
14. Why did you have to move?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
a.Rent became una ordable
j.Personal/family reasons
b.Homeownership became una ordable
l.There were unsafe conditions in my home
m.There were unsafe conditions in my neighborhood
e.My landlord wanted to remodel/renovate
h.My landlord was selling their home/unit
c.I was evicted due to not paying rent
g.My landlord wanted to rent to someone else (non-relative) d.My landlord wanted to move back in
f.My landlord wanted to rent to a relative
k.There was no reason for my eviction
i.I was evicted due to residence rules violation
n. Other (please specify)
Other entries
124 18%
104 15%
66 10%
62 9%
49 7%
47 7%
42 6%
36 5%
29 4%
27 4%
26 4%
16 2%
9 1%
4 1%
34 5%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
15. If you selected “Rent became una ordable” or “Homeownership became una ordable,” please select the reasons why it became una ordable 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
a.Rent increased to an una ordable level
b.Lost job or reduced hours
c.Utility expenses increased
d.No longer able to make mortgage payments
e.Mortgage payment increased to una ordable levels
f.Maintenance costs became una ordable
g.Taxes/insurance increased to una ordable levels
Unable to purchase home
Disabled
h. Other I became permanently disabled and on xed income Disabled with no assistance
Landlord doubled rent!
h. Other (please specify)
50 42%
23 19%
16 13%
10 8%
7 6%
4 3%
4 3%
1 1%
1 1%
1 1%
1 1%
1 1%
1 1%
16. Rank your agreement with the following statements from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (5). Select your choices. If you don't know, check "I don't know."
0 1 2 3 4 5 I don't know
0 200 400 600
I would be supportive of locating low-income housing in my neighborhood I would be supportive of locating new apartment buildings in my neighborhood I would be supportive of locating new housing for low-income seniors in my neighborhood I would be supportive of locating a residential home for people recovering from substance abuse in my neighborhood I would be supportive of locating a residential home for people with physical and/or developmental disabilities in my neighborhood 0 0
0 0
0 6%
6%
4%
7%
5%
8%
7%
7%
9%
6%
14%
14%
13%
14%
14%
17%
18%
17%
15%
19%
36%
32%
41%
20%
33%
8%
6%
5%
7%
6%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
17. How familiar are you with fair housing laws?
b. Somewhat familiar a. Not familiar c. Very familiar
0 200
400
600
800
1000
913
56%
471
29%
236
15%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
18. Do you know where to le a complaint if you felt that your fair housing rights have been violated? 0 200 400 600
b.No
a.Yes
c.I’m not sure
635 39%
565 35%
422 26%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
19. Where would you le a complaint if you felt that your fair housing rights had been violated? Data Responses
HUD 30
Department of Housing and Urban Development 14
court of law 10
Housing Authority 8
Housing authority 8
Department of Fair Employment and Housing 8
Hud 7
Federal Housing Commission (FHCA) 6
Other entries 396
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
20. Have you ever experienced housing discrimination during any point in the housing process, including searching for housing. 0 200 400 600 800 1000
b. No
a. Yes
c. I'm not sure
855 53%
455 28%
309 19%
21. On what basis do you believe the discrimination occurred? 0 50 100 150 200
g.Race or ethnicity
i.Income level
j.Source of income (such as receiving public assistance, child support, rental assistance, or WIC) c.Sex or gender identity (such as being female, male, transgender, or not identifying with a particular gender) f.Age (such as being young or elderly)
b.Familial status (such as having children or being pregnant) l.Physical, mental, or behavioral disability or disabling condition d.National origin or the country where a person was born h.Marital status or spousal a liation (such as being married, domestic partnership, single, or divorced) a.Religion
e.Ancestry
m.Criminal background, felony conviction, or exiting incarceration k.Creed or a person's beliefs
n. Other (please specify)
Other entries
190 17%
178 16%
103 9%
99 9%
93 8%
89 8%
71 6%
67 6%
56 5%
55 5%
42 4%
26 2%
22 2%
5 0%
24 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
22. Who do you believe was responsible or involved in the discrimination? a.Landlord or property manager c.Real estate agent b.Mortgage Lender d. Other (please specify) Other entries 0 100
200
300
400
337
57%
118
20%
96 16%
12 2% 29
5%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
23. Did you le a Fair Housing complaint due to the discrimination you experienced? 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
b. No
a. Yes
I don't know
278 61%
158 35%
17 4%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
24. To whom did you report the incident?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
b. Fair housing group
a. Government Agency
c. I'm not sure
d. Other (please specify)
the city of Hayward on B street
attorney
HUD
Local nonpro ts and advocacy groups.
City of Oakland
Relevant industry associations
Local ombudsman o ces
State's Housing Trust Fund
Local consumer protection agencies
Legal aid organizations
Local legal aid societies
Relevant trade associations, e.g. the complaints unit of the Real Estate Agents Association (REALTORS®) 102 50%
76 38%
10 5%
2 1%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
1 0%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
25. Why did you not report the incident?
0 50 100 150 200
e.I did not think it would make a di erence.
b.I did not know where to report it.
d.I was not sure of my rights.
c.I was afraid of retaliation.
a.I was not involved or do not have personal knowledge of the incident. 185 43%
85 20%
83 19%
70 16%
10 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
26. Do you feel that fair housing laws are adequately enforced in Alameda County? 0 200 400 600 800
c. I don't know
b. No
a. Yes
708 44%
474 29%
428 27%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
27. Based on your knowledge of fair housing law, do you think that fair housing laws should be changed? 0 200 400 600 800
c. I don't know
a. Yes
b. No
793 49%
454 28%
364 23%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
28. If you answered “yes,” how should fair housing laws be changed? Data Responses
Inclusion of gender identity, sexual orientation, age, marital status, and domestic violence victim status in protected classes. 4 Encourage dialogue and understanding between residents of di erent backgrounds in the community 3 Streamline the complaint process with online complaint channels and multi-language support. 2 Making the complaints process simpler and faster for victims to le complaints 2 Support and advocate for fair housing policies and participate in community activities to raise public awareness of housing discrimination issues 2 Strengthening oversight and enforcement of the housing market by regulatory agencies to ensure that fair housing laws are e ectively enforced 2 I led a complaint with a city inspector with the city of Hayward Franchesca Davis she completely ignored my complaint and took the side of landlord. She started having conversation and texting with the landlord and pretended that she didn’t know that I had moved out due to all the mold in the house and my kids and myself getting sick from it. She didn’t have him x the mold and foundation issues in the house at all that I originally complained about and became extremely friendly with the landlord. I felt extremely discriminated as a single mother of 3 kids. I also went to the city of Hayward to get information of tenants rights and got the run around from them and was told to seek The county of Alameda the the county of Alameda sent me an email stating I should be seeking the city of Hayward. Some thing has to change and the city inspectors of Hayward need to be over looked and maybe have a secret shopper investigate them because they are not doing the right thing. 1 More consideration given to current residential standards and long standing codes and ordinances 1 Other entries 341
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
29. Are you aware of any educational activities or training opportunities available to you to learn about fair housing laws? 0 200 400 600 800
b. No
a. Yes
c. I don't know
785 49%
437 27%
384 24%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
30. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, have you participated in fair housing activities or training? 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don't know
281 63%
157 35%
7 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
31. Have you witnessed any barriers to fair housing choice in the rental housing market? 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
b. No
a. Yes
c. I don't know
571 36%
544 34%
487 30%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
32. If you answered “yes” to the previous question, please explain what type of impediments to fair housing choice you have witnessed.
Data Responses
N/A 12
不 6
NA 5
no 4
n/a 4
None 4
Discrimination in advertising 4
Na 3
Other entries 503
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
33. Please share any additional comments regarding fair housing in the box below.
Data Responses
N/A 11
None 9
NA 6
n 5
性别和宗教歧视 5
A number of non-pro t organizations also provide assistance and resources to support the preservation of fair housing rights 5 As a last resort, you may also want to consider taking legal action by ling a lawsuit in court. 5 no,I think good 4
Other entries 511
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
34. How old are you?
b.Adult (age 31-61) a.Senior (age 62+) c.Young adult (age 18-30) e.Prefer not to say d.Youth (age 13-17) 0 200
400
600
800
1000
894
56%
388
24%
282
18%
33 2%
0 0%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
35. What is your gender?
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
b.Female
a.Male
f.Prefer not to say
e.Non-binary
d.Transgender
c.Questioning
1039 65%
477 30%
45 3%
13 1%
12 1%
11 1%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
36. How many people are in your household (including yourself)? 0 100 200 300 400
c.Three (3)
b.Two (2)
a.One (1)
d.Four (4)
e.Five (5)
f.Six (6)
h.Prefer not to say
g.Seven (7) +
402 25%
395 25%
349 22%
282 18%
94 6%
32 2%
31 2%
17 1%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
37. Do you have any children under the age of 18 currently living with you? b.No a.Yes c.Prefer not to say
0 200
400
600
800
1000
869
54%
704
44%
27 2%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
38. What is your race/ethnicity?
a.White/Caucasian b.Black/African American e.Asian f.Hispanic or Latino g.Prefer not to say Other entries 0 200
400
600
800
717
40%
335
19%
205
12%
168
9%
135
8%
222
12%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
39. What is your annual household income for all adults in your household? 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
h.$100,000 +
b.$10,000 to $24,999
c.$25,000 to $39,999
e.$55,000 to $69,999
f.$70,000 to $84,999
d.$40,000 to $54,999
i.Prefer not to say
a.Less than $10,000
g.$85,000 to $99,999
276 17%
214 13%
201 13%
199 12%
168 10%
167 10%
160 10%
114 7%
104 6%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
40. How much of your gross household income goes towards paying housing costs, including utilities? a.One-third or less (0-30%) b.Between one-third and one-half (31-50%) c.One-half (51%) or more d.Prefer not to say 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
571
36%
485
30%
422
26%
126
8%
A l a m e d a C o u n t y R e g i o n a l F a i r H o u s i n g S u r v e y ( 2 0 2 4 )
41. What language do you primarily speak at home?
0 500 1000 1500
e. English
d. Chinese
q. Spanish
u.Prefer not to say
a. Arabic
c. Cambodian
b. Armenian
f. Farsi
i. Hindi
o. Punjabi
k. Korean
r. Tagalog
t. Vietnamese
v. Other (please specify)
Other entries
1406 87%
55 3%
39 2%
34 2%
13 1%
12 1%
11 1%
11 1%
5 0%
5 0%
4 0%
4 0%
3 0%
2 0%
18 1%
248
PAST ACTIONS SUMMARY CHART
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Fair housing outreach and enforcement.
ACTIVITY 1A:
The participating jurisdictions will continue to contract with fair housing service providers to educate home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders regarding fair housing law and recommended practices, including the importance of reasonable accommodation under ADA; to mediate conflicts between home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders; and to continue fair housing testing and audits.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Berkeley Housing Authority Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda The City of Alameda partners with Eden Counsel for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing services and education for tenants and landlords. In FY 2023-24 ECHO responded to 149 fair housing inquiries. The Housing Counselor opened 67 fair housing cases and 72 tenant/landlord cases during the reporting period.
City of Berkeley Awarded Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) $35,000 in CDBG from PY20-PY24 City of Emeryville The City of Emeryville created a Below Market Rate Rental Training Program in September 2020 and one of the modules focused on how Property Managers should handle Reasonable Accommodation Requests. In 2020/21, the City assisted in advertising the Virtual Fair Housing Trainings conducted by ECHO, during COVID to its Housing Listserv. The City continued to contract with ECHO during the reporting period to provide oversight and administration of the Emeryville tenant/landlord relations ordinance. ECHO also contracted annually with Alameda County Urban Consortium and provided fair housing and tenant landlord services for the Urban Consortium jurisdictions, including Emeryville.
Lastly, the 2023 -2031 Housing Element was adopted in 2022 and includes Program PP (Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan), which identifies that the City will modify its Affordable Housing Agreement going forward to require BMR Property Managers to participate in Fair Housing trainings at least once every two years.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont funded Project Sentinel to administer it's Fair Housing and Tenant -Landlord Program with CDBG funds in the following amounts and program years:
FY 20-21: $113,300
FY 21-22: $110,000
FY 22-23: $109,000
FY 23-24: $103,000
FY 24-25: $98,111
City of Hayward The City contracts with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to conduct fair housing testing to determine instances of discrimination and investigate tenant complaints of discrimination and to provide training to both landlords and tenants to incre ase awareness of fair housing policies and rights ECHO also provides mediation services to help resolve disputes between renters and landlords.
City of Livermore The City provides grants to non-profit housing education and advocacy organizations (ECHO Housing and Centro Legal) to conduct fair housing education, financial education, first -time homebuyer education, and tenant protection counseling. The City also hosts workshops throughout the year on fair housing, homebuyer education, and tenant protection programs in person and online.
City of Oakland The City fulfilled this action, providing funds to the East Bay Community Law Center (EBLC) to do this work. On average, the nonprofits working with EBCLC helped 500 people per year City of San Leandro From PY 2020 through PY 2024, the City of San Leandro maintained a contract with ECHO Housing to provide presentations and training on Fair Housing to property management companies, area realtors/brokers, and interested first-time homebuyers.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (AHA) continues to provide information about fair housing and reasonable accommodation in all briefing packets and numerous landlord and participant newsletters. When the website was redesigned, fair housing and reasonable accommodation links were included in the footers, so the links appear on every page.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to provide fair housing education and notices to program applicants and participants through program participation materials and its website on fair housing law and reasonable accommodations. HACA also continues to provide annual fair housing training for its staff and refers applicants, participants, and the general public to agencies that provide fair housing services on an as-needed basis.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Fair housing outreach and enforcement.
ACTIVITY 1A:
The participating jurisdictions will continue to contract with fair housing service providers to educate home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders regarding fair housing law and recommended practices, including the importance of reasonable accommodation under ADA; to mediate conflicts between home seekers, landlords, property managers, real estate agents, and lenders; and to continue fair housing testing and audits.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continued to provide education and notices through briefings and program participation materials on fair housing laws on reasonable accommodations.
Pleasanton Housing Division The city continues to annually contract with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing services to Pleasanton residents. ECHO Housing also continues to conduct its annual fair housing audit report.
Union City HCD The City has funded agencies like ECHO annually to provide fair housing outreach and enforcement services.
Urban County /Alameda
County Housing and
Community Development
(HCD)
ECHO has received $85,000 annually for the past 5 years for fair housing and tenant/landlord services.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Fair housing outreach and enforcement.
ACTIVITY 1B:
Participating jurisdictions will seek ways to increase resident access to fair housing services, such as improved marketing of services, improved landlord education, and improved tenant screening services to avoid owner bias.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Berkeley ECHO Webpage linked to City of Berkeley Webpage for Fair Housing: https://berkeleyca.gov/doing - business/operating-berkeley/landlords/fair-access-
housing#:~:text=Rental%20housing%20providers%20in%20Berkeley,Inquire%20about%20criminal%2 0history
City of Fremont The City of Fremont staff meets with our fair housing program's operator along with our tenant - landlord mediators to discuss how the program is working and how it can be improved. For example, we added zoom as an option for meetings/mediations due to the pandemic and have kept that method as an option after because it is convenient for all parties.
City of Hayward The City updated its website to include a Fair Housing resource page, contracts with ECHO for fair housing workshops and education services, receive feedback from ECHO in quarterly progress reports, and share any marketing resources from ECHO or other HUD partners as appropriate.
