Grand Jury
June 16, 2023
Pleasant Hill City Council
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear City Council of Pleasant Hill:
Contra
Costa
County
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Affordable Housing: "A Plan Without a Home" prepared by the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury.
In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 et seq., we are submitting this report to you as the officer, agency, or department responsible for responding to the report. Please respond to the Findings and Recommendations as they apply to your agency. Please also confirm in writing that the person responding to the report is authorized to do so. As the responding person or person responding on behalf of an entity, please indicate one of the following actions with respect to each finding:
(1) You agree with the finding.
(2) You disagree with the finding.
(3) You partially disagree with the finding.
(Pen. Code,§ 933.05(a).) In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, please specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires you to reply to each recommendation by stating one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury Report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
The Penal Code also prescribes the obligations of a governing board or elected county official with regard to responding to the grand jury's findings and recommendations. Specifically, if the report contains one or more recommendations directed to you as an elected county official, or to the governing board of which you are a member, you must respond to these recommendations and to the supporting findings, as directed in the report.
After reviewing the response to ensure that it includes the above-noted mandated items, please send (1) a hard copy of the response to the Grand Jury at P.O. Box 431, Martinez, CA 94553; and (2) an electronic copy by e-mail to [email protected]. The response must be submitted to the Grand Jury no later than September 13, 2022.
Finally, please note that this report is provided at least two working days before it is released publicly. Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public release.
Please immediately confirm receipt of this letter and the attached report by responding via e-mail to [email protected]. gov.
Sincerely,
C¼tr--··
Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson
2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
cc: June Catalano, City Manager
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
2022-2023
Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury
Report 2306
June 14, 2023
A REPORT BY
THE 2022-2023 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Report 2306
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY
Date C::,- ~L\ - 2 0"2--::>.:>
ACCEPTED FOR FILING
Date 6-/ L.(- c.02.-3
CYNTHIA ROBERTS
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
n.JILL C. ~ FANNIN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
TO:
Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621
Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306
Affordable Housiing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Councils for All Cities in Contra Costa County
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - ---------------~ ~----------~---- - - - - - -- -~ ~-- - - - Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 3 DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 3 INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 12 RHJ\TA TARGETS AND CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY ........................................... 12 ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AH ........................ 13 Limited Availability of Land ............................................................................................... 13 Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development .................................................... 13 Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward ...................................................................... 14 Limited Funding .................................................................................................................. 14 Lack of Community Support ............................................................................................... 14 NIMBY Opposition & City Council response to NIMBY opposition ................................... 14 CITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ........................ 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 16 FINDINGS: ............................................................................................................................ 16 RECOA;flv!E,VDATIONS: ........................................................................................................ 17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ........................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................................ 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ........................................ .. ........................................................................ 20 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... ..
A-1. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME 2022 ................................. 21 A-2. 2022 CCC WAGES, RENT TO INCOME, AMI STATUS ................................................ 22 A-3. BAY AREA RHNA ALLOCATIONS AND PROGRESS ................................................... 23 A-4. SB 35 VERY LOW-INCOME AND LOW-INCOME DETERA1INATION SUMMARIES .. 27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................ 34 Contra Costa 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 f®]i of i Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - -- --- ~---------------~~ -------------
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AH Affordable Housing
Allocations State-issued housing goals by income category that must be planned for and included in each County and city housing element plan AMI Area Median Income - Refer to Table 1
Builder's Remedy A provision found in California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.
Extremely Low 30% or less of area AMI
Income
HEP Housing Element Plans
HCD The State Department of Housing and Community Development Inclusionary Housing Regulation, when adopted by a city or the County, requires new Ordinance residential developments to include a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households into residential developments of five units or more (generally 15%)
Low Income (LI) 50- 80% or less of area AMI.
RDA Redevelopment Agency - dedicated to urban renewal.
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Measure X Housing Contra Costa County's 20-year, $12 million annual share of Measure Fund X ½ cent sales tax to be used for housing & services.
NIMBY Not in my back yard
SB 35 California Senate Bill 35 streamlines the housing construction process for cities and counties that fail to build enough housing to meet state-mandated requirements for very low- and low-income households.
Very Low Income 30-50% of area AMI. Qualifications for this designation are based on (VLI) the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [q@1 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - ~~-
SUMMARY
The civil grand jury began this investigation to understand how Contra Costa County is addressing the need for affordable housing. We started by reviewing California Housing and Community reports titled Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) results for the County.
These reports, issued at the end of each Housing Element cycle, show housing permits issued for various resident income classification groups against state mandated targets. Each city plus unincorporated County areas of responsibility results are listed. Appendix 3 comprises results for the past 3 Housing Element cycles plus targets for the latest cycle 2023-2031.
After reviewing these reports, we realized that most cities and our County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low- and low-income resident housing.
Close examination of these reports reveals the scale and accelerated progression of missed targets. Additionally, these reports show that the very low- and low-income resident categories reflect the largest percentage of missed RI-INA and plan targets over the past 20 years.
Based on these initial findings, we focused our efforts on housing for residents classified as very low or low income. We wanted to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why were those plans failing to address permit targets for very low- and low-income residents. What are the drivers/obstacles behind these missed targets, and what actions were being taken to increase the availability of affordable housing for these residents throughout our County.
What we found was that although there is ownership for the creation and approval of Housing Elements that address affordable housing targets, we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval. This problem, combined with the myriad of challenging obstacles outlined in this report has translated into years of missed targets for residents classified as very low or low income. Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the County risk the imposition of State mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols. This report is a summation of our work, findings and recommendations for improvement.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~J}2 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - --- - - - - -- - -- -- ----- - - -- - - - - -
METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grandjury reviewed numerous documents from local, County, regional, and State agencies. For a comprehensive list see the References section of this document.
Interviews
The grand jury conducted interviews with city and County leaders knowledgeable about the housing development process in the west, central and east County cities. We also interviewed:
• developers that specialize in affordable housing construction projects • leaders with experience in addressing housing development issues • various staff members with housing responsibilities
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}3 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---~-- -- - --- -- ------- - --- ~ --- - - -
BACKGROUND
The housing element cycle was introduced in 1969, when the California State Legislature passed laws requiring that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. California's local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their "general plan" (also required by the state).
The process involves significant planning from experts in local government, and citizens are asked proactively for input on these proposed plans before being submitted to the State for approval. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves all HEPs.
The role of the state, besides approval of each HEP, is to identify the total number of homes required by resident income classification so that cities and counties can include these numbers in their HEPs. These numbers are required to be included in each city and County HEP.
Determining individual income classifications is a County-specific exercise. It starts with a determination of County Area Median Income (AMI). As noted in Table I below, the state defines for each County, which is then extrapolated into specific resident income classifications.
After development of housing allocation numbers by HCD, the data is passed down to the regional authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), as a Regional Housing Need Detennination (RHND). This is the first step in California's process to plan for the housing needs in each region of the state. It is RHND's responsibility to also track permits issued against allocation targets in each Housing Element Plan (HEP). This tracking of progress against targets is communicated through ABAG issued reports (Appendix 3).
The next step, allocation, is also the role of the regional authority, ABAG. It is their responsibility to allocate a share of the RHND housing numbers to each city and County as a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These numbers are broken out by resident income, classified as very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income.
The next two tables reflect Contra Costa County's average median income, occupation, and wages of some of the County residents. We wanted to understand who in our community is part of the very low- and low-income groups. We realized that we all probably know someone who may be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]4 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - -------------------- - - - ----- - -- - Table 1 below, from the California Department of Housing and Community Development website, shows the state definition of income limits for residents in Contra Costa County based on the calculation of the average median income (AMI). AMI is based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).
