Grand Jury 725 Court Street
Contra
P.O. Box 431
Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091
County
June 16, 2023
Richmond City Council
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Dear Richmond City Council:
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.
The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.
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].
Sincerely,
Clob
Cynthia Roberts, Foreperson
2022-2023 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
CC: Shasa Curl, City Manager
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
COURT OF 2022-2023
EUREKA
CALIFO 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 6-14-2023 - hoto
CYNTHIA ROBERTS
GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
ACCEPTED FOR FILING
Date 6-14-2023
n. JILL C. FANNIN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621
Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
TO:
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
RHNA 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
RECOMMENDATIONS: ..17
REQUIRED RESPONSES ...19
REFERENCES: ..20
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 20
APPENDICES...
A-l. 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 DETERMINATION SUMMARIES.. 27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ..34
Contra Costa 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
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 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 [o6i1 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 RHNA 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 foBi2 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grand jury 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 0a)3 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 1 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 Determination (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 nay be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 ioai:4 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 Limits
Contra Costa County
Income Limits by Household Size - Effective May 13, 2022 Median Family Income - $142,800
Acutely Low Extremely Low Very Low Moderate
Persons per Low Income Median
Income Income Income Income
Household 80% AMI Income
15% AMI 30% AMI 50% AMI 120% AMI
$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
$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
$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
$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 Inclusionary 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 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 oBi5 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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
Occupation 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 öai6 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
16 100%
14 90%
80%
12 70%
10 60%
50%
6 40%
30%
4 20%
2 10%
0 0%
1999-2006 Progress 2007-2014 2015-2020 2023-2031
RHNA Cycle
• RHNA Allocation • Permits Issued - Percent of Allocation Permitted Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 o8i:7 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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.
Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
9 100%
8 90%
7 80%
6 70%
60%
Thousands
50%
4 40%
30%
2 20%
1 10%
0%
1999-2006 Progress 2007-2014 2015 - 2020 Progress 2023 - 2031 Progress4325
RHNA Cycle
M RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted 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 FoB8 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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).
Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
40 250%
35 200%
30 · 25
150%
100%
50%
L L lll
• I
0%
VLI L VLI M H VLI L M H VLI M H
1999-2006 2007-2014 2015-2020 2023-2031
Allocation I Permits Issued - Percent Permitted
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 f0819 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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
70%
1000 60%
800 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oakley Pinole Pinole
1999-2006 2007-2014 2015-2020
ma VLI Permits Issued - Low Permits Issued - VLI& L Permitted as a % of all Permitted 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 1000
2015-2020 2023 - 2031
- Low Allocation = Total Allocations
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 oa:10 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 0811 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 low- income residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as "aspirational, not Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 oB:12 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 owner 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 low- income 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 - an 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 if there 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 oal13 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 Iter a project has been properly vetted
arora prote long ep pol aly decland are ries are are as feelie a dare an 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 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 o6i14 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 done get proved bystan acadies are prented let or poor contero plastians that 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, an neet 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 o6l15 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Findings and Recommendations
Findings:
F1. 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 low- income residents).
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low- and 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 ounty and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or fin Iternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X i November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 foB16 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.
F11. 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.
F12. 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.
F13. 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 low- and low-income housing.
Recommendations:
R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, wnership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in thi osition would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan t 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 tour 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 RHNA 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 ioa17 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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.