City of Livermore 1) Fair Housing information from ECHO has been updated on the City's website, including Tenant Protection Guidelines from ECHO and a YouTube video on the Rent Review Ordinance and Tenant Protections. 2) The City continually meets with fair housing organiza tions(s) throughout the year to review marketing efforts and determine the need for any changes or improvements.
City of Oakland The City has kept its website updated with relevant content, including during the COVID-19 pandemic additional information on Oakland's eviction moratorium and its emergency rental assistance.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro's Housing website was updated, and a rental housing programs handout was created to help the public easily access fair housing and legal resources ECHO ECHO implemented a remote training program during COVID-19 that has training sessions on ECHO's website. In FY23, they also resumed in-person training in Urban County cities.
Livermore Housing
Authority
1) Fair Housing information from ECHO has been updated on the City's website, including Tenant Protection Guidelines from ECHO and a YouTube video on the Rent Review Ordinance and Tenant Protections. 2) The City continually meets with fair housing organiz ations(s) throughout the year to review marketing efforts and determine the need for any changes or improvements.
Pleasanton Housing Division 1) The City promotes ECHO Housing's fair housing training by posting the training on its website, distributing the fair housing training registration links through its email distribution list via MailChimp, and posting on the City's social media accounts. 2) The City is in constant communication and coordinating with ECHO Housing on how to promote fair housing training.
Union City HCD The City has updated and maintained access to fair housing resources on its website annually. The City has met with our fair housing service providers to ensure that marketing efforts regarding their services are sufficient. Some of these efforts have been impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic but the City has worked with service providers to find the best way to provide access to services virtually.
Urban County /Housing Links to ECHO's website are on HCD's website.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access
ACTIVITY 1C:
Participating jurisdictions will advocate for local federal/state laws that would improve fair housing protections for those experiencing barriers to accessing housing.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County
HCD
Urban County CDBG-CV funds were awarded to ECHO and Centro Legal to assist with COVID rental assistance payments and rental issues that arose out of COVID shelter-in-place.
Alameda County
HCD
The rental housing portal was launched on HCD's website in FY22.
City of Berkeley ECHO Webpage linked to City of Berkeley Webpage for Fair Housing: https://berkeleyca.gov/doing - business/operating-berkeley/landlords/fair-access-
housing#:~:text=Rental%20housing%20providers%20in%20Berkeley,Inquire%20about%20criminal%20histo ry
City of Dublin
Community
Development
Department and
Human Services
Commission
The City of Dublin worked with Alameda County and other Tri-Valley cities through lobbyists to lobby for new statewide fair housing laws and regulations.
City of Fremont CRIL and DCARA continue to be funded through the City's social service grant program that help people with disabilities locate housing.
City of Hayward The City updated its website to include a Fair Housing resource page, contracts with ECHO for fair housing workshops and education services, receive feedback from ECHO in quarterly progress reports, and share any marketing resources from ECHO or other HUD partners as appropriate.
City of Livermore 1) Fair Housing information from ECHO has been updated on the City's website, including Tenant Protection Guidelines from ECHO and a YouTube video on the Rent Review Ordinance and Tenant Protections. 2) The City continually meets with fair housing organizations(s) throughout the year to review marketing efforts and determine the need for any changes or improvements.
City of Newark CDD This task has been delayed and shall be completed in 2025.
City of Oakland The City has kept its website updated with relevant content, including during the COVID -19 pandemic additional information on Oakland's eviction moratorium and its emergency rental assistance.
City of San Leandro For Fair Housing Month in April 2023, ECHO staff accepted a Proclamation from the Mayor describing the Fair Housing Act and addressed the public.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro's Housing website was updated and a rental housing programs handout created to help the public easily access fair housing and legal resources ECHO ECHO implemented a remote training program during COVID -19 that has training sessions on ECHO's website. In FY23, they also resumed in-person training in Urban County cities.
Livermore Housing
and Human Services
Division
The City continuously supported grants and programs that expand the supply of housing units for seniors, such as the Senior Support Program of the Tri-Valley and Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) encouraging seniors and disabled persons to age in place and to facilitate independent living.
Livermore Housing
Authority
1) Fair Housing information from ECHO has been updated on the City's website, including Tenant Protection Guidelines from ECHO and a YouTube video on the Rent Review Ordinance and Tenant Protections. 2) The City continually meets with fair housing organizations(s) throughout the year to review marketing efforts and determine the need for any changes or improvements.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program funds non -profit agencies that assist Pleasanton residents to remain housed or find housing. Abode Services administers the rapid re -housing program that provides temporary diminishing rental assis tance for clients to be self -sufficient within 12 months. Centro Legal de la Raza provides legal consultation and legal representation against evictions. CRIL assists clients with disabilities locate housing. ECHO Housing provides tenant -landlord counseling and fair housing counseling services.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
1) The City promotes ECHO Housing's fair housing training by posting the training on its website, distributing the fair housing training registration links through its email distribution list via MailChimp, and posting on the City's social media accounts. 2) The City is in constant communication and coordinating with ECHO Housing on how to promote fair housing training.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access
ACTIVITY 1C:
Participating jurisdictions will advocate for local federal/state laws that would improve fair housing protections for those experiencing barriers to accessing housing.
Union City HCD The City has been able to maintain a good relationship with the service provider CRIL who has been able to provide services to residents with disabilities through the City bi -annual public service grant process. The service provider continues to submit app lications during the public service grant process and to help residents with disabilities locate housing.
Union City HCD The City has updated and maintained access to fair housing resources on its website annually. The City has met with our fair housing service providers to ensure that marketing efforts regarding their services are sufficient. Some of these efforts have been impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic but the City has worked with service providers to find the best way to provide access to services virtually.
Urban County/
Housing
Links to ECHO's website are on HCD's website.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access
ACTIVITY 1D:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to fund housing placement services for people with disabilities to assist them in finding accessible housing (i.e., CRIL, DCARA, County's online application/website).
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The rental housing portal was launched on HCD's website in FY22.
City of Dublin Community
Development Department
and Human Services
Commission
The City of Dublin provided CDBG funding for Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) to provide services to the disabled.
City of Fremont Human
Services Dept.
CRIL and DCARA continue to be funded through the City's social service grant program that help people with disabilities locate housing.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro provided funding to Davis Street Family Resource Center to provide affordable housing services, including affordable rental housing referrals/placement to lower -income households.
Livermore Housing and
Human Services Division
The City continuously supported grants and programs that expand the supply of housing units for seniors, such as the Senior Support Program of the Tri -Valley and Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) encouraging seniors and disabled persons to age in place and to facilitate independent living.
Pleasanton Housing Division The City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program funds non -profit agencies that assist Pleasanton residents to remain housed or find housing. Abode Services administers the rapid re - housing program that provides temporary diminishing rental assistance for clients to be self-sufficient within 12 months. Centro Legal de la Raza provides legal consultation and legal representation against evictions. CRIL assists clients with disabilities locate housing. ECHO Housing provides tenant -landlord counseling and fair housing counseling services.
Union City HCD The City has been able to maintain a good relationship with the service provider CRIL who has been able to provide services to residents with disabilities through the City bi -annual public service grant process. The service provider continues to submit applications during the public service grant process and to help residents with disabilities locate housing. The City also provides links to housing referral services on the City website.
REGIONAL GOAL 1:
Fair Housing; Promote fair housing enforcement and outreach.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; publicly supported housing; fair housing outreach and enforcement ACTIVITY 1E:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to fund housing placement services for people with disabilities to assist them in finding accessible housing (i.e., CRIL, DCARA, County's online application/website).
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD Centro Legal received CDBG, CDBG-CV, County Boomerang, and County ARPA funds during this period for these activities.
City of Dublin CDD and
Human Services
Commission
The City of Dublin provided CDBG funding for Legal Assistance for Seniors to provide legal services for seniors.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro funds Centro Legal de la Raza to provide support for tenant/landlord legal services and “know your rights” workshops. Additionally, ECHO Housing is subcontracted to provide information & referral, counseling & mediation/conciliation services.
City of Hayward Through its CDBG entitlement, the City contracts with multiple agencies to provide legal services to tenants. The City increased its contract by $500,000 to increase capacity for providing legal services to address the increased demand resulting from the e nd of the County’s eviction moratorium. The City contracts with Centro Legal de la Raza to provide eviction prevention services for eligible tenants.
City of Oakland The City did allocate funding specifically around the Fair Housing Choice contract; however, it could not find a nonprofit to fulfill this work. It did fund the East Bay Community Law Center to provide general legal assistance at an annual allocation of approximately $260,000. This work assisted roughly 500 people per year
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 2A:
Participating jurisdictions with an existing rental stabilization program will take actions to continue to maintain the program and make improvements, as needed.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Alameda The Alameda Rent Program was created to implement the City’s Rent Ordinance through education, community engagement, and collaboration to promote equity and stability in the rental market. The Alameda Rent Program uses a web -based database, the Alameda Ren t Registry, to provide landlords with convenient, online means to pay the annual program fee; submit required registration information; and file forms necessary for fair return petitions, “no -fault” terminations of tenancy, fee -exemption requests, and more. In addition, Rent Program staff use the database to track rents and allowable rent increases for each rental unit in Alameda that is subject to rent control, manage various case types, log correspondence with the public, and associate this data with a corresponding Assessor Parcel Number.
In PY 2023, staff obtained tenancy information for 437 previously unregistered rental units, reducing the remaining unregistered units to less than 5% of all rental units citywide.
City of Berkeley The Rent Board evaluates its programs in consideration of community needs. For example, they implemented the eviction moratorium during COVID.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont continues to oversee mobile home park rent increases for conformance with the City's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
City of Hayward The City continued implementing its Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (RRSO) throughout Program Year 2023. City Council’s Homelessness -Housing Task Force received the annual update on its implementation progress in the Fall of 2023. Staff is evaluating the creation of a rent registry as part of its Fiscal Year 2025 Strategic Roadmap.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland administers its own rent control ordinance to ensure reasonable rent increases.
During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the City issued an eviction moratorium to prevent the displacement of tenants if they fell behind on their rent. It also provided emergency rental payments through the ERAP program to keep Oakland tenants housed.
City of San Leandro Since the adoption of the mobile home space rent stabilization ordinance in 2019, the City of San Leandro has issued annual notices of allowable space rent increases, analyzed annual reports and rent schedules from park owners, and reviewed applications for rent increases and rent reductions.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 2B:
Participating jurisdictions will promote new fair housing laws, including AB 1482, upon adoption, and to the extent required by the new laws.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD HCD is examining an expansion of Just Cause in the Unincorporated County City of Berkeley In April 2020, Berkeley City Council adopted the Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance City of Fremont The City of Fremont provided information to AB 1482 and other updates to fair housing and tenant laws on its website and through the fair housing program.
City of Hayward The City includes references to state resources both from the Tenant Protection Act and subsequent legislation passed in response to COVID-19 on the City website as appropriate.
City of San Leandro As part of the actions described for Activity 1e, the City of San Leandro contracts with nonprofit agencies to conduct outreach and education related to tenant-landlord laws, including the distribution of flyers, tenant presentations, and owner/manager training.
Livermore HHS AB 1482 information has been added to the City's website.
Livermore Housing
Authority AB 1482 information has been added to the City's website.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City provides HHSG funding to ECHO Housing and Centro Legal de la Raza to educate Pleasanton residents on housing laws and regulations.
Union City HCD The City has provided information on its website regarding Fair Housing and additional Fair Housing resources.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs.
ACTIVITY 2C:
Participating jurisdictions will periodically review their existing inclusionary housing in-lieu fees and/or housing impact fees and jobs-housing linkage fee programs if applicable, to maximize the number of units in a manner consistent with current housing market conditions and applicable law.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Berkeley 1) The City replaced the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) which requires developers of new market -rate rental and ownership housing to provide affordable apartments or provide a fee to the Housing Trust Fund. The revisions created a per-square- foot fee and provided new compliance alternatives. 2) Through voucher allocations and work with owners of BMR units, Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) and developer partners will provide housing to those participating in the program. The City replaced the affordable housing mitigation fee with an Inclusionary housing ordinance. The City is currently conducting an economic feasibility analysis of the ordinance's in-lieu fee option to ensure the fee reflects current market conditions and is not prohibitive to development
City of Dublin CDD The Dublin Commercial Linkage Fee is combined with Affordable Housing Funds to fund affordable housing projects.
City of Emeryville In November of each fiscal year during the reporting period, the City Council has reviewed and approved Housing Impact Fee Fund Reports. In 2021, the City of Emeryville incorporated the available balance of Affordable Housing Impact Fee funds into the Affordable Housing Bond Administration and Expenditure Plan to support the production and preservation of Affordable Housing.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont updated the Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2022 to increase fees for single - family and townhome projects, incentivize smaller units, and simplify and clarify the ordinance.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro included a review of its inclusionary zoning ordinance as a goal/objective in its recently certified 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Livermore HHS The City has reviewed the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee annually for adjustments and reviewed the inclusionary housing ordinance periodically to maximize implementation of the on -site requirements consistent with market conditions and applicable law.
Union City HCD, Planning The City continues to review its existing inclusionary housing in -lieu fee and housing impact fee on large additions, annually, to maximize the number of units in a manner consistent with current housing market conditions and applicable law.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 2D:
The participating jurisdictions will continue to pursue modifications of current zoning and other local policies regulating housing development that pose a direct or indirect constraint on the production of affordable housing.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD and
Urban County Cities
The Alameda County Planning Department concluded work with a consultant on the revision of the Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan which included mixed -use and transit -oriented development around the Castro Valley BART station to implemen t Goal 7 of the County Housing Element. The City of Albany eliminated parking minimums freeing up more resources for affordable housing and created a ministerial-only processing of ADU permits. Albany also removed an additional discretionary layer for Density Bonus Housing projects.
City of Berkeley On February 28, 2023, the City of Berkeley adopted the revised 2023-2031 Housing Element.
City of Hayward The 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in February of 2023, and certified by HCD in July 2023. In 2023 -2024, the City adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map related to objective design and development s tandards to streamline development; to allow the development of duplexes, triplexes, and other missing middle housing types in all residential districts; and to allow for by -right development for affordable housing on specified properties (Housing Element Policy H-4.1 and Housing Element Programs H-11 and H-18). The City is currently working on an Accessory Dwelling Unit Program for pre -approved plans, reduced fees, and process improvements to further streamline such development (Housing Element Program H -17).
Further, the City is also developing Zoning Text Amendments to introduce flexibility in permitting emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, group homes, and tiny homes with wraparound services at church, nonprofit and publicly owned pr operties, which will be adopted by January 2025 (Housing Element Action 13.1).
City of Livermore The City has reviewed and reported on direct or indirect constraints as may be required by State HCD as part of the Housing Element Annual Performance Report submittal.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland was allocated 14,735 units. It only met 43% of the goal for extremely low-income but met 174% of the goal for above -moderate-income units. The City created for its new Housing Element from 2023-2031, a buffer number of units it intends to build. The City came up with a set of 5 goals for addressing local policies to improve the affordable housing outcomes for the City. Some key policies that were created to go into the 2023 -2031 Housing Element are the affordable housing overlay zone, an d a tenants/community opportunity to purchase act. The City also updated its Fair Housing Chance ordinance in 2020 to decrease barriers for Oakland residents seeking housing, especially those who are formerly incarcerated.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro utilized State SB2 Planning Grants Program funding to develop objective design and development standards for multi -family residential and mixed -use development to provide greater predictability to developers and community members. T he objective standards amendments were adopted in January 2022, and they included standardizing and streamlining the development review process in accordance with recent changes in state law.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has been supportive of local policies aimed at strengthening rent control and tenant protections, addressing concerns over rent increases, and promoting housing stability for low -income and vulnerable populations.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs.