Table 1: 2022 State Income Limits by Household
2022 State Income Umlts
Contra Costa County
Income Umits by Household Size -Effective May 13, 2022
. Median Family Income -$142,800
Acutely Low Extremely Low Very Low · Moderate
Persons per Lowlncome Median
Household Income Income Income 80"AMI . .income Income
15"AMI 309'AMI 50%AMI .. 1209' ~· , '1'
1 $15,000 $30,000 $50,000 $76,750 $99,950 $119,950
2 $17,100 $34,300 $57,150 $87,700 $114,250 $137,100
3 $19,250 $38,600 $64,300 $98,650 $128,500 $154,200
4 $21,400 $42,850 $71,400 $109,600 $142,800 $171,350
5 $23,100 $46,300 $77,150 $118,400 $154,200 $185,050
6 $24,800 $49,750 $82,850 $127,150 $165,650 $198,7SO
7 $26,550 $53,150 $88,550 $135,950 $177,050 $212,450
8 $28,250 $56,600 $94,250 $144,700 $188,500 $226,200
For lnduslonary Housing, Density Bonus, and calculating rents and for-sale prices Income Limits from 2022 State Income Limits from the Department of Housing and Community Development State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant ellglblUty (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subJett to a particular program's definition of Income, family, family size, effective dates and other factor$, In addition, definitions applicable to Income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting In some programs using other Income limits.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]5 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- -- -- - - - ---~-- - ---- -- -- Table 2 below contains data from govsalaries.com. It identifies by occupation some of the County occupations that fall into the very low- and low-income classifications as well as a few occupations that are just over the threshold, falling into the median income group.
Table 2: 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Oc:cupatton Mean Annual % of Monthly % of Monthly Income Status - % of Wage(2022) Income Needed Income Needed AMI*
for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom
Unit Unit
Food Service Worker $36,488 87% 113% Extremely Low
(<30%AMI)
Dishwasher $38,853 82% 107% Extremely Low
Hairdressers $42,203 75% 98% Extremely Low
Retail Salespersons $43,018 74% 97" Very Low
(50%AMI)
Security Guards. $45,998 69% 90% Very Low
Receptionists and $46,833 68% 89" Very Low
Information Clerks
Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% 90% Very Low
Medical Assistants $59,313 54% 70% Very Low
Education and Childcare $66,492 48% 62% Very Low
Administrators
Licensed Practical and $78,255" 41% 53% Low
Licensed Vocational (80%AMI)
Nurses
$91,041 34% 46% Low
Education Teachers,
Postsecondary
Police and Sheriff's Patrol $126,289 25% 33% Median
Officers
Computer and $132,023 24% 32% Median
Mathematical
Occupations
In addition to residents in these occupational categories, a lack of very low- and low-income affordable housing impacts senior County residents ( over the age of 65). Seniors are one of the fastest growing population segments in the County. The most recent US Census for the County indicates that 6. 7 percent of the total population, over 200,000 residents, is over the age of 65, an increase of 12.5 percent since 2010. The California Department of Aging projects that this group of residents will grow by over 150 percent by 2060.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~:6 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- --- ----------~ -------~- -- ------ The next two charts contain data extracted from published ABAG housing reports (Appendix 3).
They highlight the disappointing results in housing permits issued against mandated allocations for very low- and low-income residents.
Chart 1 shows a 21-year decline in the percentage of permits issued for very low-income residents, even as allocation targets stayed relatively flat. For the upcoming 2023-2031 allocation cycle for very low-income housing, allocations have tripled.
Chart 1: Very-low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC 11'1
16 14
12 10
-g 8 n,
11'1
:,
_g 6 ....
4 2
0 Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
1999-2006 Progress 2007-2014 2015-2020
-
RHNA Cycle
2023-2031
- RHNA Allocation Permits Issued • Percent of Allocation Permitted Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
(I/
50% tlO
n,
....
C:
40% (I/
u
...
(I/
30% 0.
20%
10%
0%
~}7 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - --- - -~--- --~- ~ ~----- - -- - - - Chart 2 shows a 15-year decline in low-income housing permits, with an uplift in the most recent allocation cycle. However, the County still only issued permits for about half of the allocations mandated by the state for this same period. And again, the upcoming allocation cycle for 2023- 2031 has a significant bump in the mandated allocation for low-income housing. 9 8
7 6 V'l
-0
~ 5 V'l
::,
_g4
I3
2 1
0 Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC 1999-2006 Progress
Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
2007-2014
■ 2015 - 2020 Progress
Progress4325
RHNACycle
2023- 2031
- RHNA Allocation - Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted 100%
90%
80%
70%
Cl/
60% QI)
I'll
..., 50% C
Cl/
u
... 40% QI
0..
30%
20%
10%
0%
The data published in charts 1 & 2 above illustrates that over the period 1999-2020 the County has failed to provide the number of housing units mandated by the State of California and as they have planned for in their individual city and County element plans for very low- and low-income residents.
To understand the allocation targets and whether all income groups were equally impacted, the grand jury again looked at whether there had been any progress made against RHNA targets within any of the other income groups. What we found was that housing permits for high income housing had outpaced other income groups, with high income permits more than double all other income group housing permits combined. Close examination of the details published in the reports found in Appendix 3 validates this reality. The next 2 charts again use graphic descriptions of this published data to reinforce the magnitude of the problem.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@B of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------~- - ---- - -- --
Chart 3 looks at the past three Housing Element cycles results against allocations for the four income categories measured by RHNA reports for Contra Costa County. It also identifies new allocations for the current 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The income categories are VLI (very low), L (low), M (moderate), and H- (above moderate), which align with income categories measured in RHNA published progress reports. This chart also shows what percentage of the planned permits ( allocation) resulted in a corresponding permit (Permits Issued) being issued for each income group as a percentage (Percent Permitted).
40 35
30 "' -g 25 n:,
"' 5 20 ..c
I- 15
10 5
0 VLI L
Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group
•I
I
M H vu
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
.Ii ...
_/. I 'i\
I ~
L M H vu L M H VLI L
I
M
1999-2006 2007-2014 2015-2020 2023-2031
- Allocation - Permits Issued Percent Permitted
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
H
[@]9 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - - ---- --~- --- - - -- - - - Chart 4 below takes a representative sample of cities in the County and shows the percentage of housing permits issued for very low- and low-income residents measured against all housing permits issued for the time period 1999-2020. Most of the cities identified fell short of their allocation goals.
Chart 4: Very Low and Low-Income Housing Permits as a % of All Permits by City 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 -6 C:
g 0
·.:: > C:
< 0 "'
,. I ~ ~ "' .. > CJ 0 CJ "' c:, g :f ::5 -~ a C: :;; ·.;:: ~ "' t ;:. 8 ;;: c Q "' C: :I: ::i: ., ,: r: II'>
C: "'
1999·2006
- VU Permits Issued
-" £ C: ~ ,,., ... > CJ 0 -" .:; C CII g "' C, c:, 0 ~ = ::i:i c:, 0 ::! 2 -~ a .§ :;; CJ '-' > C: &. u .2 > ~ c "' ,. ... :; 8 C: c c ,:
<: u Q "' . .,, ~ C: ; < 0 Q ;::! :I: :a ,. ,: "' C: ;; ., 7:
:l: C: :l:
"' N > w c:, ., CJ 0 :f
~ :! :;; C: ... 8 C: c c:, ,. :I: "' ::E .,
,.
QI
ii:
2007-2014 2015-2020
- Low Permits Issued - vu & L Permitted as a% of all Permitted 0 ::E
~
C:
,:
..,,
~
"' e
'-'
:i
C:
7:
~
70%
60%
50"/4
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chart 5 is a listing of all 19 cities in the County, showing how much housing was permitted for very low- and low-income residents in the last Housing Element cycle 2015-2020 and what is expected to be accomplished in 2023-2031. As the chart shows, the State of California has increased the mandatory allocation for very low- and low-income housing for many Contra Costa County cities and for the County itself.
Chart 5: Very Low and Low-Income Permit Allocations by City 7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000 I 0 • • .. 1. .... -·- • •' -· • • . I I I ' I •
2015-2020
■ VLI Allocation LO\'J Allocation Total Alloc-1tions
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 2023 • 2031
~iJ10 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - - -- - --~ - - - - - - - - - - - - Whether reviewing individual city details in Appendix 3 or reviewing the County results overall, the track record regarding very low- and low-income permitted units for affordable housing over the past 20 years is dismal. How will each city and the County meet more challenging targets (Appendix 5) for very low- and low-income housing in the next Housing Element cycle and what might enable attainment in the future?
