1.4 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

In 2018, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686), signed in 2018, established an independent state mandate to AFFH. AB 686 extends requirements for federal grantees and contractors to “affirmatively further fair housing,” including requirements in the Federal Fair Housing Act, to public agencies in California. AFFH is defined specifically as taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity by replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns; transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

AB 686 requires public agencies to:

• Administer their programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing;
• Not take any action that is materially inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing;
• Ensure that the program and actions to achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element affirmatively further fair housing; and
• Include an assessment of fair housing in the Housing Element.

The requirement to AFFH is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability. The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues.

An exhaustive AFFH analysis was prepared by Root Policy Research and is included as an appendix to his housing element (see Appendix A).

Defining Segregation

Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. Two spatial forms of segregation were studied for Belvedere by UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20 percent Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80 percent Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation. Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein, 2017). Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine, 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren, 2018; Ananat, 2011; Burch, 2014; Cutler and Glaeser, 1997; Sampson, 2012; Sharkey, 2013).

Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area

Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough seven of the nine Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.” However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

Segregation and Land Use

It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen, 2016 Pendall. 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine, 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben, 2004).

Segregation in City of Belvedere

The following are highlights of segregation metrics as they apply Belvedere.

The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once.

As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Belvedere, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.

Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Belvedere increased between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.

Above moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Belvedere. Above moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.

Among all income groups, the Moderate-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has not substantively changed between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Belvedere between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

Regional Segregation

The following are highlights of regional segregation metrics as they apply to Belvedere.

Belvedere has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

Regarding income groups, Belvedere has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.