ACTIVITY 2E:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to aim to implement the programs described in their Housing Elements within the current Housing Element planning period.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD and
Urban County Cities
The Alameda County Planning Department continues to work with the State to receive approval of its Housing Element.
City of Berkeley Goals of the Housing Element include accommodating future housing needs across income levels and developing approaches to meet them. The City of Berkeley has developed objective standards for "middle housing" in the lower-density residential zones.
City of Emeryville The City of Emeryville continued to implement the 7 goals and 53 programs of the 5th Cycle Housing Element between 2020 and 2022. These programs and goals were reviewed and modified into 5 goals and 46 programs to create the 6th Cycle Housing Element, which was adopted by City Council in December 2022. In April of each year, the city has submitted the Housing Element Annual Report to the State outlining the actions undertaken during the previous calendar year to implement the various programs.
City of Fremont The Housing Element identifies six goals, 24 policies and 94 programs. The City has made notable accomplishments in 2023 toward implementation of the 2023 -2031 Housing Element goals and policies. City of Fremont will continue to strive to implement its Housing Element programs during the remaining years of the cycle.
City of Hayward The 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element was adopted by the City Council in February of 2023, and certified by HCD in July 2023. In 2023 -2024, the City adopted Zoning Ordinance amendments as directed by the adopted Housing Element (Housing Element Policy H-4.1 and Housing Element Programs H -11 and H -18), and is currently working on Zoning Ordinance amendments related to expanding allowances for shelters, group homes, single residency occupancy uses and other supportive housing uses which are expected to be adopted by January 2025 (Housing Element Action
13.1); a program to streamline ADU development (Housing Element Program H -17); as well as the implementation of Programs related to Rent Stabilization & Tenant Protections, Fair Housing Services, Place-Based Strategies and Community Development (Housing Element Programs H -23, H-24 and H- 26). The City intends to implement goals, programs, and actions included in the Housing Element over the next eight-year cycle.
City of Livermore The City of Livermore continues to implement the programs described in the current Housing Element.
City of Oakland The 2015 -2023 Housing Element outlined seven housing goals with 46 policies and 131 policy actions to be taken to achieve those goals. While the majority of these actions have been evaluated as effective, there is still a clear gap in meeting the housing n eeds of some special needs groups – especially those experiencing homelessness and extremely low -income households. The City has encouraged and promoted affordable housing development through a combination of incentives and funding. City efforts include th e release of Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs), predevelopment loans to non -profits, Oakland Housing Authority resources, first -time homebuyer programs, the Community Buying Program, and other loans. Impact fees, including the Jobs/Housing and Affordable Housing Impact Fee, provide funding to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Through the 5th cycle RHNA, there will have been approximately $150 million in total expenditures on these efforts.
However, despite these efforts, the amount of financial resources available for affordable housing has been inadequate to meet the need for low - and moderate-income households. Other City incentives include density bonus provisions, impact fee waivers, promotion of City -owned property, geographic equity, and quality in NOFA scoring. The City has undertaken a number of efforts to remove housing constraints. Rectified governmental constraints include aligning City regulations according to State law (e.g., reasonable accommodation, transitional/supportive housing permitting, and emergency shelter permitting), prioritizing affordable housing applications, one -stop permitting, development impact fees, and reliance on specific plan EIRs to expedite review.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro implemented numerous programs described in its Housing Element to support market rate and affordable housing production, homeownership, preservation of existing housing stock, and tenant protection and tracked program accomplishments through annual submissions of its Annual Progress Report to the State of California.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs.
ACTIVITY 2E:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to aim to implement the programs described in their Housing Elements within the current Housing Element planning period.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continued to serve families in their public housing, housing choice voucher program, and increase affordable housing development and rehabilitation. OHA preserved 130 affordable housing units in FY 2021, 162 units in FY 2022, 133 units in FY 2023, and 98 in FY 2024, for a total of 523 units rehabbed between FY 2021-2024.
Pleasanton Housing
Division to coordinate with
Planning Division
City staff continues to implement its Housing Element programs and submit the required Annual Progress Report.
Union City HCD, Planning The City has completed and had its Sixth Cycle planning period Housing Element and Safety Element certified by the State. The City also continues to compile and report the Annual Housing Element progress to the State as part of the Annual Progress Report on an annual basis.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; access to opportunities; fair housing outreach and enforcement
ACTIVITY 2F:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to incorporate these Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) goals into their 5 -Year Consolidated and Annual Action Plans.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD and
Urban County Cities
These goals were incorporated into the FY20 -FY24 Con Plan. and have been reported annually in the respective CAPERs
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda The City of Alameda plans to continue to incorporate the Regional AI goals into the City's 5 -year Consolidated and Annual Action Plans as part of the Alameda County HOME Consortium.
City of Berkeley Described in the PY20 ConPlan:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Berkeley-Consolidated-Plan-2020-2025.pdf City of Fremont The City of Fremont incorporated the Regional AI goals into our 5 -year Consolidated Plan, which was approved by City Council on May 12, 2020.
City of Hayward The City included findings from the AI in the 2023 Annual Action Plan.
City of Livermore The City of Livermore continues to incorporate the Regional AI goals into the City's 5-year consolidated and Annual Action Plans.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland did incorporate and align AI goals into Con Plan goals City of San Leandro The City of San Leadnro's 5 -Year Consolidated Plan includes goals to produce affordable housing, rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock, and provide public services (including supportive and fair housing services).
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The current 5 -year plan incorporates goals from this AI including providing a landlord incentives program, continuing to develop affordable housing, providing a Family Self Sufficiency program, and several Project-Based Voucher initiatives.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to incorporate regional goals, including HACA's achievements towards these goals, into its 5-year PHA Plan.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continued to incorporate the regional goals, in line with agency goals, as described in the Annual MTW reports.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City contributed and participated in completing and submitting a Regional Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in January 2020.
Union City HCD The incorporation of the Analysis of Impediments will happen with the completed Con Plan and adoption and will then be updated annually from PY 2025 through PY 2029.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; access to opportunities; fair housing outreach and enforcement
ACTIVITY 2G:
The participating jurisdictions will continue to prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that evaluates the progress toward these Regional AI goals.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County
HCD and Urban
County Cities
Prior CAPERs have been submitted to HUD. FY22 CAPER is in the public comment period and will be submitted by 9/28/24.
City of Alameda At the end of each program year, the City of Alameda provides an annual report to HUD that summarizes its performance for the entire program year. The 2023 CAPER strategic plan outcomes include: 83 persons assisted for Mental Health Services, 15,223 persons assisted for Food Access, 161 persons assisted for Overnight Shelter, 252 persons assisted for Fair Housing, 168 persons assisted for Public Services - Safety Net, and 47 persons assisted for Economic Development Support.
City of Berkeley Reported on annually - PY22 CAPER:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
DRAFT%20PY22%20CAPER%20and%20attachments%20for%20public%20comment.pdf City of Fremont The City of Fremont has prepared and submitted a CAPER from PY 2020 through PY 2023discussing our fair housing progress. City also intends to prepare and submit a CAPER for PY 2024 in September 2025.
City of Hayward The City is evaluating progress on each Hayward -specific activity listed in the Regional AI in this Program Year 2022 CAPER.
City of Livermore The City of Livermore continues to report on annual progress in the CAPER.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland does a CAPER each year, but the City's CAPER does not include Regional AI goals City of San
Leandro The City of San Leandro evaluated progress on each Fair Housing Activity in its annual CAPER.
Oakland Housing
Authority
OHA partnered with the City of Oakland to continue AFFH goals in several ways, including assisting local, non - traditional families through transitional housing programs such as Matilda Cleavland and Families in Transition.
Pleasanton
Housing Division
The City continues to submit its annual HUD-required CAPER, including the latest CAPER for FY 2023/2024.
Union City HCD The City has continued to complete its annual CAPER and submit it to HUD annually. The current CAPER for PY2023 has been submitted to HUD for review.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs.
ACTIVITY 2H:
As needed, participating jurisdictions will work together to continue to commission market -based surveys of current market -rate rents in the Oakland-Fremont HUD FMR Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) to seek adjustment to HUD FMR standards for the area; and will advocate to HUD for the revision of FMR calculations/methodology.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD and
Urban County Cities
1) The work was completed in FY19 and 2) Work was completed in FY20.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Berkeley Attend AC All Cities calls where this topic may be addressed.
City of Fremont Unaware of any survey that was commisioned.
City of Hayward Throughout Program Year 2023, the City met at least monthly with other jurisdictions to discuss housing and homelessness issues.
City of Oakland The city participated with other jurisdictions in conducting these surveys when appropriate. The last one happened in 2020.
City of San Leandro From PY 2020 through PY 2024, it was determined that a market study was not necessary to adjust the HUD-approved FMR amount.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to work with the other housing authorities in the Oakland-Fremont HUD FMR area to evaluate the need to conduct a fair market rent study when new annual FMRs are issued and commission a study if such a study is needed. No study was needed during the period.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA last submitted a comment letter regarding FMRs in 2019.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City participated in the last survey conducted by Alameda County.
Union City HCD Throughout Program Year 2023, the City met at least monthly with other jurisdictions to discuss housing and homelessness issues.
REGIONAL GOAL 2:
Jurisdiction Policies: Maintain, improve, and implement a local policy that supports affordable housing and fair housing.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; disproportionate housing needs.
ACTIVITY 2I:
Other Activities
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Oakland Housing Authority The City of Oakland has a Uniform Relocation Ordinance, in Oakland Municipal Code (“OMC”) 8.22.850.
The Uniform Relocation Ordinance requires owners to provide tenants displaced by code compliance activities, owner or relative move -ins, Ellis Act, and cond ominium conversions with relocation payments.
REGIONAL GOAL 3:
Rental Subsidies: Promote and implement new fair housing laws that protect recipients of rental subsidies from discrimination by landlords.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; publicly supported housing
ACTIVITY 3A:
Educate tenants and landlords on new fair housing laws.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda On April 18, 2024, the City of Alameda hosted the fourth annual Fair Housing Workshop. This year's event was full of helpful information on local and state housing laws including -- tenant relocation, Fair Housing rules for tenants and management, disabili ty rights, the City Attorney's Mediation program, and other services. Several guest speakers attended from Bay Area Legal Aid, ECHO Fair Housing, HUD Branch Chief, and staff from the City Attorney's Office. 2023 marked the first full year of Alameda's in-house mediation program. In collaboration with the Rent Program, the Unit launched its first-in-the- state housing mediation program in 2022, which seeks to further enhance housing stability in Alameda by bringing together landlords and tenants.
City of Dublin CDD,
Housing
No action was taken in FY2024.
City of Emeryville No action was taken to adopt a local Source of Income Ordinance, as anticipated as the State adopted SB 329 Housing Discrimination - Source of Income in 2019. The Emeryville Website was updated in 2021 to create a Fair Housing landing page for residents to learn more about fair housing, how to identify housing discrimination, and who to contact for assistance.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont's fair housing program held workshops and events to promote and educate both landlords and tenants on requirements and new laws. Departments within the City also collaborated annually to hold a workshop over a number of issues for landlords and property managers that includes fair housing.
City of Hayward The City worked to educate tenants and landlords through direct mailings, online outreach, contracts with non -profit agencies providing legal services to tenants, and monthly hybrid in -person/remote educational workshops in English and Spanish to ensure tenants and landlords are aware of their rights and responsibilities under local, state, and federal housing laws.
City of Livermore The City contracted with ECHO Housing to complete fair housing property audits in Livermore and investigate fair housing cases. Every month ECHO conducts a regional fair housing training inviting property managers and landlords in Livermore to learn about fair housing laws. These trainings are open to tenants as well. ECHO also conducts an annual systemic audit of at least 10 landlords for possible discrimination.
ECHO's Fair Housing staff continues to monitor sites like Craigslist for advertising violations and provide education and/or testing on these sites.
City of Newark The City Website has been updated with information regarding SB 329. In addition, the City will be mailing out an informational flyer to all landlords in the City by January 1, 2025.
City of Oakland The City has kept its website updated with relevant content, including during the COVID-19 pandemic additional information on Oakland's eviction moratorium and its emergency rental assistance. It also has contracts with nonprofits to educate tenants on their rights.
City of San Leandro ECHO staff distributed flyers and brochures and sent emails for training on how to identify housing discrimination and find assistance for counseling and/or legal intervention. They also conducted multiple fair housing trainings.
City of Union City The City annually updates its links to fair housing organizations and resources on the City's dedicated Fair Housing website. Also, the City continues to work with fair housing organizations and help them with marketing their programs to residents around f air housing law and its impact on tenants and landlords. The City utilizes its email list serves to post announcements about seminars and trainings that are provided by our partner fair housing organizations.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (AHA) developed a non -federal incentive program for new landlords. In July 2023, the AHA implemented an expanded landlord incentives program which included higher incentives for renting a unit to a Housing Choic e Voucher (HCV) family, passing an initial Housing Quality Standards inspection, and renting a unit with accessible features to an HCV family. The AHA also expanded when landlords were eligible for vacancy payments.
REGIONAL GOAL 3:
Rental Subsidies: Promote and implement new fair housing laws that protect recipients of rental subsidies from discrimination by landlords.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; publicly supported housing
ACTIVITY 3A:
Educate tenants and landlords on new fair housing laws.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to raise awareness among landlords and program participants about source of income discrimination through participation in landlord outreach events, maintaining information and links on its website, and its self-service landlord portal.
Livermore Housing
Authority
The LHA briefing packet for all tenants moving was updated to include all this information. Also, information was posted on the LHA website under the fair housing section.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has continued to provide landlord incentives through MTW Programs and has expanded these incentives to increase landlord participation. OHA offers vacancy loss payments, sign -on bonuses for new landlords, an owner recognition program, pre -qualifying inspections, and capital improvement payments. OHA has also begun providing security deposit assistance to tenants to increase their housing choices.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City contracts with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing training and tenant-landlord workshops that educate Pleasanton residents on housing laws and regulations, including SB 329.
REGIONAL GOAL 3:
Rental Subsidies: Promote and implement new fair housing laws that protect recipients of rental subsidies from discrimination by landlords.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; publicly supported housing
ACTIVITY 3B:
Participating jurisdictions will explore creating incentives for landlords to rent to Section 8 voucher holders, such as a leasing bonus, damage claim reimbursement, security deposit and utility assistance.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Action are ongoing.
City of Dublin CDD,
Housing
No action was taken in FY2024.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (AHA) developed a non -federal incentive program for new landlords. In July 2023, the AHA implemented an expanded landlord incentives program which included higher incentives for renting a unit to a Housing Choic e Voucher (HCV) family, passing an initial Housing Quality Standards inspection, and renting a unit with accessible features to an HCV family. The AHA also expanded when landlords were eligible for vacancy payments.
Livermore Housing
Authority
The LHA briefing packet for all tenants moving was updated to include all this information. Also, information was posted on the LHA website under the fair housing section.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has continued to provide landlord incentives through MTW Programs and has expanded these incentives to increase landlord participation. OHA offers vacancy loss payments, sign -on bonuses for new landlords, an owner recognition program, pre -qualifying inspections, and capital improvement payments. OHA has also begun providing security deposit assistance to tenants to increase their housing choices.