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}11 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - - -----~ -~--~~- - -
DISCUSSION
In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and County officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets. Although we found the Housing Element Plans on the various city and the County entities, we did not find any language or group description that identified an owning entity that is either accountable or responsible for the execution of the Housing Element Plan, identifying and addressing obstacles, or attaining state mandated targets. The grand jury was unable to find any owner for the actual achievement of state mandated housing targets. Meaning that once a Housing Element plan containing the mandated housing targets for each income group was approved, no individual or department was responsible for implementing the approved Housing Element plan or accountable for the progress/results against the established targets within the plan.
Our investigation looked at three specific areas that should enable affordable housing. First, the RHNA targets identified in housing element plans and who in local government takes ownership to implement approved HEPs. Second, what control do our cities and the County have in the affordable housing development process? Finally, the state's relationship with our cities and the County: how decisions by the state impact affordable housing development in our County.
RHNA Targets and City and County Responsibility
Each city is required by the State of California to provide an updated housing element plan for approval every eight years. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Bay Area local government consortium whose mission is to strengthen cooperation and collaboration across local governments in order to build healthier and stronger communities, receives the affordable housing target data from the state. This data outlines how much housing will be needed, by income category, for the next reporting cycle. ABAG distributes the individual targets for each city and the County for the current cycle. ABAG then provides a report, before the next housing element cycle, which documents each city and the County results against targets.
Contra Costa County city and County performance in issuing housing permits for very low- and low-income residents for the last three housing element cycles, 1999-2006, 2007-2014 and 2015- 2020, showed significant misses of actual permits issued against the targets.
The charts in Appendix 3 reflect the number of permits issued by city, against RHNA allocation targets for each housing element. Appendix 5 is the final RHNA allocation for 2023-2031. All data presented in appendices 3 and 5 reflect that our cities and County are permitting housing, primarily for residents in the 120 percent of median or higher income classification.
City and County officials are primarily focused on getting HCD to approve an individual housing element plan. In multiple interviews with various city officials, after HEP approval we did not find examples of consistent communication of progress to meeting targets for very low- and lowincome residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as "aspirational, not Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@]12 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - -- - - - ------ - - ---- - - - - - realistic, or not attainable." Interviewees used different words, but overall, RHNA targets were considered mostly an academic exercise that no one takes seriously. Furthermore, we did not find a specific o-wner for attainment of the housing element plan allocations, leading us to believe that this could well be one of the key reasons for our County's failure to realize (permit and build) affordable housing for very low- and low-income residents.
Additional Obstacles that Hinder the Development of AH
Six additional obstacles to the development of AH for residents identified as very low- and lowmcome are:
• limited availability of land;
• restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; • limited developer interest to bring projects forward; • limited funding;
• lack of community support;
• NIMBY - au industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community, or city.
These obstacles are not uniform or constant across the County. Rather, some are more pronounced in one area or at one time.
Limited Availability of Land
Cities with less available land, but access to mass transit hubs, benefit from incentives to build AH close to transit centers. West County cities have benefitted the most from these projects. East County cities with large tracts of undeveloped land have had recent success in building AH projects for very low- and low-income residents. The Antioch Family and Senior Apartments project, completed in 2022, is an example of a successful AH project, in that it was submitted, approved, and completed in a relatively short time period with minimal roadblocks (References/ Bibliography East Bay Times October 22, 2022). Central County cities must balance extremely high land costs against AH development needs.
Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development
City zoning ordinances vary greatly throughout the County but in many instances are not conducive to the development of AH. For instance, we conducted a limited proactive review of existing zoning policies to see ifthere were any subtle changes to local building codes that could be made to ease the approval of AH projects. Some cities zone land for AH development, but land that is far from basic services, in very expensive-to-develop areas, or in environmentally sensitive locations. Some cities have restrictive height zoning ordinances. Many cities do not have an inclusionary housing ordinance. (An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside select units for very low- and low-income residents when proposing projects or to pay cities for the exclusion creating a local funding opportunity.) Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http:l/www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]13 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - -- - -- -- ---------- - - ---- --~ - - Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward
Actions by local city councils greatly influence how developers view their ability to successfully create an AH development. In our interviews with city officials and developers, it was determined that city councils that work openly to mitigate community concerns, don't flip flop after a project has been properly vetted, and are willing to team with developers as partners throughout the long approval and development process are viewed as fostering conducive and supportive environments for AH development. Failure to team with a developer or to actively address obstacles during the approval and development process often results in failing to meet AH targets.
Limited Funding
The lack of funding and the complexity associated with getting funding support for AH projects are obstacles. The state prioritizes AH projects that provide some local funding support.
Developers who rely on tax incentives to help secure project funding get a better place in line to have their projects approved if there is demonstrated local funding support. City officials attribute the elimination of redevelopment agencies as a local funding source in 2012 as a key reason local funding has been so difficult to obtain. The County has been slow to provide alternative funding sources. Voters passed Measure X in 2020, and housing funds will finally be available in 2023. Other Bay Area counties took a more assertive role in providing alternative funding support for their cities.
In 2016, Alameda County passed measure Al, which dedicated $580 million for AH. In 2016, Santa Clara County passed Measure A, which allocated $950 million for AH. In Contra Costa County,·Measure X carved out $240 million as a dedicated housing fund, with a stipulation that only $12 million annually for 20 years will be allocated to support housing. No funds are dedicated specifically to building housing for very low- and low-income residents, and there is no direct link of fund requests to achieving RHNA targets.
Lack of Community Support
Cities across the County have a wide range of policies around outreach and education about AH.
The effort to educate communities as to why this housing issue is so important is broadly different across the County. In reviewing successful AH projects completed in the County citizen involvement and participation has shown to lessen local opposition to AH.
NIMBY Opposition and City Council response to NIMBY Opposition NIMBY opposition was frequently cited by the developers that we interviewed as a primary cause of wasted resources and unnecessary project delays. Communities where projects get tied up in extensive local battles with non-supportive citizens or with city councils that reverse earlier decisions made through the normal local development process were cited by developers as influencing whether they would consider proposing AH projects in these communities.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@J14 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~----- - ------- - - --- - --- ~ - -- - - - Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The state grants cities and counties broad independence to do what is best for their community regarding housing development. But the state retains the ability to override local city jurisdiction.
The Builder's Remedy provision in California's Housing Accountability Act has been in place since 1990. It grants developers the authority to bypass any local zoning or approval process and move projects forward if a local government entity is not in compliance with its current Housing Element plans. Compliance has meant meeting the requirement to have an approved HEP. While in place for many years, the state, until recently, has rarely enforced this provision. City and County officials who were interviewed recognize that there is now a more intense state oversight process to plan submissions, and there are potential penalties for poor content plans or plans that do not get approved by state deadlines. This renewed intensity of focus has forced cities and counties to improve the quality of their Housing Element plans. The Builder's Remedy is the draconian solution that the state may enforce if cities insist on proposing Housing Element plans that are not implementable. The city and County officials interviewed for this investigation expect to get their housing element plans approved. But again, plan approval does not equal plan implementation.
Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees to move more quickly through the local government review process. The bill amended the Government Code to restrict the ability of local governments to reject these projects. A project approved under SB 35 cannot be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an important feature of projects developed under SB35 as much has been discussed publicly about how CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop the development of AH projects. Appendix 4 identifies individual cities and counties that have met their prorated very low- and low-income RHNA goals for the latest reporting period.
It's a small list. In this County, only El Cerrito qualified for exemption from SB 35. We did not find examples of projects being developed in this County that have been or could be streamlined under SB 35.
Cities in this County that propose Housing Element plans, implement their approved plans, and meet RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents will not run the risk of losing local development control through either Builder's Remedy or SB35.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]15 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- -- - - ----~- --- ------- -- ---- Findings and Recommendations
Findings:
FI. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.
F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for lowincome residents).
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very lowand low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.
Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.
F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval F8. Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.
F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA's) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~J16 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- - - - ----- -
FlO. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and lowincome residents.
F 11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.
Fl 2. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.
Fl3. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very lowand low-income housing.
Recommendations:
Rl. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.
R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.
R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.
R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RI-INA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.
RS. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~}17 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ---- --- --- ---~ -~~- - - -
R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.
R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).
R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.