REGIONAL GOAL 3:
Rental Subsidies: Promote and implement new fair housing laws that protect recipients of rental subsidies from discrimination by landlords.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; publicly supported housing; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 3C:
Other Activities
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Alameda On April 18, 2024, the City of Alameda hosted the fourth annual Fair Housing Workshop. This year's event was full of helpful information on local and state housing laws including -- tenant relocation, Fair Housing rules for tenants and management, disabili ty rights, the City Attorney's Mediation program, and other services. There were several guest speakers who attended from Bay Area Legal Aid, ECHO Fair Housing, HUD Branch Chief, and staff from the City Attorney's Office. 2023 marked the first full year o f Alameda's in -house mediation program. In collaboration with the Rent Program, the Unit launched its first -in-the-state housing mediation program in 2022, which seeks to further enhance housing stability in Alameda by bringing together landlords and tenants.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; access to opportunity ACTIVITY 4A:
Participating jurisdictions will explore a low-cost loan program for landlords unable to make needed repairs or accessibility modifications in order to avoid displacement of lower-income tenants in substandard units.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD &
Alameda County Healthy
Homes Department
1) HCD's CDBG funds for rental rehab have been reprogrammed due to larger dollar amounts available from A-1 bond funds administered by Habitat for Humanity. 2) The rental code enforcement program is in development with County ARPA funds.
Alameda County Healthy
Homes
The County's Renew AC Program can be found on HCD's website.
Alameda County Healthy
Homes Department
Healthy Homes worked to leverage success in unincorporated areas to facilitate rental housing inspection pilots in other parts of the Alameda Urban County area.
All Urban County
jurisdictions
The Minor Home Repair program has been funded with $250,000 annually in the Urban County cities.
The County's Renew AC Program can be found on HCD's website. The City of Dublin joined two Community Improvement JPAs to allow CalCHA and CSCDA to finance the Acquisition & Preservation of three projects, these projects provide 1,087 middle -income affordable housing units. Of these 1/3 are 80% AMI, 1/3 are 100% AMI, and 1/3 are 120% AMI.
City of Alameda The City of Alameda continues to administer the Residential Rehabilitation program to provide financial and technical assistance to renovate single and multifamily unit properties occupied by low - income households. The City has an active project to rehabilitate 4 existing residential units located at Alameda Point Collaborative (APC). Construction is anticipated to be completed by December 2024.
City of Alameda In 2020, the City of Alameda created the Housing Safety program to provide financial assistance to assist low-income seniors and persons with disabilities to maintain residential safety and accessibility.
Following the pandemic, the Housing Safety Program was temporarily put on hold. During the two years, the program served 49 clients with home and accessibility improvements.
City of Berkeley The program continues to operate. Rental property owners must ensure their units meet safety standards through an annual safety inspection. Additional, randomly selected inspections may occur City of Berkeley Senior Disabled Rehab Loan Program continues to operate. Completing over 20 projects across the conplan. Six (6) currently active projects. Staff reaching out to prospective applicants on the waitlist and working on streamlining the program to increase the number of households served.
City of Berkeley Over $800k/yr in CDBG funding provided to Center for Independent Living, Habitat for Humanity of the East Bay/Silicon Valley, Bay Area Community Services, and Berkeley Food & Housing Project City of Fremont Ongoing
City of Hayward The City’s Code Enforcement Division continued implementing its residential rental unit inspection program. Additionally, the City continued implementing the new Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO), which requires that landlords provide temporary and permanent relocation assistance when tenants are displaced due to substantial repairs or a government order to vacate. The City is using a portion of its American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation to make relocation assistance payments directly to ten ants when they are displaced through Code Enforcement action and their landlords are unwilling to pay the assistance. TRAO regulations enable the City to recover those costs from the landlord through a special assessment. The staff has developed resource m aterials and has been providing technical assistance to stakeholders but recommends that the City consider simplifying the legislation to improve clarity and increase compliance.
City of Hayward The City's Code Enforcement team continues to maintain its existing Residential Rental Inspection Program.
City of Hayward The City allocated approximately $375,000 to home rehabilitation and minor maintenance programs to promote safe aging in place for low -income older adults and independent living for adults with disabilities.
City of Livermore In 2023, the City assisted Tri-Valley REACH with the acquisition and expansion of a four-bedroom home and the rehabilitation of a 6 -bedroom group home for extremely low -income persons with developmental disabilities.
City of Livermore In 2023 the City assisted Tri-Valley REACH with the acquisition and rehabilitation of a supportive shared housing site for four extremely low-income individuals with disabilities. The project was completed in January of 2024 and will welcome its new residents starting in February 2024.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; access to opportunity ACTIVITY 4A:
Participating jurisdictions will explore a low-cost loan program for landlords unable to make needed repairs or accessibility modifications in order to avoid displacement of lower-income tenants in substandard units.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Oakland The City has continued to invest in the rehabilitation of rental units as a part of its overall strategy for Housing Preservation.
City of Oakland The City's Code Compliance Relocation Program implemented several process improvements to improve efficiency, streamline program delivery, and positively impact the program budget. This includes standardizing the process for tenants or property owners to a ppeal the City’s eligibility determination and implementing a process to consistently invoice property owners who do not comply with their obligation to pay tenant relocation payments. Lastly, the City approved a resolution that authorizes the reinvestment of funds collected to be used for program expenses which diversifies the program’s funding sources and reduces reliance on CDGB funding.
City of Oakland The City has continued to invest in the rehabilitation of housing stock that is inhabited by seniors, disabled, and low-income homeowners as a part of its overall strategy for Housing Preservation. The City invests roughly $1M in this program every year.
City of Oakland The City has continued to invest in rehabilitation through this program, giving anywhere from $300,000 to $400,000 a year.
City of San Leandro From PY 2020 through PY 2023, the City of San Leandro worked with Rebuilding Together East Bay to provide rehabilitation grants to low-income households
City of Union City The City continues to allocate CDBG funding, subject to funding availability, through the City's biannual budget to the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to administer the City's Minor Home Repair program for Union City residents.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Information about the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Program is included on the AHA's website, in annual landlord workshops, and periodically in newsletters.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA rehabilitated 13 units prior to suspending its rehabilitation project to house additional families due to the pandemic. HACA has continued to rehabilitate these units as they become vacant and as funding allows.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA implemented this activity and has assisted 80 landlords through this program.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continues to assess accessibility needs on a case-by-case basis if accessible units are unavailable and is still in compliance with the UFAS standards and regulations.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with Habitat for Humanity to administer the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants up to $15,000 and loans up to $150,000 to income - eligible Pleasanton homeowners to make healthy and safe repairs to their homes.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 4B:
Participating jurisdictions will research establishing a citywide code inspection program for all rental units or continue to maintain the existing program.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County Healthy
Homes Department
Healthy Homes worked to leverage success in unincorporated areas to facilitate rental housing inspection pilots in other parts of the Alameda Urban County area.
City of Berkeley The program continues to operate. Rental property owners must ensure their units meet safety standards through an annual safety inspection. Additional, randomly selected inspections may occur City of Hayward The City's Code Enforcement team continues to maintain its existing Residential Rental Inspection Program.
City of Oakland The City's Code Compliance Relocation Program implemented several process improvements to improve efficiency, streamline program delivery, and positively impact the program budget. This includes standardizing the process for tenants or property owners to a ppeal the City’s eligibility determination and implementing a process to consistently invoice property owners who do not comply with their obligation to pay tenant relocation payments. Lastly, the City approved a resolution that authorizes the reinvestment of funds collected to be used for program expenses which diversifies the program’s funding sources and reduces reliance on CDGB funding.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 4C:
Participating jurisdictions will provide rehabilitation assistance loans for lower-income units.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County Healthy
Homes
The County's Renew AC Program can be found on HCD's website.
All Urban County
jurisdictions
The Minor Home Repair program has been funded with $250,000 annually in the Urban County cities.
The County's Renew AC Program can be found on HCD's website. The City of Dublin joined two Community Improvement JPAs to allow CalCHA and CSCDA to finance the Acquisition & Preservation of three projects, these projects provide 1,087 middle -income affordable housing units. Of these 1/3 are 80% AMI, 1/3 are 100% AMI, and 1/3 are 120% AMI.
City of Alameda The City of Alameda continues to administer the Residential Rehabilitation program to provide financial and technical assistance to renovate single and multifamily unit properties occupied by low - income households. The City has an active project to rehabilitate 4 existing residential units located at Alameda Point Collaborative (APC). Construction is anticipated to be completed by December 2024.
City of Berkeley Senior Disabled Rehab Loan Program continues to operate. Completing over 20 projects across the conplan. Six (6) currently active projects. Staff reaching out to prospective applicants on the waitlist and working on streamlining the program to increase the number of households served.
City of Emeryville The City of Emeryville provides annual support to the Alameda County Minor Home Repair Program and the Rebuilding Together East Bay North Minor Home Repair and Accessibility Modification Program. Information on both programs, as well as the Alameda County Renew AC Program can be found on the City’s website.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont has provided the following amounts to Habitat for Humanity to administer the minor home and rehab program. We have disconinuted loans and only provide grants.
PY 20-21: $144,223
PY 21-22: $250,000
PY 22-23: $250,000
PY 23-24: $275,000
PY 24-25: $300,000
City of Livermore In 2023, the City assisted Tri-Valley REACH with the acquisition and expansion of a four-bedroom home and the rehabilitation of a 6 -bedroom group home for extremely low -income persons with developmental disabilities.
City of Oakland The City has continued to invest in the rehabilitation of housing stock that is inhabited by seniors, disabled, and low-income homeowners as a part of its overall strategy for Housing Preservation. The City invests roughly $1M in this program every year.
City of San Leandro From PY 2020 through PY 2023, the City of San Leandro worked with Rebuilding Together East Bay to provide rehabilitation grants to low-income households
City of Union City The City continues to allocate CDBG funding, subject to funding availability, through the City's biannual budget to the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to administer the City's Minor Home Repair program for Union City residents.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Information about the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Program is included on the AHA's website, in annual landlord workshops, and periodically in newsletters.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; access to opportunity
ACTIVITY 4D:
The participating jurisdictions will continue to financially support programs that rehabilitate existing units for accessibility.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Alameda In 2020, the City of Alameda created the Housing Safety program to provide financial assistance to assist low-income seniors and persons with disabilities to maintain residential safety and accessibility.
Following the pandemic, the Housing Safety Program was temporarily put on hold. During the two - year span, the program served 49 clients with home and accessibility improvements.
City of Berkeley Over $800k/yr in CDBG funding provided to Center for Independent Living, Habitat for Humanity of the East Bay/Silicon Valley, Bay Area Community Services, and Berkeley Food & Housing Project City of Fremont The City of Fremont has provided the following amounts to Habitat for Humanity to administer the minor home and rehab program. We have discontinued loans and only provide grants.
PY 20-21: $144,223
PY 21-22: $250,000
PY 22-23: $250,000
PY 23-24: $275,000
PY 24-25: $300,000
City of Hayward The City allocated approximately $375,000 to home rehabilitation and minor maintenance programs to promote safe aging in place for low -income older adults and independent living for adults with disabilities.
City of Livermore In 2023 the City assisted Tri-Valley REACH with the acquisition and rehabilitation of a supportive shared housing site for four extremely low-income individuals with disabilities. The project was completed in January of 2024 and will welcome its new residents starting in February 2024.
City of Oakland The City has continued to invest in rehabilitation through this program, giving anywhere from $300,000 to $400,000 a year.
City of Union City The City continues to allocate CDBG funding, subject to funding availability, through the City's biannual budget to the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department to administer the City's Minor Home Repair program for Union City residents.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA rehabilitated 13 units prior to suspending its rehabilitation project in an effort to house additional families due to the pandemic. HACA has continued to rehabilitate these units as they become vacant and as funding allows.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continues to assess accessibility needs on a case-by-case basis if accessible units are unavailable and is still in compliance with the UFAS standards and regulations.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with Habitat for Humanity to administer the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants up to $15,000 and loans up to $150,000 to income - eligible Pleasanton homeowners make healthy and safe repairs to their homes.
REGIONAL GOAL 4:
Rehabilitation: Preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; access; access to opportunity ACTIVITY 4E:
Other Activities.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Emeryville In May 2020, the City of Emeryville modified its BMR Homeownership Marketing requirements to expand its marketing period to ensure no BMR homeownership units were lost during the pandemic due to the inability to identify eligible homeowners. The City exerc ised its first right of refusal to purchase two BMR Homeownership units during the reporting period and then resell them to income eligible homebuyer for a 45 year resale period. Failure of the City to acquire these two BMR homeownership units, would have resulted in the sellers being able to sell the units at market rate with no income restriction requirement. No BMR Rental units were at risk of converting to market rate during the reporting period.
REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 5A:
Participating jurisdictions will prioritize the production of affordable housing units in sizes appropriate for the population and based on family size.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD Selected RFP has these criteria.
City of Dublin 1) The City of Dublin has committed $7.1 Million from the Inclusionary Housing fund and $2.9M from County A-1 Base City funds for the 136 -unit Amador Station project affordable at VLI with 41 ELI. 2) The City of Dublin has committed $5 M A -1 Base City fu nds for a 113 -unit Regional Street project affordable with at least 20% ELI.
City of Hayward The City continues to provide incentives to housing developers that prioritize the production of affordable housing units in sizes appropriate for the population and based on family size by awarding higher points on applications for units of 3+ bedrooms wh en applying to the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). New construction residential projects subject to the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance are carefully reviewed to ensure there is a proportional unit size mix of affordable units as compared to the market rate units. Additionally, the City’s density bonus ordinance includes a bonus for residential development projects where at least 20% of the units have 3 bedrooms or more.
Pimentel Place, one of the three projects funded by the City's latest NOFA, is close to completing the construction of 56 affordable rental units and has started lease-up. These units range in size from one to three bedrooms and are available to qualifying households with incomes between 20 and 80 percent of the County's area median income.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland proposed and passed an affordable housing bond measure, Measure U, to dedicate more funding to creating the affordable housing stock needed for the projected growth of the City. It is estimated that the $850 million bond will generate 2,200-2,400 housing units up until 2030. Measure U was passed in 2022.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Funding was secured for three complexes. One complex was completed during this review period and two complexes are under construction.
Livermore Housing
Authority
LHA awarded all available vouchers via a PBV solicitation and currently is fully utilized in spending.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has followed the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit unit and funding source guidelines and waitlist demographic data to determine the need for unit sizes in Oakland.
Pleasanton Housing and
Planning Divisions
The City is in the process of amending its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that specifies minimum unit sizes as well as specific bedroom mixes that require more 3-bedroom and 2-bedroom units.
Union City HCD, Planning The City continues to evaluate the affordable housing size needs of the community and prioritize unit sizes based on the identified need as affordable housing funds/land/projects become available. As projects are proposed, the City staff will continue to review and assess how those proposals meet the communities' affordable housing size needs.
REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; R/ECAPs; segregation ACTIVITY 5B:
The participating jurisdictions will continue all existing programs to support the development of local affordable housing un its through a variety of strategies such as applications for state and federal funding, entitlement assistance, outreach to the community and other stakeholders, direct financial support, and site identification and acquisition assistance. This support will inclu de the development of units that serve specialized populations as defined by the funding source, Housing Element, Consolidat ed Plan, or AI, such as transitional and supportive housing, and housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and persons living with HIV/AIDS or severe mental illness.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD Timber Senior: $3,258,866.00 HOME dollars for Timber Senior located at 37660 Timber Street, Newark with 78 total units including 18 HOME units and 26 Local County Measure A1 units. Construction began 03/12/2024 and is to be completed by 05/2025. Cedar Community Apartments: $4,000,000.00 HOME ARPA dollars for the conversion of a 125 -unit extended stay hotel in 2 4 -story buildings located at 39802 Cedar Blvd, Newark into a supportive housing apartment complex with studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units that a re currently set up as apartments with full kitchens and fully furnished living spaces. 20 units are HOME ARPA designated for 30% AMI. Construction was completed on 09/14/2023.
Estrella Vista: HOME, $1,771,739.00, HOPWA, $615,900.00, CDBG, $526,626.00. Estrella Vista is an 87- unit family affordable housing development located at 3706 San Pablo Avenue, Emeryville. The building includes a broad unit mix with studio through 4 -bedroom units that vary between 20% and 60% AMI with 11 HOME, 5 HOPWA, and 17 CDBG units. The property is staffed with a full-time resource coordinator who oversees supportive services to roughly a dozen special needs set -aside units.
Construction was completed on 02/26/2020. 71 HUD-Funded Units to be built by end of FY24/25.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda In accordance with the 2023 -2031 Housing Element, the City of Alameda gives high priority to processing density bonus applications or other parceling that include affordable housing and multifamily rental housing to facilitate development. The City has an affordable housing pipeline of approximately 1,309 new affordable units to be constructed by 2030, pending funding.
City of Berkeley Several Housing Trust Fund projects have been completed, including Berkeley Way (2022), Jordan Court (2022), Stuart Street Apartments (2022), Solano Avenue Cooperative (2023), and The Grinnell (2024). We have at least 11 new construction projects in the pipeline, in addition to rehab projects.
City of Emeryville Emeryville adopted an Affordable Housing Administration & Expenditure Plan in January 2021, which outlined programs, performance measures, and a spending plan for the Measure C Housing Bond and other affordable housing resources. The Measure C Housing Bonds were sold in May 2023. Emeryville loans $16,747,486 in acquisition and construction funds to Nellie Hannon Gateway, a 90-unit housing project for households between 20 -60% AMI. 45 units will be set aside for formerly homeless households and the project i s anticipated to be complete with construction in September 2025. In 2021, the City coordinated with a non -profit housing developer to get the state legislator to adopt Senate Bill 591 which enables developers to build affordable housing for seniors to live side by side with youth transitioning out of foster care. With the passage of SB329, the City’s vision for the development of an intergenerational 100% affordable housing project of 68 units at 4300 San Pablo Avenue will be able to move forward in its search for development financing.
City of Fremont The City awarded $45 million and $35 million in funding in 2020 and 2024 respectively to a total of six affordable rental projects. These projects will provide affordable housing to individuals and families with incomes at 30% - 80% of AMI.The City will continue to administer the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance and provide funding support (as they become available) to facilitate the development of affordable housing for low-income and special need populations.
City of Hayward In 2021, the City allocated the available inclusionary housing funds to existing projects with funding gaps. These projects, including the two CalTrans 238 Parcel Group 3 and 8 developments, in which the City has entered into land agreements, have made sig nificant progress and are actively working to complete construction and start leasing. Together, these two developments are expected to provide over 250 affordable rental units in Hayward for very low to low -income households. The City has not issued another Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) due to insufficient funding. However, the City continues to provide technical and analytical assistance to developers of both existing and new residential projects seeking state and federal funding opportunities to support affordable housing REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; R/ECAPs; segregation ACTIVITY 5B:
The participating jurisdictions will continue all existing programs to support the development of local affordable housing un its through a variety of strategies such as applications for state and federal funding, entitlement assistance, outreach to the community and other stakeholders, direct financial support, and site identification and acquisition assistance. This support will inclu de the development of units that serve specialized populations as defined by the funding source, Housing Element, Consolidat ed Plan, or AI, such as transitional and supportive housing, and housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and persons living with HIV/AIDS or severe mental illness.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
development in Hayward. The next NOFA will expand the eligible types of projects to include rental and ownership opportunities, as well as emergency and transitional shelter and rehabilitation/conversion projects. The NOFA will also establish a pipeline of eligible projects to award as funding becomes available.
City of Livermore In May 2023, MidPen welcomed new residents at the official opening for Avance, 43 units of affordable, services-enriched housing for persons with developmental disabilities. The City continues to work with non -profit housing agencies to identify prospectiv e acquisition and rehabilitation opportunities that could rehabilitate blighted and distressed properties within the City and provide safe, clean, and affordable rental housing opportunities.
City of Newark The City has been actively trying to work with developers and non -profits to develop affordable housing units. Examples of achievements include a State grant of $40 million to purchase a hotel and convert that into an affordable housing building. The new C edar Community Apartments building contains 124 residential units that target a Low -Income population. In addition, the City has issued a $12 million NOFA for a housing non -profit to develop 59 affordable units that target families that fall into the Very Low and Low -Income levels. Lastly, the City was awarded approximately $5 million through the A -1 Bond program to use for affordable housing projects. The City worked with Eden Housing to assist in funding the Timber Senior Housing project which recently started construction on 79 senior housing units at various Low- and Moderate-income units.
City of Oakland The City of Oakland proposed and passed an affordable housing bond measure, Measure U, to dedicate more funding to creating the affordable housing stock needed for the projected growth of the City. It is estimated that the $850 million bond will generate 2,200-2,400 housing units up until 2030. Measure U was passed in 2022. The City also uses state and federal funding to support the construction of new units, including HOPWA and HOME funding.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Two requests for proposals for Project-Based Vouchers were issued during this review period. Five PBV contracts were signed during this time and two contracts for developments to receive PBV in the future were signed. In addition, AHA received approval for several MTW activities that increase the number of possible PBVs and allow for a streamlined award for AHA-owned units.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
In FY 2021, HACA awarded 25 PBVs serving VASH and Mainstream families in Castro Valley. In FY 2022, HACA awarded 133 PBVs as follows: 5 PBVs serving homeless families in Albany, 48 PBVs serving the elderly in Hayward, 60 PBVs serving homeless families in N ewark, and 20 PBVs serving the elderly in Newark that are currently leased or in process. HACA also awarded 14 PBVs serving homeless families in unincorporated Cherryland; however, the application was later withdrawn.
Livermore Housing
Authority
In May 2023, MidPen welcomed new residents at the official opening for Avance, 43 units of affordable, services-enriched housing for persons with developmental disabilities. The City continues to work with non -profit housing agencies to identify prospectiv e acquisition and rehabilitation opportunities that could rehabilitate blighted and distressed properties within the City and provide safe, clean, and affordable rental housing opportunities.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA continued supporting the development of local affordable housing through programs outlined in Activity 08 -01 of the Annual MTW Report, including predevelopment and development loans, committing PBV units to developments, and the new Rental Assistance Subsidy (RAS) program. RAS is a new financing program to provide subsidies to affordable housing projects that serve a high percentage of Extremely Low-Income households and therefore are projected to operate at a deficit.
The subsidy would be capitalized a nd will be disbursed annually contingent upon compliance with OHA’s standards and procedures. The RAS may be awarded to projects through an OHA published or one of the City of Oakland’s published NOFAs.
REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access; R/ECAPs; segregation ACTIVITY 5B:
The participating jurisdictions will continue all existing programs to support the development of local affordable housing un its through a variety of strategies such as applications for state and federal funding, entitlement assistance, outreach to the community and other stakeholders, direct financial support, and site identification and acquisition assistance. This support will inclu de the development of units that serve specialized populations as defined by the funding source, Housing Element, Consolidat ed Plan, or AI, such as transitional and supportive housing, and housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and persons living with HIV/AIDS or severe mental illness.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Union City HCD The City is continuing to proceed with the Lazuli Landing project in coordination with MidPen Housing.
Due to a funding gap that was caused by the pandemic, the project has been able to secure funding and is in the process of submitting an application for Tax Credits. The goal is to have the project start construction in 2025 and then be completed by mid-2027.
REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 5C:
Participating jurisdictions will explore revisions to building codes or processes that reduce the costs and/or allow a greater number of accessory dwelling units, tiny homes, or smaller houses.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County Planning
Department
The Planning Department has continued to prepare updates to the County’s ADU ordinance to comply with recent state legislation. Ordinance revisions are also underway to implement SB 9.
City of Dublin CDD,
Planning
The City of Dublin has built 9 new unrestricted plus 15 restricted -income ADUs with building permits in Dublin. ADU zoning updated 11/3/2020.
City of Hayward State legislation has continued to build on the expanded access to and streamlined processes for permitting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) established in Senate Bill 9 (SB9). In response, the City has updated ADU and SB9 application Checklists and permitt ing processes in compliance with State Law; codified SB9 into the City’s Municipal Code and is currently working on an Accessory Dwelling Unit Program for pre -approved plans, reduced fees, and processed improvements to further streamline development of ADU s. Further, in January 2024, the City adopted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map related to objective design and development standards to streamline development; to allow the development of duplexes, triplexes, and other missing middle housing types in all residential districts. Currently, the City is developing Zoning Text Amendments to introduce flexibility in permitting emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, group homes, and tiny homes with wraparound services at church, nonprofit, and publicly owned properties, which will be adopted by January 2025.
City of Oakland Updated regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) to comply with state law and implement changes to streamline the development review process for small projects and improve the city’s ability to improve mor e complex projects. applied for and participated with CALHFA to provide direct financial assistance for predevelopment costs of ADU construction. HCD applied for, won an award, and developed and administered state state -funded program to legalize low -income homeowner’s ADUs and completed one project. PBD amended the Oakland building maintenance code (Oakland municipal code 15.08) to provide standards for delayed enforcement for accessory dwelling units and joint live-work quarters where correction of violations is not necessary for health and safety and applied for new grants to provide funding for ADU legalizations. passed a resolution to affirm and clarify that building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) does not require the installation of separate utility meters for the accessory dwelling unit. amended the Oakland planning code to: 1) revise regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) to comply with state law; 2) amend the s -9 zoning overlay zone that identifies areas in the city where ADUs are restricted to one internal conversion ADU or JADU per residential lot; 3) provided an exception mechanism for allowing attached and detached ADUs in the REGIONAL GOAL 5:
Unit Production: Increase the number of affordable housing units IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 5C:
Participating jurisdictions will explore revisions to building codes or processes that reduce the costs and/or allow a greater number of accessory dwelling units, tiny homes, or smaller houses.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
s-9 zoning overlay zone; 4) provide additional wildfire building protections in s-9 zoning overlay zone.
PBD provided a pre -approved template for ADUs to allow applicants to move through plan review quickly. PBD published and posted resources online: singl e-family ADU guide, rental property owner checklist (landlord guide). PBD improved online permitting and information systems for ADU applicants and provided dedicated staff and extended hours for processing ADU applications. As part of a building code upda te, the City has also provided for a five -year stay of enforcement for code violations that are not a health or safety hazard. The City of Oakland also offers free, pre -approved ADU plans on its website. The use of these plans expedites the approval proces s and saves homeowners the cost of full architectural designs. The City of Oakland also participates in the ADU Cost Calculator, an online tool that allows homeowners to estimate the construction costs associated with different-sized ADUs.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro has created special online resources to inform, assist, and encourage the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, including information in Spanish and Chinese. This same information and assistance is also provided at the City’s Permit Center.
REGIONAL GOAL 6:
Homeownership: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 6A:
Participating jurisdictions will create a shared list of lenders countywide that can help buyers access below -market-rate loans (homes) and locally sponsored down payment and mortgage assistance programs; promote this list of lenders to interested residents.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The MCC program is currently unfunded, but we do process RMCC's (reissued MCC's; for people who are refinancing.) AC Boost is a current program.
City of Alameda From FY 2019-20 through 2023-24, there have been twenty (20) low- to moderate-income households that have purchased a home as part of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Below Market Rate (BMR) program. Additionally, From FY 2019-20 through 2023-24, there have been eleven (11) first-time home buyer households that have obtained Down Payment Assistance to purchase their home in Alameda.
City of Berkeley The City continues to participate in this program City of Dublin CDD The City of Dublin has provided First Time Homebuyer Loans to qualified buyers of up to $40,000 per buyer. The City website has promoted the FTHLP and the AC Boost loan program.
City of Dublin The City of Dublin website was updated with additional Lenders. Links were also updated for the AC Boost Down Payment program and notices were distributed on multiple social media channels.
City of Emeryville Emeryville opted not to provide a list of preferred lenders during this reporting period as the City was in the process of revising its Homebuyer Assistance Program. In May 2024, the City Council approved the Emeryville First Home Down Payment Assistance Program Guidelines and the revamped program will launch in September 2024 with $1,950,000 available in assistance to support first time homeowners.
City of Fremont Actions are ongoing.
City of Hayward As part of the below-market-rate (BMR) program, the City works with BMR administrators that partner with developers to help market, sell, and income -qualify buyers for the BMR units in developers’ residential development projects. Those BMR administrators work with lenders who are familiar with BMR programs and are willing to originate loans for the City’s BMR program. The City has compiled a list of lenders who have originated loans for the City’s program and provides this list to potential purchasers looking for financing for a BMR purchase.
REGIONAL GOAL 6:
Homeownership: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 6A:
Participating jurisdictions will create a shared list of lenders countywide that can help buyers access below -market-rate loans (homes) and locally sponsored down payment and mortgage assistance programs; promote this list of lenders to interested residents.
City of Hayward As a result of increasing City resources that promote and support homeownership for low – and moderate-income households, the number of deed -restricted for -sale units in the City’s new residential development pipeline has increased and the City has exceede d its goal of adding 50 additional for -sale, deed -restricted units to its affordable housing stock. SoHay located at 29213 Mission Boulevard and Mission Crossing located at 25501 Mission Boulevard completed the sale of the last of the total 42 for -sale, de ed-restricted units across these two projects in December 2023.
SoMi/Mirza located at 29212 Mission Boulevard, La Playa Place located at 1000 La Playa Drive, and Moreau/Fusion located at 27177 Mission Boulevard are still under construction and include 20, five, and six for-sale, deed-restricted units respectively. Seven of the 20 units at SoMi/Mirza are anticipated to be ready for occupancy in Fall 2024 with the remaining 13 ready for occupancy in 2025. Eligible buyers have been identified for all five units at La Playa Place and occupancy is expected in Fall 2024.
Moreau/Fusion is in the process of qualifying buyers for their six units. Sequoia Grove located at 123 A Street closed escrow on their loan and land transfer in May 2024 and are working toward pu lling building permits for 10 for -sale, deed-restricted units, and construction is expected to start no later than September 1, 2024. Lastly, 420 Smalley Avenue, 32513 Mission Boulevard, and 27865 Manon Avenue are three smaller projects in the pre-development phase which will provide an additional four, for-sale, deed-restricted units once constructed. In total, the City has added or will add 87 units to its for-sale affordable housing portfolio. Additionally, in Program Year 2021, the City used ARPA -SLFRF funding to contract with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) for a foreclosure prevention program. This program provides legal advocacy services to eligible low-income, Hayward homeowners who are in danger of losing their home due to default or fo reclosure. This program also provides financial literacy education classes for a range of topics that affect homeowners from foreclosure mitigation to special assessments that affect HOA fees. Lastly, in Program Year 2022, the City Council authorized $2 mi llion in ARPA -SLFRF funding for a down payment assistance program. The City had planned to pair the down payment assistance program with a bond -funded property rehabilitation program but delays in determining the feasibility of the bond program have delaye d the implementation of the down payment assistance program, which is now anticipated to start in early 2025.
City of Livermore The City of Livermore continues to support homeownership education and administer Down Payment Assistance Loan Programs and BMR purchase programs for low - and moderate-income homebuyers.
The City hosts workshops for first-time homebuyers throughout the year.
City of Oakland Continued to provide on the City’s website a list of lenders who can assist buyers with community financing products. Continued to provide a page “Additional Homebuyer Resources” that lists and links directly to local down payment programs. Continued to li st Oakland -assisted BMRs for sale, as available.