Rl 0. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury f@J18 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~ --~ - - --- ---~-- ----- ~~--- -
REQUIRED RESPONSES
As required by California Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County civil grand jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1--F13 R1-R7 & R9-R10 t\ntioch City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Brentwood City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Clayton City Council F1-F13 R1 -R10
Concord City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Danville City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
El Cerrito City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Hercules City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Lafayette City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Martinez City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Moraga City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Oakley City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Orinda City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pinole City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pittsburg City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pleasant Hill City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Richmond City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Pablo City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Ramon City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Walnut Creek City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:
Civil Grand Jury - Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~]19 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------- ----- -- - ---- --
REFERENCES:
Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
o RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
o RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-20 I 4 o RI-INA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report o RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area. 2023-2031
o RHNA- Regional Housing Needs Allocation
o RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts I Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool/ Contra Costa County, CA • CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• 8B35 Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51): Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
• Mercury News, February 13, 2023: New bill would extend controversial California housing law
• Mercury News, October 20, 2022: Antioch unveils its newest and largest affordable income apartment complex
• Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, 2015-2016~ Report 1614: Where Will We Live? The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed
• Contra Costa Conservation and Development: Measure X Housing Fund • Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing: 2016 Measure A -Affordable Housing Bond
• Alameda County HCD: Measure Al Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [q@20 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ~- --- ------- -- - -
Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022
2022 State Income Umlts .t , l.:.1; ;;
Contra Costa County
Income Umits by Household Size • Effective May 13, 2022 , · , Median Family Income ~ $142,800 .t• ·r , i,i/;. . • -~ -...:t \ ., Extremely low Very low ,, l• ~~\~f,-J'f~_~•- .,. ,, Moderate ' \ ,:,\~..,, ,: Acutely low , low Income ... :.~;fJ' ; .f• ,j P!~~sper Income ' ' Income lncome i /'~AMI .•,. ~'- ·-- ~- ~-. ;: income Household ·is,fAMI 3°"AMI S°"AMI
c· ·income .r UOKAMI ., . ,,,,_
\' ,•
1 $15,000 $30,000 $50,000 $76,750 $99,950 $119,950
2 $17,100 $34,300 $57,150 $87,700 $114,250 $137,100
3 $19,250 $38,600 $64,300 $98,650 $128,500 $154,200
4 $21,400 $42,850 $71,400 $109,600 $142,800 $171,350
s $23,100 $46,300 $77,150 $118,400 $154,200 $185,050
6 $24,800 $49,750 $82,850 $127,150 $165,650 $198,750
7 $26,550 $53,150 $88,550 $135,950 $177,050 $212,450
8 $28,250 $56,600 $94,250 $144,700 $188,500 $226,200
For lnduslonarv Housing, Density Bonus, and calculatlng rents and for-sale prices Income Umlts from 2022 State Income Umlts from the Department of Houstnc and Community Development State Income Umlts apply to designated programs, arc used to determine applicant cliglblllty (based on the level of household income) and may be used to calculate affordable houslna costs for appl/cablC! hoiulna assistan,c: programs, Use of State Income Limits are? subject to a particular program's dc:finltlon of Income, famlly, family size, effective dates and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to Income categories, criteria, and aeosraphlc areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting In some programs using other Income llmlts.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~]21 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ~-- --- ----~------ - -- ---~- -- - --- A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Occupation Mean Annual " of Monthly " of Monthly
wase(2022t Income Needed Income Needed
for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom
Unit Unit
Food Service Worker $36,488 87% 113%
Dishwasher $38,853 82% 107%
Hairdressers $42,203 75% 98%
Retail Salespersons $43,018 74% 97"
Security Guards $45,998 69% 90%
Receptionists and $46,833 68% 89%
Information Clerics
Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% 90%
Medical Assistants $59,313 54% 70%
Education and Childcare $66,492 48% 62"
Administrators
Licensed Practical and $78,255 41% 53%
licensed Vocational
Nurses
$91,041 34% 46%
Education Teachers,
Postsecondary
Police and Sheriff's Patrol $126,289 25% 33%
Officers
Computer and $132,023 24% 32%
Mathematica I
Occupations
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Income Statu$ - " of
AMI•
Extremely Low
(<30"AMI)
Extremelv Low
Extremely Low
Very Low
(50%AM0
Vervlow
Very Low
Vervlow
Very Low
Very Low
Low
(80%AMI)
Low
Median
Median
[@]22 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - ~~---- ---- - ----- ---- --- ------ -- A-3. Bay Area RHNA Allocations and Progress
CCC Progress in Meeting 1999-2006 Regional Housing Need Allocation Very low low Moderate
Pe«entof PelUlltof Plrcentof
IUINA Permits Allocallon RHNA PenniU AllocaUon IUINA Permits Allocatlon Alloutlon ISsutid Ptrmltltd Allocation Issued P1rmlltld Alloc,llon luued Pennllttd tonlrl Costa County
Antioch• 921 435 47% 509 403 79'6 1,156 1.923 166"
Brentwood' 906 376 42" 476 238 5°" 958 2,166 226"
Clayton• 55 67 122" 33 17 52" 84 16 19"
1.onr:ord' 453 171 381 m 115 42" 606 76 13"
Dall.tile' 140 85 61" 88 56 64" 216 84 39"
EIC!nlto' 37 0 °" 23 5 22" 48 19 40%
Htreule$' 101 96 95" 62 68 110'11 195 93 48"
~ayetl!' 30 15 5°" 17 2 12" 42 0
M¥tiner' 248 0 °" °" 139 0 °" 341 D
Moqp' °" 32 Z1 66% 17 0 °" 4S 0 °" Olklev' 209 168 8°" m 293 m" 321 51 16" Orinda' 31 0 °" 18 0 °" 43 0 °" Pinole' 48 34 71" 35 6 17" 74 80 10n Pittsburg' 534 247 46" 296 381 129'1 696 800 11S"
Pleasan11t111' 129 95 74" 79 69 87" 175 226 129'1
Rldlmond' 471 200 42" 273 1,093 41m1 62S 131 211
wPablo• 147 214 146" 69 70 101" 123 16 13"
SanRamon1 599 157 26" 372 .C07 109" 984 1,1<0 116"
Walnut 0-eek' 289 99 34" 195 8D 41" 418 175 4~
UnincO(pOrated' 1,101 372 34" 642 177 28" 1,.COl 77 5"
Total &,411 z.asz 4'" 3,741 3,480 "" 1,551 7,ffl m
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury AbcM Modttatt
Pffltntof ,-
Total
IIHNA Pttmlts Allocatlon ,..
Alloutlon Ir.sued Pfflnlttld ...
1,873 3,213 172" 5,974
1,733 7,687 444'11 10,46]
274 119 43" m
987 2,411 244" \ 2.m
666 496 74" · ' 721
77 21D 273" "' 434 1,818 419'1 2,075
1D5 186 177% 203
613 424 69'1 424
120 6S 54" 1M
S53 1.888 341" , 2,40(
129 157 122" 157
131 52 40% m
987 2,4n 251'' ~- . '.3,90!:
331 362 109" · 1~
1,234 805 651 2,ill
15S 366 236" 666
2,492 5,538 222" 7,24!