City of Oakland Continued to support homeownership through outreach, technical support, partnerships, and referrals. Administer Down Payment Assistance Loan Programs and BMR purchase programs for low - and moderate-income homebuyers.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro contracted to provide First -Time Home Buyer counseling assistance and education training as well as multilingual outreach and placement services for BMR homes. The City continues to participate in the Alameda County HCD Mortgage Credit Certificate program.
City of Union City The City currently maintains a list of countywide lenders and agencies who support BMR ownership and assistance programs along with the City's Below Market Rate program which is accessible to residents via the City website. The City also maintains an Affor dable Housing Interest email list for people interested in affordable housing opportunities.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The Family Self-Sufficiency program continued through this review period. Participants of this program are offered many classes including financial literacy and homebuyer education classes.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to provide FSS program participants with two financial literacy classes and homebuyer education classes per year.
REGIONAL GOAL 6:
Homeownership: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 6A:
Participating jurisdictions will create a shared list of lenders countywide that can help buyers access below -market-rate loans (homes) and locally sponsored down payment and mortgage assistance programs; promote this list of lenders to interested residents.
Livermore Housing
Authority
LHA's website has linked HCD's website to their website to connect people to financial literacy training and homebuyer education classes:
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has assisted 124 families purchase homes since the program's inception in 2004, currently, OHA provides assistance to 68 homeowners. Additionally, OHA provides program information, Q and A sessions for homeowners, and post-purchase assistance.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with the Bay Area Affordable Homeownership Alliance (BAAHA) to administer the City's Down Payment Assistance Loan Program (PDALP) and the Pleasanton Homeownership Assistance Program (PHAP). The City also continues to contract with ECHO Housing to provide Homebuyer Education Program workshops.
Union City HCD The City is continuing to administer its BMR ownership program and managing its portfolio. The City also continues to promote the AC Boost program, explore other affordable ownership programs, and identify other funding sources and/or land opportunities th at could support affordable ownership programs. Unfortunately, due to a lack of funding from the State for the MCC program, the City is no longer able to support this program but does check in with Alameda County to see if the program will be brought back online.
REGIONAL GOAL 6:
Homeownership: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 6B:
As resources are available, the participating jurisdictions will allocate funds for homeownership programs that support low - and moderate-income households, including but not limited to down payment assistance, first -time home buyer, Mortgage Credit Certificate, below market rate (BMR) homeownership programs, and financial literacy and homebuyer education classes; and will promote any existing programs through marketing efforts.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The MCC program is currently unfunded, but we do process RMCC's (reissued MCC's; for people who are refinancing.) AC Boost is a current program.
City of Alameda From FY 2019-20 through 2023-24, there have been twenty (20) low- to moderate-income households that have purchased a home as part of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Below Market Rate (BMR) program. Additionally, From FY 2019-20 through 2023-24, there have been eleven (11) first-time home buyer households that have obtained Down Payment Assistance to purchase their home in Alameda.
City of Berkeley The City continues to participate in this program City of Dublin CDD The City of Dublin has provided First Time Homebuyer Loans to qualified buyers of up to $40,000 per buyer. The City website has promoted the FTHLP and the AC Boost loan program.
City of Fremont Twenty-three brand new below market homes were sold to income eligible households:
- PY 2020 - 2021: 19
- PY 2021: 2022: 2
- PY 2023-2024 :2
The City will continue to administer the BMR program and anticipates ten additional homes will come on-line within the next 18 months.
City of Hayward As a result of increasing City resources that promote and support homeownership for low – and moderate-income households, the number of deed -restricted for -sale units in the City’s new residential development pipeline has increased and the City has exceede d its goal of adding 50 additional for -sale, deed -restricted units to its affordable housing stock. SoHay located at 29213 Mission Boulevard and Mission Crossing located at 25501 Mission Boulevard completed the sale of the last of the total 42 for -sale, de ed-restricted units across these two projects in December 2023.
SoMi/Mirza located at 29212 Mission Boulevard, La Playa Place located at 1000 La Playa Drive, and Moreau/Fusion located at 27177 Mission Boulevard are still under construction and include 20, five, and six for-sale, deed-restricted units respectively. Seven of the 20 units at SoMi/Mirza are anticipated to be ready for occupancy in Fall 2024 with the remaining 13 ready for occupancy in 2025. Eligible buyers have been identified for all five units at La Playa Place and occupancy is expected in Fall 2024.
Moreau/Fusion is in the process of qualifying buyers for their six units. Sequoia Grove located at 123 A Street closed escrow on their loan and land transfer in May 2024 and are working toward pu lling building permits for 10 for -sale, deed-restricted units, and construction is expected to start no later than September 1, 2024. Lastly, 420 Smalley Avenue, 32513 Mission Boulevard, and 27865 Manon Avenue are three smaller projects in the pre-development phase which will provide an additional four, for-sale, deed-restricted units once constructed. In total, the City has added or will add 87 units to its for-sale affordable housing portfolio. Additionally, in Program Year 2021, the City used ARPA -SLFRF funding to contract with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) for a foreclosure prevention program. This program provides legal advocacy services to eligible low-income, Hayward homeowners who are in danger of losing their homes due to default or f oreclosure. This program also provides financial literacy education classes for a range of topics that affect homeowners from foreclosure mitigation to special assessments that affect HOA fees. Lastly, in Program Year 2022, the City Council authorized $2 m illion in ARPA -SLFRF funding for a down payment assistance program. The City had planned to pair the down payment assistance program with a bond -funded property rehabilitation program but delays in determining the feasibility of the bond program have delay ed the implementation of the down payment assistance program, which is now anticipated to start in early 2025.
City of Livermore The City of Livermore continues to support homeownership education and administer Down Payment Assistance Loan Programs and BMR purchase programs for low - and moderate-income homebuyers.
The City hosts workshops for first-time homebuyers throughout the year.
REGIONAL GOAL 6:
Homeownership: Increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 6B:
As resources are available, the participating jurisdictions will allocate funds for homeownership programs that support low - and moderate-income households, including but not limited to down payment assistance, first -time home buyer, Mortgage Credit Certificate, below market rate (BMR) homeownership programs, and financial literacy and homebuyer education classes; and will promote any existing programs through marketing efforts.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Oakland Continued to support homeownership through outreach, technical support, partnerships, and referrals. Administer Down Payment Assistance Loan Programs and BMR purchase programs for low - and moderate-income homebuyers.
City of San Leandro The City of San Leandro contracted to provide First -Time Home Buyer counseling assistance and education training as well as multilingual outreach and placement services for BMR homes. The City continues to participate in the Alameda County HCD Mortgage Credit Certificate program.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The Family Self-Sufficiency program continued through this review period. Participants of this program are offered many classes including financial literacy and homebuyer education classes.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to provide FSS program participants with two financial literacy classes and homebuyer education classes per year.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA has assisted 124 families purchase homes since the program's inception in 2004, currently, OHA assists 68 homeowners. Additionally, OHA provides program information, Q and A sessions for homeowners, and post-purchase assistance.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with the Bay Area Affordable Homeownership Alliance (BAAHA) to administer the City's Down Payment Assistance Loan Program (PDALP) and the Pleasanton Homeownership Assistance Program (PHAP). The City also continues to contract with ECHO Housing to provide Homebuyer Education Program workshops.
Union City HCD The City is continuing to administer its BMR ownership program and managing its portfolio. The City also continues to promote the AC Boost program, explore other affordable ownership programs, and identify other funding sources and/or land opportunities th at could support affordable ownership programs. Unfortunately, due to a lack of funding from the State for the MCC program, the City is no longer able to support this program but does check in with Alameda County to see if the program will be brought back online.
REGIONAL GOAL 7:
Supportive Services: Maintain and expand supportive services for lower-income households IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 7A:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to support or explore new programs that provide financial support for job training programs to lower-income individuals.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Berkeley COB committed nearly $300,000/yr to Bread Project, Inter -City Services, Multicultural Institute, and Rising Sun Center for Opportunity.
City of Dublin Funding was provided for career and Employer Workforce development. Chabot Las Positas Community College received funding for this program.
City of Dublin In FY22 and FY23, HCD funded the 4C’s for in -home childcare training and licensing. City of Dublin funding was provided for career and Employer Workforce development. Chabot Las Positas Community College received funding for this program.
City of Hayward In Program Year 2022, the City used the General Fund and CDBG funding to contract with multiple agencies to provide economic development technical assistance and support for small businesses, which included job skills training for low-income workers.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to provide at least 50 FSS program participants with job training referrals and career networking.
REGIONAL GOAL 7:
Supportive Services: Maintain and expand supportive services for lower-income households.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access.
ACTIVITY 7B:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to provide financial support for homeless services.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
All Urban County
jurisdictions
Urban County Cities have participated in the County's Homeless Action Plan and Unincorporated County Action Plan. The City of Dublin collaborated with County agencies and providers as well as Tri- Valley cities to achieve these goals.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda The City partners with Village of Love (VOL) to staff the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT). HOT provides mobile outreach to establish supportive relationships with homeless individuals through regular visits and services are delivered at sites and spaces where people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, the City contracted with Building Futures with Women and Children to implement the Winter Warming Shelter for overnight beds during the inclement weather months.
City of Berkeley The Request for Proposal for GF and federal funds occurs every four years. The last cycle from FY2020 was extended into FY2024. The latest RFP was released in the Fall of 2023 and awarded in June 2024 for four years (FY25-FY28). 55 programs were awarded over $23M in general, state, local, and federal funds. Nearly $4.5M in measure P funds were awarded to three agencies in the most recent cycle to support those services
City of Dublin CDD, Human
Services Commission
The City of Dublin provided CDBG funding for the Tri-Valley Haven for Domestic Violence services and shelter and for homeless services. Additional funding was provided by the City of Dublin Affordable Housing Fund.
City of Emeryville The City of Emeryville contracted with Operational Dignity to provide outreach, housing navigation and rapid rehousing assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness in Emeryville. Operation Dignity coordinates closely with Lifelong Medical Care ’s street health outreach team to connect unhoused clients with mental health and substance additional services. Mental health services are provided by Lifelong Medical through a County-wide contract.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont operates the Cold Weather Winter shelter annually as well as the mobile hygiene unit. The City also uses ESG, state, general fund, and social service funding to support Abode's emergency shelter and BACS Housing Navigation Center.
City of Hayward During Program Year 2022, the City provided over $300,00 in General Fund, CDBG, and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to homelessness service providers and shelters, as well as over $1,000,000 from the City’s General Fund to the Housing Navigation Ce nter and $1,000,000 in ARPA funding to the Housing Navigation Center Annex.
City of Livermore 1) The City of Livermore continues to provide financial support for homeless services agencies based on the resources available. The City currently supports City Serve of the Tri-Valley, Abode Services, Tri- Valley Haven, and ECHO Housing for various homele ss outreach, case management, housing navigation, Rapid Rehousing, and emergency homelessness prevention services. 2) Vineyard Resource Center has completed construction at the end of 2023 and includes 20 shelter beds, community meals, shower and laundry s ervices, and housing navigation. 3) The Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin provided funding to the rebuild of the Tri -Valley Haven's shelter, operational funding for CityServe of the Tri-Valley's homeless services, and the Goodness Village homeless housing project.
City of Oakland The City has invested through its CDBG funding roughly $1.1M per year in services to the homeless population, including an additional $650K through ESG federal funding. In FY22-23, the City kickstarted a Homeless Prevention Pilot program where it took its services a step further to provide targeted prevention services to Oakland residents most at -risk of homelessness. This program started at $1M but is now currently operating at $2.5M.
City of San Leandro From PY 2020 through PY 2024, the City of San Leandro allocated CDBG public services dollars to projects like the Davis Street Family Resource Center Basic Needs Program, SOS Meals on Wheels, Spectrum Senior Food Nutrition Program, and CALICO child abuse i ntervention services. The City Council also allocated local funds to support the Lewelling Interim Housing and Drop -In Center for people experiencing homelessness.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
AHA has continued to operate all programs designed for unhoused families. In addition, the AHA has expanded resources for homeless families by implementing an Emergency Housing Voucher Program REGIONAL GOAL 7:
Supportive Services: Maintain and expand supportive services for lower-income households.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access.
ACTIVITY 7B:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to provide financial support for homeless services.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
and a Stability Voucher program. The AHA applied at each opportunity for additional vouchers through the VASH program and received 36 in 2024 through a reallocation.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to operate all programs designed for unhoused families in its jurisdiction, including within the city of Dublin. In addition, HACA expanded resources for homeless families by implementing an Emergency Housing Voucher program and received ad ditional vouchers that serve unhoused families as specified in Activity 9.b. the HCV, PBV, and VASH programs which serve persons experiencing homelessness throughout its jurisdiction, including the City of Dublin.
Livermore Housing
Authority
1) The City of Livermore continues to provide financial support for homeless services agencies based on the resources available. The City currently supports City Serve of the Tri-Valley, Abode Services, Tri- Valley Haven, and ECHO Housing for various homele ss outreach, case management, housing navigation, Rapid Rehousing, and emergency homelessness prevention services. 2) Vineyard Resource Center has completed construction at the end of 2023 and includes 20 shelter beds, community meals, shower and laundry s ervices, and housing navigation. 3) The Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin provided funding to the rebuild of the Tri -Valley Haven's shelter, operational funding for CityServe of the Tri-Valley's homeless services, and the Goodness Village homeless housing project.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program funds non -profit agencies, specifically CityServe of the Tri-Valley and Tri-Valley Haven, that provide crisis intervention to homeless services.
Union City HCD,
Community & Recreation
Services (CRS)
The City continues to provide financial support for homeless services, as resources are available. The City currently supports its partner Bay Area Community Services (BACS) which will be providing support services for its Homekey property for individuals experiencing homelessness. The City also continues to provide support to its CARE program which provides safe overnight parking for individuals experiencing homelessness. The City is also ensuring that a previous public service provider, Abode Services, will be invited again to apply to the City's Bi-Annual funding grant process.
REGIONAL GOAL 7:
Supportive Services: Maintain and expand supportive services for lower-income households.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disproportionate housing needs; disability and access.
ACTIVITY 7C:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to support access to resources (such as for those with disabilities, language barriers, cultural barriers)
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The housing portal is running.
City of Alameda The Commission on Persons With Disabilities advises the Mayor, City Council, department directors, and other boards and commissions on issues about the disability community in the City of Alameda.
The Commission addresses a broad range of issues affecting the lives of people with disabilities and advises city officials on actions they can take to achieve an environment in which people with disabilities have equal access to programs, housing, facilities, and services. Furthermore, the Commission meets on the second Wednesday of every month at City Hall. Additionally, the Alameda Adult School provides free English classes for immigrants in the morning and evenings as well as free high school diploma/high school equivalency test prep in the afternoons and evenings.
City of Dublin The City of Dublin provided CDBG funding for Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) to provide housing access services to the disabled.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont contracted with CRIL, DACARA, and Afghan Coalition during this AI period to provide language access in both verbal and written methods. The City intends to continue aprtnering with agencies that have these resources to refer clients in needs of services.
City of Union City The City has continued to fund CRIL, which is a program that provides assistance to people with disabilities. They have continued to submit applications for the City's CDBG NOFA and have been a key partner in being able to provide assistance to residents with disabilities.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program funds non -profit agencies, specifically CityServe of the Tri-Valley and Tri-Valley Haven, that provide crisis intervention to homeless services.
REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 8A:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to assist in advertising the availability of subsided rental units via the jurisdictions’ websites and or apps, the 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media outlets.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The portal is running.