7S1 1,123 151a t.rn
2,292 5,151 225" :'y> s,m
15,937 34,541 217,j - ,ff.tu
[@}23 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------------ - ----------- -- -- --- ------ - --- CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation Vs lowfMOUMI) low(SNOIAMI) Moderate (IO-UOI AMI) AIIMMaderlte~ AMII Tolal CONTRA COSTA Petant Pwnt Percent Pelan! COUNTY Vfrmb Pwntof Pnits ofllHHA Ptmb olRHHA l'ltmlls of RIINA Permils of RIINA RIINA Issued RIIHAMtt RHNA lulled Mel RIINA IUued Met RHNA Issued Met RHNA IUll!d Met Anli«h 516 8 2" 339 20 "' 381 834 2191 1,046 381 • ll82 120 54! Btentwool 717 192 27ll 435 58 "" 480 175 H 1.073 1,608 150K 2,705 2.033 7§1 Cllt!OII 49 "" 35 I 3" 33 2 R 34 46 1351 151 49 32t
Concord' 639 2 OI 426 OIi 498 8 2" 1.480 216 , 1W 3.o43 226 " llan'lllle' 196 2 111 130 84 65" 146 101 691' 111 287 . 2591 583 474 1111 Eltfflb 93 142 153' 59 38 641 80 13 161 199 163 ll'I '31 356 m ll«Wles1 143 Ill 74 °" 73 °" 163 1S3 !M1' 453 1S3 34"
taf.lWl!l 113 47 4H 77 8 1"" 80 8 l°" 91 170 117ll 361 233 65" Martil!el 261 48 1111 166 "" 179 4 2" 454 1'8 33" 1.060 200 19" Morafa 73 OIi 47 °" 52 °" 62 9 1511 234 9 411
0~ 219 m 111!1 no 191 15911 88 874 993' m 33l 95~ ns 1.638 2m :>rinda 70 n IOJ!I 48 20 421 55 22 «I" 45 137 304!1 218 251 115!1 Pinole 83 2 Z!I 49 1 2" 48 10 211 143 59 UI 323 72 2l!I ~lbull m 79 25,i m 126 S71 296 666 2lS1 931 839 90I 1.m 1.710 97' Ple.antHill 160 9 611 105 1 111 106 8 8" 257 1!14 75l 628 212 341 Rkhmaad 391 74 1911 339 153 4S1 540 m '5l 1.556 892 S71 2,826 1,362 4811 SinPablo 22 "" 38 1 3" 60 3S 58" 171 "" 298 36 m
~Ramal 1,174 196 171 715 m ~ 740 302 4U 834 2,247 - 3,463 3,IXXI 87!1 w~~Creet 456 150 33!1 302 2S 1% 374 19 511 826 1,206 1461 1,958 1,400 m rnnin Costa eoontv• 81S 88 ll'll S98 S3 9'11 687 no • 1.408 1.672 119" l.508 2,143 61' COIIIIYTce. uu J,353 21'1 if,J2S 1.G3S 241 4.995 J,&St ml u.m ID,751 - 27117Z 16,a m CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation I -•·--~.::,.__ , - •~ ~, ..... __ - , ~ ·: • -:· •
I I I I I I.... ,l I • • • ·'
.. ,·• · i ... · i ·· ·· ··· / .. ·:: ·· ... 1 · · · ·. · -~-~-~-~------ u .... IIA
- 11' I& Ill "' I llA • HO 1 0 I • .. Ul • II 0 0 • 0 ' JI ,. • • • • - • • 0 ..,. • • • 1 Ill I n • u. 1• u 0 u u • • • • 0 "' 0 0 • Ill • .. " MIii • UI 1 • I ,. • • • .. "' • • • n • • I JI • " • • • '" • 0 • - .. • u, • 0 • m u, • IN .. '" i.
.. 0 0 0 . , • 0 ., • • 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 ... 4.1 0 _, " • " m ,. ... ,u - ... • n, 0 0 0 .. II I " - .. 0 •• M 0 ,. IQ\ II D II 11K '10 0
S6 0 0 0 " J • I ta " • m 11, 0 It ,,. .. • ., 111' ., ... ... .. 0 " - .. .. • - ., ,,. • u I II ... ,,. • m - UI 11 Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ,.
LIU
I
' WI IE
• &a ... u Ult
u, .,,, Jal
- .. " -.. • • I • • • • • - JIO Ill .,,, • Q 1M
I I 1' 1A a 11 n 11' ... .,. ., .. ,n SU
• 0 "" l.M1 ,u II ,. .. ,. It t
0 ... .. uo .. '" UII 1ft USI .. t - w Ul&
@JJ24 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ------ ------ -- ------------ - ---- - ---- - --- --- ------ -- --- Antlocll ·-341 175 le 193 11%
"" ■ 205 299 300 1
..
... 214
--■■ 0
Brentwood 23' 2 0 2 '"' 124 8 10 18 U'l6 123 a
Clotl<>n 51 0 0 0 0'1, 25 0 5 5 JOii 31 a
Conoonl 788 0 0 0 0'16 «4 0 0 0 0'1, 559
Den\illt 190 20 0 20 10'16 111 27 30 Z7% 124 2
EICentlo 100 82 a 82 02'16 83 8 0 8 1ft 80 0
He!Qlleo 220 0 0 0 Oli 118 0 16 10 ,.,. 100 0
i..fllyeltt 138 7 Q 7 1% 79 6 0 e 1% 85 24
Maninez 124 0 0 0 0% 72 0 0 0 °"' 78 0
Mo,age 75 0 0 0 011 44 0 0 0 °"' 50 0
0a1'1ey 317 a 0 8 3'16 174 170 170 99,r, 175 28
Oflndl 04 0 0 0 0% 47 0 0 0 O'I, 54 0
Plnole 80 0 0 0 D'I, 48 0 0 a fl'Ao 43 0
Pmsl>u,V 392 75 0 75 ''" 254 708 34 742 na 318 0
PloaswHll 11a 0 0 0 ~ 89 19 0 18 Zl'I, 84 0
Rlcllrnofld 438 208 0 288 1111 305 81 0 81 27% 410 0
Sanl'llbb 5(1 0 0 0 0% 53 3 4 7 U% 75
Sen Ramon 518 25 0 25 '"' 278 87 0 87 3111. 212 164
WllnutCreek 804 98 0 98 ..... 355 18 10 28 .,. 381 0
Contra COslA 374 82 83 17'11. 218 174 a 183 04'1, un· eel 20 31 RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met > I 00
75>%RHNA Met>l00
%RHNMet<75
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 34 as
0 38
13 217
40 34
15 0
10 40
13 217
84 JI °"
""
""
.,.
111,
U'I,
111'4
21,.
75%
0 0 11'1
208 234 ,~
30 30 IK
1%
71 71 12¥,
41 41 41'K
0 0 0'11
21 29 U'I,
0 164 ""'
89 130 '*"'
Ill 880 795 11'nl
278 3.19:l ..... 3-4 a 24'11
1.877 501 IO%
12$ - '"'" 1114 451 2m
24<1 509 20ft
99 318 ua
195 aa "" 80 ee 14ft
502 1.273 ~
42 254 tofft
126 25 JO%
1,083 878 8~
177 112 m,
1.282 812 41'11
285 sa 14%
340 1,547 41ft
805 1,210 ISW
!S2 1,534 2M
r@}25 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ----------- -- -- - ---- --
Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031
VERY LOW INCOME lOWINCOME MODERATE INCOME
Jurisdktfon (<SO-.ofAIN (50-80% of Alfi {80·120'rtofAm Mtd"ian Income) Medi111 lncomt) MtdwtlncON)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Antioch 792 456 493
Brentwood 402 232 247
Oayton 170 97 84
Concord 1,292 744 847
Danville 652 376 338
El Cerrito 334 192 241
Hercules 344 198 126
Lafayette 599 344 326
Martinez 350 201 221
Moraga 318 183 172
Oakley 279 161 172
Orinda 372 215 215
Pinole 121 69 87
Pittsburg 516 296 346
Pleasant Hill 566 326 254
Richmond 840 485 638
San Pablo 173 100 132
San Ramon 1,497 862 767
Unincorporated Contra Costa 2,072 1,194 1,211
Walnut Creek 1,657 954 890
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury "ABOVE MODERATE
t ;; · INCOME " . i ~ <-\ ' -r//'' ,, . (>1MofArN ., •i /f!I: Mtdlln lna>mt) -:·, TOTAL
1,275 3,016
641 1,522
219 570
2,190 5,073
875 2.241
624 1,391
327 995
845 2,114
573 1,345
445 1,118
446 1,058
557 1,359
223 500
894 2.052
657 1,803
1,651 3,614
341 746
1,985 5,111
3,133 7,610
2,304 5,805
[@J26 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- ---- -- - -- - --- - - -- - - -- A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income andLow-lncome Determination
Summaries
Cities and Counties Not Currently Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions This determination represents Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) data received as of June I, 2022. The following 38 jurisdictions have met their prorated Lower (Very-Low and Low) and Above-Moderate Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Reporting Period and submitted their latest APR (2021 ).
These jurisdictions are not currently subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining), but the jurisdictions are still encouraged to promote streamlining. All other cities and counties beyond these 38 are subject to at least some form of SB 35 streamlining, as indicated on the following pages.
For more detail on the proration methodology or background data see the SB 35 Determination Methodology.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ATHERTON 20 MILL VALLEY
2 BELL 21 MONTE SERENO
3 BELLFLOWER 22 NEWPORT BEACH
4 BEVERLY HILLS 23 NORWALK
5 BUENA PARK 24 PLUMAS CO.
6 CALISTOGA 25 ROHNERT PARK
7 CARPINTERIA 26 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
8 CORTE MADERA 27 SAINT HELENA
9 EL CERRITO 28 SAN BERNARDINO CO.
1 O FOSTER CITY 29SANTAANA
11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 30 SANTA CLARA CO.
12 GUADALUPE 31 SANTA MONICA
13 HILLSBOROUGH 32 SIERRA CO.
14 INDUSTRY 33 SOLVANG
15 LA HABRA 34 SONOMA CO.
16 LA QUINTA 35 UKIAH
17 LAGUNA NIGUEL 36 VILLA PARK
18 MENDOCINO CO. 37 WESTMINSTER
19 MENLO PARK 38WOODSIDE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ---- - --- -- -- -----~ - ~- -
Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ~ 10% Affordability
These 263 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) (2021) and therefore arc subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ADELANTO 28 BURBANK 55 DEL REY OAKS
2 ALAMEDA CO. 29 BUTTE CO. 56 DELANO
3 ALISO VIEJO 30 CALAVERAS CO. 57 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6AMADORCO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9ARCATA 36 CHOWCHILLA 63 EL CAJON
10 ARROYO GRANDE 37 CITRUS HEIGHTS 64 EL CENTRO
11 ARVIN 47 38 CLAYTON 65 EL MONTE
12 AUBURN 39 CLEARLAKE 66 ESCALON
13AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15AZUSA 42COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44COLUSA 71 FAIRFAX 107
18 BARSTOW 45 COLUSA CO. 72 FARMERSVILLE
19 BEAUMONT 46 COMMERCE 73 FERNDALE
20 BELVEDERE 47 COMPTON 74 FILLMORE
21 BENICIA 48 CONCORD 75 FIREBAUGH
22 BIGGS 49CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53CUDAHY BO GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~}28 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home --~----------~ ----- ------- - --~-
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
82 GREENFIELD 117 LEMON GROVE 152 NOVATO
83 GRIDLEY 118 LEMOORE 153 OCEANSIDE
84 GUSTINE 119 LINCOLN 154 OJAI
85 HALF MOON BAY 120 LINDSAY 155 ORANGE COVE
86 HANFORD 121 LIVINGSTON 156 ORLAND
87 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 122 LOMA LINDA 157 OROVILLE
88HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90HIGHLAND 125 LOS ANGELES CO. 160 PALMDALE
91 HOLTVILLE 126 LOS GATOS 161 PARLIER
92 HUGHSON 127 LYNWOOD 162 PASO ROBLES
93 HUMBOLDT CO. 128 MADERA 163 PATTERSON
94 HUNTINGTON BEACH 129 MADERA CO. 164 PERRIS
95 HUNTINGTON PARK 130 MARICOPA 165 PICO RIVERA
96 HURON 131 MARTINEZ 166 PINOLE
97 IMPERIAL 132 MARYSVILLE 167 PLACERVILLE
98 IMPERIAL CO. 133MAYWOOD 168 PLEASANT HILL
99 INGLEWOOD 134 MCFARLAND 169 POMONA
100 INYO CO. 135 MENDOTA 170 PORTERVILLE
101 IRWINDALE 136 MERCED CO. 171 PORTOLA
102 ISLETON 137 MILLBRAE 172 POWAY
103 KERMAN 138 MODESTO 173 RANCHO CORDOVA
104 KERN CO. 139 MONTAGUE 174 RED BLUFF
105 KINGS CO. 140 MONTEBELLO 175 REDLANDS
106 KINGSBURG 141 MONTEREY 176 REDONDO BEACH
107 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 142 MONTEREY PARK 177 REEDLEY
108 LA MIRADA 143 MORENO VALLEY 178 RIALTO
109 LA PUENTE 144 MORRO BAY 179 RICHMOND
110 LAKE CO. 145 MOUNT SHASTA 180 RIDGECREST
111 LAKE ELSINORE 146 NATIONAL CITY 181 RIO DELL
112 LAKEPORT 147 NEEDLES 182 RIPON
113 LAKEWOOD 148 NEVADA CITY 183 RIVERBANK
114 LANCASTER 149 NEVADA CO. 184 RIVERSIDE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [~J29 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------------------- - --- -~---
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
115 LASSEN CO. 150 NEWMAN 185 RIVERSIDE CO.
116 LAWNDALE 151 NORCO 186 ROLLING HILLS
187 ROSS 213 SANTEE 239 TUOLUMNE CO.
188 SACRAMENTO 214 SARATOGA 240TURLOCK
189 SACRAMENTO CO. 215 SAUSALITO 241 TWENTYNINE PALMS
190 SALINAS 216 SEASIDE 242 VALLEJO
191 SAN BERNARDINO 217 SEBASTOPOL 243 VENTURA CO.
192 SAN BRUNO 218 SELMA 244 VICTORVILLE
193 SAN DIEGO CO. 219 SHAFTER 245VISAUA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO. 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247WEED
196 SAN GABRIEL 222 SIGNAL HILL 248 WEST HOLLYWOOD
197 SAN JACINTO 223 SISKIYOU CO. 249 WEST SACRAMENTO
198 SAN JOAQUIN 224 SOLANA BEACH 250 WESTLAKE VILLAGE
199 SAN JOAQUIN CO. 225 SONORA 260 251 WESTMORLAND
200 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 226 SOUTH GATE 252 WHEATLAND
201 SAN LEANDRO 227 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 253 WILDOMAR
202 SAN MARINO 228 STANISLAUS CO. 254 WILLIAMS
203 SAN MATEO CO. 229 STOCKTON 255 WILLITS
204 SAN PABLO 230 SUISUN CITY 256WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO. 257WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260YREKA
209 SANTA CRUZ CO. 235 TEHAMA CO. 261 YUBA CITY
210 SANTA MARIA 236 TORRANCE 262 YUCAIPA
211 SANTA PAULA 237 TULARE CO. 263 YUCCA VALLEY
212 SANTA ROSA 238 TULELAKE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@J30 of 38
-
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ------- - --------~----- - --- -
Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include~ 50 Percent Affordability These 238 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Lower income RHNA (Very low- and low-income) and are therefore subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA, then they are subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 50% affordability.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 AGOURA HILLS 28 CANYON LAKE 55 DINUBA
2ALAMEDA 29CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 El DORADO CO.
SANDERSON 35 CHINO 62 EL SEGUNDO
9 ANGELS CAMP 36 CHINO HILLS 63 ELK GROVE
10 ANTIOCH 37 CHULA VISTA 64 EMERYVILLE
11 ARTESIA 38 CLAREMONT 65 ENCINITAS
12 ATASCADERO 39CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44CORONADO 71 FREMONT
18 BIG BEAR LAKE 45 COTATI 72 FRESNO
19 BREA 46 COVINA 73 FULLERTON
20 BRENTWOOD 47 CULVER CITY 74 GALT
21 BRISBANE 48 CUPERTINO 75 GARDEN GROVE
22 BUELLTON 49CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@}31 of 38
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
83 HAWTHORNE 115 LOS ALTOS 147 ONTARIO
84 HEALDSBURG 116 LOS ALTOS HILLS 148 ORANGE
85 HEMET 117 LOS ANGELES 149 ORANGE CO.
86 HERCULES 118 LOS BANOS 150 ORINDA
87 HERMOSA BEACH 119 LOYALTON 151 PACIFIC GROVE
88 HIDDEN HILLS 120 MALIBU 152 PALM DESERT
89 HOLLISTER 121 MAMMOTH LAKES 153 PALM SPRINGS
90 IMPERIAL BEACH 122 MANHATTAN BEACH 154 PALO ALTO
91 INDIAN WELLS 123 MANTECA 155 PALOS VERDES ESTATES
92 INDIO 124 MARIN CO. 156 PARADISE
93 IONE 125 MARINA 157 PARAMOUNT
94 IRVINE 126 MARIPOSA CO. 158 PASADENA
95 JACKSON 127 MENIFEE 159 PETALUMA
96 JURUPA VALLEY 128 MERCED 160 PIEDMONT
97 KING CITY 129 MILPITAS 161 PISMO BEACH
98 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 130 MISSION VIEJO 162 PITTSBURG 99 LA MESA 131 MODOC CO. 163 PLACENTIA