Alameda County HCD The portal is running.
Alameda County HCD HCD has funded Eden I&R annually with at least $50,000.
All Urban County
jurisdictions
HCD's website is configured with Google translation capability. The City of Dublin provides language line phone translation services at the Community Development Department public counter.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
In FY22, Eden I&R’s 211 Line received $54,000 from HCD to provide information and referrals for housing, social services, and COVID-19-related information.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Alameda The City of Alameda requires marketing firms to advertise in multiple languages as outlined in the Inclusionary Housing Rental Guidelines. These languages include Spanish, Chinese, Filipino, and Vietnamese.
City of Berkeley Berkeley created a listserv to promote the opportunities, created and distributed an affordable housing brochure linking current opportunities and promoted all vacancies on the new Alameda County portal to ensure the broadest reach.
City of Berkeley 211 and services are available via the COB website: https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/homeless- services/accessing-homeless-services.
City of Berkeley Berkeley created a listserv to promote the opportunities, created and distributed affordable housing brochure linking current opportunities and promoted all vacancies on the new Alameda County portal to ensure the broadest reach.
City of Berkeley Berkeley created a listserv to promote the opportunities, created and distributed an affordable housing brochure linking current opportunities and promoted all vacancies on the new Alameda County portal to ensure the broadest reach.
City of Dublin The City of Dublin provided funding for 211 through CDBG and other funding sources.
City of Dublin CDD,
Housing
The City of Dublin advertised and placed new low -income and moderate -income first -time homebuyers in BMR homes and assisted with BMR resales through the City of Dublin website and the Tri-Valley Guide.
City of Dublin CDD,
Housing
The City of Dublin utilized a consultant to provide annual monitoring of BMR properties and advertised BMR units through its website and 211.org and Housing.acgov.org.
City of Fremont
City of Hayward The City continues to work closely with affordable housing developers to ensure a wide range of community organizations working with underserved populations, such as persons with disabilities, people of color, low-income families, seniors, new immigrants, and people experiencing homelessness, are being reached and made aware of the affordable housing opportunities in Hayward. Staff continues to develop marketing tools and resources for housing developers to assist with marketing efforts.
Additionally, the C ity encourages developers not otherwise required to use the Alameda County Housing Portal to list available units on the Countywide system to promote a singular resource for affordable housing. A total of 4 city -funded affordable housing developments – The Mix at Sohay, Depot Community Apartments, Mission Paradise, and Pimentel Place – have used the housing portal as their resource for marketing and managing applications for over 300 affordable rental units.
Furthermore, information regarding the availabili ty of affordable units is available through the City’s website and handouts.
City of Hayward The City referred many callers to 211 for affordable housing needs during Program Year 2022, as well as for intake in the Coordinated Entry system for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
City of Hayward The City is actively developing marketing resources and tools, and providing current and upcoming information related to fair housing and affirmative marketing for developers constructing housing in Hayward. Staff is also closely collaborating with afforda ble housing developers by offering technical assistance in reviewing marketing materials and plans. In this process, the City is identifying community REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 8A:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to assist in advertising the availability of subsided rental units via the jurisdictions’ websites and or apps, the 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media outlets.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
organizations that serve underserved populations, such as individuals with disabilities, people of color, low-income families, seniors, new immigrants, and people experiencing homelessness, and sharing this information with affordable housing developers du ring the marketing process. Furthermore, the City is implementing policies that require translation of English marketing materials, including application forms, into Spanish, Filipino, Chinese, and Vietnamese to ensure that a diverse range of people are being reached and made aware of the affordable housing opportunities in Hayward.
City of Hayward The City provided RRSO and Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance materials in Spanish, Chinese, and English. The City also continues to work closely with affordable housing developers when developing the project marketing plan to ensure a wide and diverse range of people are being reached and made aware of the available affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, the City requires developers to provide marketing materials in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, in addition to English, or submit an independent market study to identify groups least likely to apply to promote affirmative fair marketing of affordable housing in Hayward.
City of Livermore 1) The City is developing affordable rental standards and requirements which will include accessible and multilingual outreach strategies and will update existing affordable homeownership guidelines.
Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024. 2 & 3) Program information was distributed via e-blasts to City housing interest list subscribers, and via social media outlets, and Spanish-translated materials were delivered to local businesses and multi -family developments with predominantly non -English speaking clientele/residents. Materials were also distributed to LVJUSD teachers and the Chamber of Commerce. Two outreach workshops/events were conducted targeting lower-income and predominantly non -English speaking (Spanish) residents in the City. The printed brochures and other supported information were also distributed between three library branches.
City of Livermore Fair Housing materials were distributed through the City's contract with ECHO Housing. Over 500 flyers were distributed every quarter of the year, and on -site consultations were provided in English and Spanish. Fair Housing information is available in Simp lified Chinese, Spanish, Mandarin, and Tagalog.
ECHO also conducts monthly fair housing workshops. ECHO provided consultations to over 200 individuals in 2023. The City will also include accessible and multilingual outreach strategies and update existing a ffordable homeownership guidelines. Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024.
City of Oakland The City has a website that it updates regularly with this information.
City of Oakland The City has a mandated ordinance to provide language access. There are specific HCD staff who can translate key materials on fair housing in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
City of San Leandro City staff regularly received calls and emails from people with housing stability issues who were referred to 2-1-1 for services.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Affordable homeownership guidelines. Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to advertise available rental units through its website and affordablehousing.com (formerly GoSection 8) for HCV program participants. HACA also provides links to other affordable housing resources on its website.
Livermore Housing
Authority
LHA's website lists affordablehousing.com which is formerly gosection8.com and other resources.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA published waitlist openings on its website and marketed to stakeholders. OHA recently purged its waitlists and will be opening waitlists this year. OHA plans to reach out to local organizations to publish the openings and will try to reach populations least likely to apply through appropriate community groups.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA published waitlist openings on its website and marketed to stakeholders. OHA recently purged its waitlists and will be opening waitlists this year. OHA plans to reach out to local organizations to REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 8A:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to assist in advertising the availability of subsided rental units via the jurisdictions’ websites and or apps, the 2-1-1 information and referral phone service, and other media outlets.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
publish the openings and will try to reach populations least likely to apply through appropriate community groups.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to promote the online Alameda County Housing Portal on its website and written materials to advertise the availability of affordable rental housing units throughout Alameda County.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with Eden I&R to provide 211 services to Pleasanton residents.
Union City HCD The City is continuing to assist affordable housing developers in advertising the availability of BMR units and other affordable housing options via the City website, email list serves, other media outlets, and community centers. The City also coordinates with local government and non -profit partners to expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services.
Union City HCD The City has placed a permanent link to the Alameda County Housing portal on its website. The City also markets the housing portal website via its email list, other media outlets, community centers, and the City website. The City has also generated a physical handout that it provides to residents who are looking for affordable housing opportunities in Union City and throughout Alameda County.
Union City HCD The City is continuing to provide General Fund support to 2 -1-1 as funding is available. The City also advertises 2-1-1 on its website. The City also provides a physical handout with 2 -1-1 information for residents who may not have access to the internet.
Union City HCD The City continues to target all people when marketing affordable housing units as they become available. The City has also continued to make additional efforts to reach people who have barriers and a history of being treated differently, such as distributing flyers to non-profits serving these target populations, hosting flyers on the City website, and maintaining an affordable housing development list on its website with the most current openings for affordable housing units.
REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 8B:
The participating jurisdictions will explore the creation of a countywide affordable housing database.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD The portal is running.
City of Emeryville The City of Emeryville continues to actively participate on the Alameda County Housing Portal BMR Steering Committee and the Doorway Bay Area Regional Housing Portal committee. A link to the Alameda County Housing Portal is available on the City’s website under Tenant Resources. Since the portal became operational, 4 housing developments in Emeryville have advertised available units or open waitlists for below market rate rental units.
Union City HCD The City has placed a permanent link to the Alameda County Housing portal on its website. The City also markets the housing portal website via its email list, other media outlets, community centers, and the City website. The City has also generated a physical handout that it provides to residents who are looking for affordable housing opportunities in Union City and throughout Alameda County.
REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate
ACTIVITY 8C:
The participating jurisdictions will continue promoting 211's affordable housing database with current information.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Alameda County HCD HCD has funded Eden I&R annually with at least $50,000.
City of Berkeley 211 and services available via COB website: https://berkeleyca.gov/safety -health/homeless- services/accessing-homeless-services
City of Dublin The City of Dublin provided funding for 211 through CDBG and other funding sources.
City of Fremont The City provided General funds to support 2 -1-1 through social service grants and requires social service and CDBG grantees, which is included in their contracts, to promote 211 on their website.
City of Hayward The City referred many callers to 211 for affordable housing needs during Program Year 2022, as well as for intake in the Coordinated Entry system for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
City of San Leandro City staff regularly received calls and emails from people with housing stability issues who were referred to 2-1-1 for services.
Pleasanton Housing
Division
The City continues to contract with Eden I&R to provide 211 services to Pleasanton residents.
Union City HCD The City is continuing to provide General Fund support to 2 -1-1 as funding is available. The City also advertises 2-1-1 on its website. The City also provides a physical handout with 2 -1-1 information for residents who may not have access to the internet.
REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; disability and access; disproportionate housing needs; ACTIVITY 8D:
Increase marketing efforts of affordable housing units to people who typically face barriers and discrimination in fair housing choice, such as people with disabilities, people of color, low -income families, seniors, new immigrants, and people experiencing homelessness.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
City of Berkeley Berkeley created a listserv to promote the opportunities, created and distributed an affordable housing brochure linking current opportunities, and promoted all vacancies on the new Alameda County portal to ensure the broadest reach
City of Dublin CDD,
Housing
The City of Dublin utilized a consultant to provide annual monitoring of BMR properties and advertised BMR units through its website and 211.org and Housing.acgov.org City of Fremont The City's Housing Division continues to market affordable housing opportunities to local non-profit agencies through its collaboration with the City's Human Services Department and Fremont Family Resource Center agencies.
City of Hayward The City is actively developing marketing resources and tools, and providing current and upcoming information related to fair housing and affirmative marketing for developers constructing housing in Hayward. Staff is also closely collaborating with afforda ble housing developers by offering technical assistance in reviewing marketing materials and plans. In this process, the City is identifying community organizations that serve underserved populations, such as individuals with disabilities, people of color, low-income families, seniors, new immigrants, and people experiencing homelessness, and sharing this information with affordable housing developers during the marketing process. Furthermore, the City is implementing policies that require translation of En glish marketing materials, including application forms, into Spanish, Filipino, Chinese, and Vietnamese to ensure that a diverse range of people are being reached and made aware of the affordable housing opportunities in Hayward.
City of Livermore 1) The City is developing affordable rental standards and requirements which will include accessible and multilingual outreach strategies and will update existing affordable homeownership guidelines.
Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024. 2 & 3) Program information was distributed via e-blasts to City housing interest list subscribers, and via social media outlets, and Spanish-translated materials were delivered to local businesses and multi -family developments with predominantly non -English speaking clientele/residents. Materials were also distributed to LVJUSD teachers and the Chamber of Commerce. Two outreach workshops/events were conducted targeting lower-income and predominantly non -English speaking (Spanish) resident s in the City. The printed brochures and other supported information were also distributed between three library branches.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA published waitlist openings on its website and marketed to stakeholders. OHA recently purged its waitlists and will be opening waitlists this year. OHA plans to reach out to local organizations to publish the openings and will try to reach populations least likely to apply through appropriate community groups.
Union City HCD The City continues to target all people when marketing affordable housing units as they become available. The City has also continued to make additional efforts to reach people who have barriers and a history of being treated differently, such as distributing flyers to non-profits serving these target populations, hosting flyers on the City website, and maintaining an affordable housing development list on its website with the most current openings for affordable housing units.
REGIONAL GOAL 8:
Marketing: Maintain and expand awareness of affordable housing opportunities and services through marketing efforts.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Disability and access; disproportionate housing needs
ACTIVITY 8E:
Participating jurisdictions will continue to provide program materials in multiple languages.
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
All Urban County
jurisdictions
HCD's website is configured with Google translation capability. The City of Dublin provides language line phone translation services at the Community Development Department public counter.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
City of Alameda The City of Alameda requires marketing firms to advertise in multiple languages as outlined in the Inclusionary Housing Rental Guidelines. These languages include Spanish, Chinese, Filipino, and Vietnamese.
City of Berkeley Berkeley created a listserv to promote the opportunities, created and distributed an affordable housing brochure linking current opportunities and promoted all vacancies on the new Alameda County portal to ensure the broadest reach.
City of Fremont The City's Housing Division is in the process of translating affordable housing marketing materials to Chinese and Spanish.
City of Hayward The City provided RRSO and Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance materials in Spanish, Chinese, and English. The City also continues to work closely with affordable housing developers when developing the project marketing plan to ensure a wide and diverse range of people are being reached and made aware of the available affordable housing opportunities. Additionally, the City requires developers to provide marketing materials in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, in addition to English, or submit an independent market study to identify groups least likely to apply to promote affirmative fair marketing of affordable housing in Hayward.
City of Livermore Fair Housing materials were distributed through the City's contract with ECHO Housing. Over 500 flyers were distributed every quarter of the year, and on -site consultations were provided in English and Spanish. Fair Housing information is available in Simp lified Chinese, Spanish, Mandarin, and Tagalog.
ECHO also conducts monthly fair housing workshops. ECHO provided consultations to over 200 individuals in 2023. The City will also include accessible and multilingual outreach strategies and update existing a ffordable homeownership guidelines. Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024.
City of Oakland The City has a mandated ordinance to provide language access. There are specific HCD staff who can translate key materials on fair housing into Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
Affordable homeownership guidelines. Implementation of the adopted and revised guidelines is expected in 2024.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
HACA continues to provide program materials in multiple languages upon request. HACA has Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Farsi, and Dari speakers on staff and contracts with Language Line for other languages and backup services. HACA provides large -print materials and accessible format materials upon request.
REGIONAL GOAL 9
Community Development: Continue to find ways to finance affordable housing, community development, and economic development activities.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 9A:
Participating jurisdictions will explore financially supporting economic development activities and initiatives in Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
Almeda County HCD Over the five years, unincorporated County projects received $3,060,218 in regular CDBG funds.
City of Alameda The City continues to partner with Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) to support economic development activities for residents. In FY 2023-24, APC has trained and placed into employment over 20 residents, and 75% of them continue to maintain their employmen t. More than 40 residents participated in a variety of workforce development workshops and one -on-one trainings, and many have gone on to either find and retain employment or go onto vocational or post-secondary education opportunities.
City of Berkeley Southside Plan is continuing to move forward - The purpose of this project is to modify development standards near campus to facilitate and streamline housing development. The project has the potential to add 4,597 new units. Draft EIR in progress. South B erkeley: In PY23, South Berkeley Neighborhood Development Corporation (SBNDC) continued to work on their emergency rehabilitation project, primarily consisting of plumbing system upgrades and repair, for Lorin Station and Rosewood Manor.
As of June 30, 20 24, the plumbing upgrades for both projects were completed. The roof repair and replacement recommended by HUD were completed in July 2024. Staff working with SBNDC to utilize the remaining balance ($21k, CDBG -Lorin Station, $140k in General Fund for Ros ewood Manor) for other capital improvements identified in the original Scope of Work. SBNDC will close out both projects by Fall 2024. The Adeline Corridor Plan was adopted in December 2020. The City continues to implement the plan to facilitate and strea mline housing, economic development, and transportation with an emphasis on affordable housing
City of Oakland The City has invested through its CDBG funding roughly $310K per year in EWD activities for the community.