100 LA PALMA 132MONOCO. 164 PLACER CO.
101 LA VERNE 133 MONROVIA 165 PLEASANTON
102 .LAFAYETTE 134 MONTCLAIR 166 PLYMOUTH
103 LAGUNA BEACH 135 MONTEREY CO. 167 POINT ARENA
104 LAGUNA HILLS 136 MOORPARK 168 PORT HUENEME
105 LAGUNA WOODS 137 MORAGA 169 PORTOLA VALLEY
106 LAKE FOREST 138 MORGAN HILL 170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
107 LARKSPUR 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 171 RANCHO MIRAGE
108 LATHROP 140 MURRIETA 172 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
109 LIVE OAK 141 NAPA 173 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
110 LIVERMORE 142 NAPA CO. 174 REDDING
111 LODI 143 NEWARK 175 REDWOOD CITY
112 LOMITA 144 OAKDALE 176 RIO VISTA
113 LONG BEACH 145 OAKLAND 177 ROCKLIN
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury ~]32 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ----------~---------~- - ------ ---~- -
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
178 ROSEMEAD 199 SEAL BEACH 220 TULARE
179 ROSEVILLE 200 SIERRA MADRE 221 TUSTIN
180 SAN ANSELMO 201 SIMI VALLEY 222 UNION CITY
181 SAN BENITO CO. 202 SOLANO CO. 223 UPLAND
182 SAN CARLOS 203 SOLEDAD 224 VACAVILLE
183 SAN CLEMENTE 204SONOMA 225VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230WASCO
189 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 210 SUSANVILLE 231 WATSONVILLE
190 SAN MARCOS 211 SUTTER CREEK 232 WEST COVINA
191 SAN MATEO 212 TEMECULA 233 WHITTIER
192 SAN RAMON 213 TEMPLE CITY 234 WINTERS
193 SANTA BARBARA 214 THOUSAND OAKS 235 WOODLAND
194 SANTA BARBARA CO. 215 TIBURON 236 YORBA LINDA
195 SANTA CLARA 216 TRACY 237 YOUNTVILLE
196 SANTA CRUZ 217 TRINIDAD 238YUBACO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.
198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219TRUCKEE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury [@J33 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home --- - ~~ --- ~- - -- - - -
A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article
NEWHOM&s
Bay Area cities may
not hit state deadline
OnJy Alameda has bad
housing element OKH
ahead of Jan. 31 date
oe:n :rear to 1lD&Uu lbelt IOai!led bauiq---- c1otalled road fflaPI to aettbelr m~
~lncreuad--- boualq pal& loBrBIIIDVilllul tWWD2C>23Uld20aJ,tbeen. -~--.
BIQ' Area dUea
.
are t'U.DJliu.r
::
"1,000
==-:::
new boma fbr remoat of time to dMae plans for dealllotalltncaaae~more =newbomeatoeuethe thadoallletbtawatbrtbe
~baulngcn, cu.mat eight.,.,..._ Iii - tud ao far, ablt.e otlclals Al atlut--. tbe Ca1ib, areNndingfflOltottbelr plau Illa Departmer,t of ~ ~O:,~ ~ board. aDl1 Cbomuntt,,Deveq.a,1mt dictions have W:1 J• .. J31wu,• bad rcdected drafta flun ot ..., 0 IIOIMiN•MGSID Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r®}34 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home ---- ----- - -- --- - --- -
Ille 15 llq lama IDUDlcJpajilla It bad ft'Wiffled 110 W - Wllh Ala~• W lolle -Tbe agency I.old San
Franc:l co, Oalcland,
SUnll1ftle, Mou!U&ln View,
Redwood Cltr, Antlocb
and othen to rttrb tllrir
dra.fl.l to prV\'ldll proof
tile tillll ldmtU!cd (01' tu• tllrt bomea 111,e a rulla· ttc:cb-ofclewlopmmt,
aad to o&r the pouiblllty
of raoolq muln 11t1Jh•
bofboodtfOl'droittbowl·
Ing. -na Yllrloua crther
lllltl'IICUoDa.
Publlcollldab and hc,asln1 espert& NY the dmlala
ftffll'\ alllrprUe llw:n tl!e
mte'e hlch plan11lq a• pect&tloDL 1'hly antld.,.U
IJIU'1GIOl'e n;ec:UoQ kU1n 11'1 GD Ille ..,. But HCD'I lwd 111111 II ral;aina q11utloo1 about u..~-•
whither llqAINdlla 1111d
COllllliet can IIINt Ute filot•
approacb1ns bmslln, plao
dcldllne ~ tlll cad al JmsOII CA-11,0l t,lJMICl(I- IIM,r •tt0toa,l,.,....II Aw- of ■ •llllnO ., .. II Ao .. 11,ld Ylff41{1911)ftlffl<tnt1 du,ing '"' UflllO Ol)lnl"9 ~Dlntklfl ill Alemetl1 IHI month.
Alameda II lhe only Bar,., .. clly ,.1,o,. housing tlfffltnl pl1111 hot i,..., llflPICMld ~ the 11,1, uuy. FIIIUD& to do t0 rilb Mal11ew Recd, dlrtt•
mlulq out an IJl'Ol'dable tor of policy tw UK! SUI•
boas!naand lafrutnlctunl COD Vll1Jq alfonlllMe boldfllndln&u,d-'d JG1Ju .... In& adrocacy CJ'OUP SVO dktlont In jeapudJ of la• ~. aid fbe stale II dtSlllta. ft11t1 and the loll af 111111dln1 far more Uia11 local Cfflluol ffiff land•UH durlq prior plannln1 pededalool. rlodJ. For n.a111pla, dtla •1 dan'l know tfwe're ID- and eoutles are aaw ff·
la, to meet the deadllnr." pected to eddma bowlns
said Mol&aWII \lltw ~ cq11II)' and dllcttmlnallon
Lucu Ramlm. '"We'n p,- laua la tl!flr plan1 pro•
1111 to do the bClt WP can. It actlvely. But~ Nld 1111 ma, ffl')'well be lbal HCD AreaJurildlctklNlbouldn'l ...,_ 1111a II a Jtton& ,tart, u,e !hat lncrn.Rd bu!'lffll but J'DU ba,e te> do t>'CII at &11-- mott.• "lt'I bceft appan!III llw Jud&1111 br how th• If )'OIi doa'l rt.tdl ~ bar
boull111 elaMD1 proccaa (.ut bf th• state). rou'll
1w llffl8 ID other paru of 11aw: man, won: lie Aid.
the 1tate. tbal 1111111t - •rm IIClt rurt Ille public or poalble for mlldl of the fleeted uffldalt have becll Bay A,.. la Sauthem Cal· as comduus of !bat fart."
lfomla, J111ua al 1H local Official• In Alasncda
aowera- In U. ftlloo spea1,...,. prtplilaslhelr IIIMllll:amlaedllowi11&ek- 22S•P&Cf boa1tD1 plaa, mellllll!Wmoll bkwthdt wllkb tbettmappl'Oftd1n :>ct°""'1021 IW4'lt_,. .ti,, .. ,111 lil•nnltw1 FM_. ...
Andmr Tbe>mu uld while,
,ome tttkkn\l pra!Nttd U,, 111111J bland ell)"a plaftl
lollCO!Dmoclalem<nlhan
5,800MWhomu,l1WPlm·
portlllll lo llnlllllt Ulc dral'I 111 tile City Council i:ould adlipt II before Ulc d«1lon
In Nofflnbcr.
"Tbb II the City Coun- cil tllll'I beco ln\'Olml ID
Ult~ ofthla doc· 1111111nt ror the Ian thm )'Un, and we decided lhla lhauld ~ the Cltr Counc:11
lbel makes the llaal cled· alon.. Tbomu said.