Oakland Housing Authority OHA partnered with many local organizations, and developers including East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), MidPen Corporation, EAH Housing, Strategic Urban Development Alliance, and MacFarlane Partners, among others, to increase affordabl e housing options in Oakland.
In FY 2024, OHA completed construction on the last phase of the master -planned community of Brooklyn Basin, adding 465 units of affordable housing.
REGIONAL GOAL 9
Community Development: Continue to find ways to finance affordable housing, community development, and economic development activities.
IMPEDIMENT ADDRESSED:
Segregation; R/ECAPs; access to opportunity.
ACTIVITY 9B:
Participating jurisdictions will pursue local, state, and federal funding sources as they become available (i.e., Program 811).
JURISDICTION ACTIONS TAKEN
All Urban County
jurisdictions
This is ongoing at the County level. The City of Dublin coordinated a $330,000 CDBG Capital pool grant for the Vineyard 2.0/Open Heart Kitchen facility. The Dublin Affordable Housing fund secured a State Local Housing Trust Fund grant of $3,333,000 for th e Regional Street affordable housing project and $3,333,000 for the Amador Station affordable housing project.
Berkeley Housing
Authority
Actions are ongoing.
City of Fremont The City of Fremont has pursued state and local funding to support homelessness services such as State Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Grant (HHAP), We continue to explore other funding for support of affordable housing and fair housing enforcement.
City of Hayward The City applied for and was awarded funds to support the Hayward Navigation Center through the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) grant and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PHLA) grant. Additionally, the City applied for but was no t awarded funds from the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) 2020 CalHome program and the HCD Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) program. The City applied for and was awarded LHTF in 2021. The City’s Planning Division also applied for and recei ved grants for the State’s SB 2 and Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grants for funds and technical assistance for updating the Density Bonus Ordinance, developing Objective Design and Development Standards, and updating the City’s Housing Element and Cl imate Action Plan. The Density Bonus and Objective Design and Development Standards Ordinance updates funded through SB 2 were completed in December 2023 and January 2024, respectively. The Housing Element and Climate Action Plan updates funded through LEA P were completed in 2023-2024 and the ADU streamlining program will be completed by the end of 2024. The City also partnered with the City of Union City and a non -profit developer to apply for the State Homekey program to fund a regional scattered site, shared housing program.
City of Oakland The City has pursued its local funding through the creation of the Measure U bond, which will utilize $850M over several years to build 2,200-2,400 units. The City has also applied to every HomeKey round of state funding through California HCD to secure mo re permanently supportive housing for its homeless residents. Currently, the City is maximizing all known funding sources to reach its RHNA goal, including federal funding through the HOME grant to new state programming like Homekey.
Housing Authority of the
City of Alameda
The AHA achieved a Moving to Work (MTW) status in 2022. In addition, the AHA received additional funding for the Emergency Housing Voucher Program, Stability Voucher Program, and the VASH program.
Housing Authority of the
County of Alameda
From 7/1/2020 to 6/30/2024, HACA was awarded 206 Mainstream vouchers, 8 "by name" Foster Youth to Independence Initiative (FYI) vouchers, 115 VASH vouchers, 252 Emergency Housing Vouchers, 61 "fair share" Consolidated Appropriations Act vouchers, and 42 en hanced vouchers for a project in Hayward that opted out of its affordability contract with HUD-Multi-Family.
Livermore Housing
Authority
LHA has complied with this and received additional VASH vouchers, Foster Youth Initiative Vouchers, and Stability Vouchers
Pleasanton Housing
Division
City staff continues its efforts to receive its annual allocations of federal CDBG and HOME funds. City staff will also continue to explore other funding opportunities from county, state, and federal sources/programs.
Union City HCD The City continues to pursue local, state, and federal funding sources as they become available. One example is the City partnering with a non-profit partner and other jurisdictions to submit an application and be awarded funds from the State Homekey program. Those funds are being utilized to purchase a single-family home in order to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Version 2: 6.2.2025
City of Oakland
Housing & Community
Development Department
Effective July 1, 2025
Citizen Participation Plan
"UUBDINFOU%
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANNUAL ACTION PLAN .............................................................................. 4 A. Consultation with Key Stakeholders
B. Public Hearings and Notification of Hearings
C. Public Review of Draft Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN/ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ........................................ 5 A. Substantial Amendments
B. Public Hearings, Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Draft Substantial Amendments CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT ....................................... 7 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN ........................................................................ 8 A. Substantial Amendments
B. Public Hearings, Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Draft Substantial Amendments AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS TO THE PUBLIC ...................................................................................... 9 ACCESS TO RECORDS ........................................................................................................................................... 9
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, OR ESG FUNDING ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 COMPLAINTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
BACKGROUND
The City of Oakland is a recipient of annual formula grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
On January 5, 1995, HUD issued a final rule that consolidated into a single submission the planning, application, and reporting requirements for the following four HUD formula grant programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities For Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG). Consolidated planning regulations can be found under Title 24, Part 91 of the Code of Federal Regulations (24 C.F.R. § 91.1 – 91.600).
Through this consolidated planning process, the City of Oakland develops the five-year Consolidated Plan (Con Plan), which assesses its affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions to make data-driven funding decisions that address priority needs and specific goals. The Con Plan is implemented through the Annual Action Plan (AAP), which details the activities that will be carried out each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) to address the priority needs and goals specified in the Con Plan. The City of Oakland may make significant changes to their approved Con Plan and Annual Action Plan through a Substantial Amendment. At the end of each AAP cycle, the City of Oakland through the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) reports on accomplishments and progress toward Con Plan goals.
In the City of Oakland, the Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) is the lead department responsible for the consolidated planning process, including the preparation and submission of the Con Plan, AAP, Substantial Amendment, and CAPER to HUD.
Oakland HCD administers the CDBG and HOME programs. The Human Services Department’s Community Homelessness Services Division (CHS) administers the HOPWA and ESG programs.
Through this Citizen Participation Plan, the City of Oakland provides for and encourages its community members to participate in the development of the Con Plan and AAP, any Substantial Amendment to these, and the CAPER.
PURPOSE
The Citizen Participation Plan sets forth policies and procedures that comply with Section 104(a)(2) of the Housing and Community Development Act, with regulations at 24 C.F.R. § 91.1 – 91.600, and that promote community participation in the following activities:
• Development of the Consolidated Plan (Con Plan), a five-year strategic plan that serves as a planning document for the City of Oakland’s community development and affordable housing activities and a strategy for Oakland’s use of the four federal formula grant sources; • Development of each Annual Action Plan (AAP), which identifies the proposed activities that will be funded during the upcoming fiscal year with the four federal formula grant sources; • Consideration of Substantial Amendments to the Con Plan and/or AAP; • Review of each annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), which describes Oakland’s accomplishments and progress toward Con Plan goals, with a focus on implementation of activities funded by the four federal formula grant programs; and • Development of the Citizen Participation Plan and consideration of Substantial Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan.
The primary goal of the Citizen Participation Plan is to provide community members an opportunity to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and assessment of activities funded by these federal formula grant programs. It is also to encourage the participation of those least likely to participate in the process, especially low-income persons throughout Oakland, those who live in public and publicly assisted housing developments, and in areas where CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA funds are proposed to be used. This plan describes actions the City will take to encourage participation of all residents, with targeted outreach to low-income residents, communities of color, limited English proficient residents, and persons with disabilities.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
As required by federal regulations, the City of Oakland submits a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) every five years and an Annual Action Plan (AAP) every year to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Con Plan is a long-range plan that identifies community development and affordable housing needs of low-income Oakland residents, establishes priorities, and describes objectives, priority needs, goals and activities to address the identified needs. The AAP is a document that lists activities that will receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) funding in the upcoming fiscal year (July 1 to June 30).
Both documents are submitted to HUD for its review and approval and serve as applications for federal funding under the four formula grant programs, as well as planning documents. The AAP also serves as an implementation plan to be followed for carrying out community development and affordable housing activities funded by the CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs.
The process for the development of a Con Plan/AAP is as follows:
A. Consultation with Key Stakeholders
In developing a Con Plan, Oakland HCD will consult with and analyze reports and policy documents of public and private agencies to identify shared needs and solutions to persistent community problems, including other City of Oakland departments, Oakland Housing Authority, agencies of Alameda County, academic experts, community-based organizations/experts/leaders, among others. Consultation may take place through individual contacts with representatives of these organizations/communities, group meetings, and focus groups. During development of an AAP, consultation with these key stakeholders will be conducted primarily for coordination of resources for community development and affordable housing activities.
Oakland HCD will collaborate with the Oakland Housing Authority and other providers of publicly assisted housing to promote participation from public and publicly assisted housing residents in developing the Con Plan/AAP.
B. Public Hearings and Notification of Hearings
During the initial development of the Con Plan and each AAP, the City will schedule at least one public hearing to solicit input on community development and affordable housing needs to inform the development of the Con Plan/AAP. HUD-provided data that will be included in the Con Plan will be made available during the initial public hearing. Oakland HCD will schedule another public hearing during the development of the Annual Action Plan, which will include funding recommendations. The list of funding recommendations is a list of activities that are proposed to receive CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG funding. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the draft Con Plan/AAP. The draft Con Plan/AAP will be available for a 30-calendar-day public review period ending on or after the public hearing held during a City Council meeting, as part of the legislative
process that authorizes the budgeting and contracting of this funding. See below for more information on the public review period. (HUD uses the term “public comment period” to describe what this document refers to as public review period; however, this document uses the term public review period to avoid confusion with the City of Oakland’s legislative process, which uses the same term as HUD to describe public comment made during a City Council meeting.)
With advance notice, the City of Oakland will accommodate the needs of limited English proficient members of the public with interpretation services and comply with other applicable requirements of the City of Oakland’s Language Access Plan. Likewise, accommodations will also be extended for persons with disabilities.
The public will be informed of hearings through the following methods:
• Notices will be published in neighborhood newspapers and ethnic group-specific publications, • Notices will be posted on the City of Oakland website, • Email announcements will be sent to Oakland HCD’s distribution list.
The publication of notices in newspapers will take place at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of a public hearing. Notices, web postings, and email announcements will encourage persons who cannot attend a public hearing to submit written comments to Oakland HCD during the 30-day public review period.
The City of Oakland will consider all comments in the development of the Con Plan/AAP. A summary of oral and written comments will be included with the final submission of the Con Plan/AAP.
C. Public Review of Draft Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan Prior to the submission of the Con Plan/AAP to HUD, notices will be posted on the City’s website and published in neighborhood and ethnic group-specific newspapers. The notice will summarize the content of the document and inform the public of locations where a copy of the draft document may be reviewed. For each AAP, the notice will also include a summary of the amount of assistance expected to be received from HUD, the range of activities to be funded, and the amount of funding expected to directly benefit low-income persons.
Oakland HCD does not expect any displacement of persons to occur because of CDBG-, HOME-, HOPWA-, or ESG-funded activities. However, in the rare event that displacement does occur, Oakland HCD will develop strategies to minimize displacement and to assist any persons displaced as required by law. Information related to any displacement will be included in the notice and in the draft AAP.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN/ACTION PLAN
The Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and/or Annual Action Plan (AAP) may be revised during the fiscal year. Certain changes will be minor in nature and will not require public notification or citizen participation prior to the implementation of such changes. Other changes, defined below as Substantial Amendment, will require public notification and public review.
A. Substantial Amendments
The following changes will be considered Substantial Amendments to the Con Plan and/or AAP:
1. A reallocation (also known as reprogramming) from one activity to another activity more than 20% of the total federal grant allocation for the fiscal year.
2. A new activity type not previously included in the Con Plan and/or AAP.
B. Public Hearings, Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Draft Substantial Amendments
In cases of Substantial Amendments to the Con Plan and/or AAP, the public hearing, notification of hearing, and public review process will be the same as the process detailed above (see Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan: Public Hearings and Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan).
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT
On an annual basis, the City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) must prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) that is submitted to HUD 90 days after the end of the program year. The City of Oakland’s 's program year is from July 1 to June 30. The CAPER describes the City of Oakland’s accomplishments and progress toward Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) goals, with a focus on implementation of activities funded by the four federal formula grant programs: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG).
Prior to the submission of the CAPER to HUD, notices will be posted on the City of Oakland’s website and published in neighborhood and ethnic group-specific newspapers. The notice will inform the public of the availability of the draft CAPER for review and comment, and of the locations where a copy of the draft document may be reviewed.
Copies of the draft CAPER will be available for public review on the City of Oakland’s website, at the offices of Oakland HCD, and at the Main Branch of the Oakland Public Library. Members of the public will have at least 15 days to provide written comments on the draft CAPER. Members of the public may also provide oral comments at the public hearing within the 15-day public review period.
A summary of all comments received within the 15-day period will be included in the CAPER that is submitted to HUD.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
This Citizen Participation Plan may be revised for reasons including to meet changing federal guidelines or to enhance citizen participation. Certain changes will be minor in nature and will not require public notification or citizen participation prior to the implementation of such changes. However, other changes defined as Substantial Amendment, will require public notification and public review.
A. Substantial Amendments
The Citizen Participation Plan can be changed only after the public has been notified of intent to modify it, and only after the public has had a reasonable chance to review and comment on proposed substantial changes to it. The Citizen Participation Plan provides a list of circumstances that constitute a Substantial Amendment to a Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and require a public review process. A change to this list shall be considered a Substantial Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan.
B. Public Hearings, Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Draft Substantial Amendments
Whenever there is a Substantial Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan, the public hearing, notification of hearing, and public review process will be the same as the process detailed above (see Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan: Public Hearings and Notification of Hearings, and Public Review of Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan).
AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS TO THE PUBLIC
It is the policy of the City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) to make available to all members of the public the following documents:
• The current Consolidated Plan (Con Plan);
• The current Annual Action Plan (AAP);
• The current Citizen Participation Plan
• Substantial Amendments to the Con Plan, AAP, and/or Citizen Participation Plan; and • The most recent Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).
These documents are available electronically on the City of Oakland’s website. Upon request, Oakland HCD will make available a hardcopy version and a version in a format that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Oakland HCD may be contacted at 510-238-6182 or [email protected]
ACCESS TO RECORDS
Members of the public may access information and records related to the City of Oakland’s Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and the City's use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) funding Consolidated Plan’s five-year period. Members of the public will be afforded reasonable and timely access to records in accordance with applicable public records access laws and regulations.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONS REQUESTING CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, or ESG FUNDING
City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) will make technical assistance available upon request as a part of the procurement process for community-based organizations interested in submitting proposals for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) funding and for which the City of Oakland is seeking or planning to seek proposals within two years.
The purpose of offering technical assistance is to provide interested parties with information and technical guidance on the procurement process. Assistance will be provided in locations that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
Procurement (e.g., Request for Proposal, Notice of Funding Availability, Notice of Interest, etc.) technical assistance, as described above, will be offered to eligible organizations. Technical assistance does not guarantee an award of funds.
COMPLAINTS
City of Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) will review and assess all written complaints and comments concerning the consolidated planning process and any activity funded by any of the covered federal formula grant programs. Complaints and comments that are assessed as input or feedback in response to the consolidated planning process will be considered and summarized in the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan, any Substantial Amendment to these, or Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report. For complaints that require a formal response by Oakland HCD, the department will provide a written response within 15 business days of receipt of the complaint. If a response cannot be prepared within the 15-day timeframe, the person that submitted the complaint will be notified of the approximate date a response will be provided.
For all concerns related to the consolidated planning process or specific activities funded by any of the covered federal formula grant programs:
Oakland HCD Community Development and Engagement Unit: 510-238-6182 or [email protected].