Go, Oavlo Ncwarom, at a bill 1l1nlng ~nnt wt month ID Saa Fran• r:IKO, IIIW clur that UD·
Uke 1n ,..,.,,. past, 11aw of.
llclalt arenl 111111¥ lo look
IIM other way if eitln and
COUnllfl l&ncff their hou.l•
lnl fffl)Oll.libllille.l. I a Al!-
Cllllon 10 Wlthholdlqp-&111 lo_u ... •-• 1-.......a .... _ .. ,.. dAtof7 raomna Umdlna,
tbe ,we b lhl'CUA!llln& to tue IIOIJCIOIIIPllanl Ju:i,dklloN to c,umptl a .lu41it to tau _, the Pn>tCII tor 1pprovb11 and Jll"rmlttll11
ncwhomea.
"Atlbi!Clldofthedlr,r""'
iieed Ul 1C1C local -111·
ab1U11,• Newtom uld,
•we're p>ln1 Ul ttlcbrale r--. bal we're eolDI to call 11111 failurf. • At the event, Ncweom hl&bll&bted a tlral-C~r atate Ull'l!lllpdon by HCD
lnLo San,~ nstrlctl"" bou1ln1 polldea. He
alJo 1lnp,d au\ lbe -n
of Atlitrtoa, lhe --.llbJ San Maleo c.oum, ncla'le
tlw pined natloll&l iaeoUm earlier t.1111 11!&r wbm
11 ICNbbed Ill hauliQJ lle- mcm draft of town llama
afltr tech llldaslry fflli·
dtnla - lndudln1 billion· ~·-•--~• .._ I• •••
And.--n - ft'~
objl,ctftl ta addln& multi•
tamU, bollllnaln an lnttrYI- lut
montb, At.hnton Mayvr
lllc:lc DeOollll Mid blllldl111
mulllfaml'1 bomea con•
1-'-d llll'ordllhle b)' lta1c
atandudll lln'tpndlcal boc:u:uie tblc:m1 otland In tbl town It around '8 mlllloa per am. &lid lbcn l• llllle
publlcly owned land to de· "1!1op, loalclld, Alhenoo'I
bowlril eltmcn& dreft fc,. ~Oll procr mtohdp
bo-ncnaatcrwwllli... UDIII far 1'1!111.
"lf(11a&eoffld1Wrcfll,e,
Wl!'N 11)1111 to bf In a flstlt
with lhem." DeGolla Aid.
Judaln1 b)' SolltlJ,:rn Cal· lfoml■"• cumple, he t.t· .,.cu to baw lllllll the ml of 2023 to come to "IOllle
.ulemall wttb llJeam.•
R~d. wit~ SV.Homc,
contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 .
Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandJury bani." he wd. "the ,apec,
tal.lOa II to 1111/1, 'Wllal CID
,ou c1o to addnu - or
lilt lhinp lhal an Dlakl111
It bani?' And lM Upttt.a• lfonillll&b,~
~
In Ot.kland, IDWlwbile,
oflhe ll,-Al>-
1111Jp ltlJlcuiclp netsbborhood an, alcfnl the dtJ 10
plan for IIIOl"e panlllCIIIS
and IAIWn ~ In INIT
ami11M1nlty. In lbdr ffJcc,, lion of OIJllaP<h IIDQsln1 cltlllf1lt. ilate olllcla!I dln,dfd the dtJ to aamllle ~lllldebJ
the R«krid&it C-Jlllllllty l'lannlq01Gndl
"Webcllnwlhat...,..
1111 llplflcan1 aumbtn ol lrfl' ~ to llodtl".ldle
would bt mlll"fly CO!lllalmt wllb aur vatun and
tb1 dlt>rllbed hlatorlcsl)J
dlft!nll dlanic:ter or our oeiplborbood," I.be sroap
Wrole In a lfl\er 10 ct11
plannl111 lblf, A.I lht cerllficlthlu
de:adhneappl'<IIICba..bQw ..
Ins adVllC lc• an, WAfl\•
1111 Cilia IJf anoU>tt, rel.I· Uw-lf llfllt,known tan1111• qlle'IICe or fl.lllna to llnWi
lbdr bolula1 «IHICIIU tn llm~: tbe "builden' nim•
edy." The tblft-Cl«ade-old
law ro=_. aoncompllJ.111
cllll!II toucept !up bout·
Ing proJ«t• with alratd·
&bit llDIS., fffll when lhct
clewtupmewit, far-.! lo- cal zocln1 llmlte.
CblU F.llllffldnrf, a law ._,_at UC blll'IJ,uld
llw wtillr then 1ft ,_
lcnowa lnllucn or lht
bulldcra' resnedy comln&
lato plq, dncJapcn haft In rtoct:at,-n baliome ea,.
bNlnledlOtwadwanSlp
of ClWcrlltlllehoulJll .....
!hat brJ,ell local -ln>I.
-We're -'111 the emer- pm:<' of dneloper, who an aoc rd)'tna on tbelr rc- latiomblp1 wtlh di)' CGIIDclll and llllteMI cm lbclr rl1hu ullder dtalc law,• he
~J}35 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home -- - -----~~------~~- -~--~ ~~ - --- --~- East Bay Times article
. ' \Sl IIAV TIMtS » SATURDAY, OCI08ER l2. 20l2
ORELOCAL :WSaEASTeAYTlMES.COM
AROEftUfEAf.i'l'mNCONTRA COBTACOU1ffY
Newsanyaurphone:
Download the East Bay
Times mobile 8pp for
lPhone or Android
000 SECTION B
'-ltiuch unveils affunlmle mlSing complex
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 2i}36 of 38
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home - ----------~- - -- ---- - -- - -- - - - - - Builder's Remedy Article - The Fix
-···-·---·-----... -
The 'fix'
almost
nobody
wants
The 'builder's remedy' could OK
projects in cities behind on their
state-mandated housing plans
S,IIUlanVUiaD ftlarioll.~,.,,,.._
ll'a a NIMBY'• wom nllhtmare; hlsb•rllc
apartment buiJdlnpgoinguplnlubl.utiannelp,
borboods - Uld local officials hdplm to bah
c:onstructJon.
Thatecenario could 900D becume a poaJbWty
for Ba, AJea cl!Jea large ancl small lbonkl lhoyfall to convince the statelhey're dollll enougb to help IOive a ~Ing houl1111 crills.
IL'I all tlww lo a JlttJe-uaed eec:don of state
huuatDI laW known u UIC "balldl!r'I ~•Uncertafntla ranaln, buttbe th~ provision could enable cleYelopm to push thl'OUlh projects of virtually &!l,Y lbe aJUIOlt auywbett lher please. u long u a portion of the building Includes affordable units.
The bulJder'I remedy 11wld only app(y tn Bll)r
Area clt1ea wlthoUI &ll.ale-lPPffl'ed plan to meet
their upcominJ bomebulldtq INla. whicb are updated evuy dpt ~•n. Thr paaallJ doan\ kick in WltD eady Dat yar. but man, ,JwlldlctionsappearunUlcel)'to bln'e~ radyfntlme.
IIOldlngaperqudld\lOClllfll113tbltJDND1
asurpolpropoulsma,beon 1hebarfloa. apedaUy In waltbJer.,.. that bate made It e:bal· lengiDJto baflddema-homlng. but wbaednel·
open ltandtosee blgha-proflta lfthlyanbulld. "If ,ou're not to1n& to tell dewlGpers .... tbey C&ll build multlfamllY boullna. the 1ta1e 11 IIQ'Ull they don't have to follow )'QIU' ruJel,,• l&ld
San Prancllco ral eatat.e attonwy J>ulel Gollsb. · Mmr-n,Naa ---
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury r@]37 of 38
G) (") -, 0
I» ::,
::, a. -
al c... (") C 0 '< en
::0 pf
(I) (")
-0 0
0 C
;:::i. ::,
en - I» '<
ro I\)
-0 0
0 I\)
en N -· (I) I\)
Q.O
I» I\) _w
:T (") ~ -· ~~-
Ii . a.
0 c... <;> C
8«
C ::0
;:::i. (I)
~"O
0 0
ca ::i.
ca- I\) al (,) ::, 0
a.O>
......
C
'<