R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address KHNA 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 oB18 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 Antioch 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 companies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word documen 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 foal19 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
REFERENCES:
Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
• RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
• RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 • RHNA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report • RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area. 2023-2031
• RHNA - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts / Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool / Contra Costa County, CA • CEOA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• SB35 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 A1 Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 o8i20 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022
2022 State Income Limits
Contra Costa County
Income Limits by Household Size - Effective May 13, 2022 Median Family Income - $142,800
Extremely Low Very Low Moderate
Persons per Acutely Low
'Income Low Income Median
Household Income Income Income
15% AMI 30% AMI 80% AMI Income
50% AMI 120% AMI
- N $15,000 $30,000 $50,000 $76,750 $99,950 $119,950
$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 $198,750
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 Inclusionary 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 eligibility (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 subject to a particular program's definition of income, family, family size, effective dates and other factors. 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 fo8i21 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Occupation Mean Annual % of Monthly % of Monthly
Wage (2022) Income Needed Income Needed
for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom
Unit
Food Service Worker $36,488 87% 113%
Dishwasher $38,853 82% 107%
-airdressers $42,203 75% 98%
retail Salesperson: $43,018 74% 97%
Security Guards $45,998
receptionists and $46,833 Very Low
nformation Clerk:
Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% мот Лал
Medical Assistants $59,313 54%
Education and Childcare $66,492 48%
Administrators
Licensed Practical and $78,255 41% 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
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 o8i22 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 Above Moderate
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Total
RHNA Permits Allocation RENA Permits Allocation RHNA Permits Allocation RHNA Permits Allocation Permits Allocation Issued Permitted Allocation Issued Permitted Allocation Issued Permitted Allocation Issued Permitted Issued
Contra Costa County
Antioch' 921 435 47% 509 403 79% 1,156 1,923 166% 1,873 3,213 172% 5,974 Brentwood' 906 376 42% 476 238 50% 958 2,166 226% 1,733 7,687 444% 10,467 Clayton* 55 67 122% 33 17 52% 84 16 19% 274 119 43% 219 Concord' 453 171 38%
Danville 140 85 61%
El Cerrito' 37 0%
Hercules" 101 96 95%
Lafayette' 30 15 50%
Martinez® 248 0. 0%
Moraga' 32 21 66%
Oakley 209 168 80%
Orinda® 31 0% 0%
Pinole' 48 34 71% 17%
Pittsburg 534 247 46% 129%
Pleasant Hill' 129 95 74% 69 87%
Richmond" 471 200 42% 1,093 400% 65% 2,229
San Pablo 147 214 146% 101% 236% 666
San Ramon* 599 157 26% 109% 1,143 222% 7,245
Walnut Creek' 289 99 34% 41% 1,471
Unincorporated' 1,101 372 34% ElE
5,171
Total 6,481 2,852 44% 15,937 47,956
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 FoBi:23 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation Very Low (0-50% AMI) Low (50-80% AMI) Moderate (80-120% AMI) Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) Total
CONTRA COSTA
Percent Percent Percent Percent
COUNTY
Permits Percent of Permits Of RHNA Permits of RHNA Permits of RHNA Permits of RHNA
RHNA Issued RHNA Met RHNA Issued Met RHNA Issued
Met RHNA Issued Met RHNA Issued Met
Antioch $16 8 2% 339 20 6% 381 834 219% 1,046 36% 2.282 381 1243 S4%
Brentwood 717 192 27% 435 58 13% 480 175 36%
1,073 1.608 150% 2.705 2,033 75%
Clayton 49 0% 35 3% 33 34 135%
46 151 49 32%
Concord 639 2 0% 426 0% 498 2% 1,480 216 15% 3,043 226 7% Danville 196 1% 130 84 65%
146 101 69% 111 287 259% 583 474 81%
El Cerrito 93 142 153% 59 38 64% 80 13 16% 199
163 82% 431 356 83%
Hercules 143 0% 74 0% 73
0% 163 153 94% 453 153 34%
Lafayette' 113 47 42% 11 8 91 170 187%
= 00 361
Martinez 261 48 18% 166 454 148 33% 1,060
Moraga 73 0% 47 0% 0% 62 9 15% 234
Oakley* 219 242 111% 120 191 159% 874 993% 348
331 95% 775 1.638
Orinda 70 72 103% 48 20 42% 55 22 40% 45 137 304% 218 251 115%
Pinole 83 2 2% 49 2% 48 10 21% 143 59 41% 323 22%
Pittsburg 322 79 25% 223 126 57% 296 666 225% 931 839 90K 1,772 1,710 97% Pleasant Hill 160 9 6% 105 106 8% 257 194 75%
628 212 34%
Richmond 391 74 19% 339 153 45% 540 243
45% 1,556 892 57% 2,826 1,362 48%
San Pablo 22 0% 38 3% 35 58% 178 0% 298 36 12%
San Ramon 1,174 196 17% 715 302 41% 834 2,247 269% 3,463 3,000 87% Walnut Creek 456 150 33% 302 19 S%
826 1,206 146% 1,958 1,400 72%
Contra Costa County" 815 88 11% 598 330 48% 1,408 1,672 119% 3,508 2,143 61% County Totals 6,512 1,353 21% 4,325 4,996 3,654 73% 11,239 10,758 96% 27,072 16,800 62%
CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation Non Ored Met
Met
Restricted
Contra Costa County 798 817 16% 3,080 1.500 55% 260 953 1213 35% 8,784 191 201
120 5. EE
1192 1180%
Cayton
111
8 a a
= 3 = ex 5
sE = LOSI
177
= 5 E=5553 Shoo: =
279 EE 340
355
218 174 241
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 08i24 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Very Low Income
16% 53% 35% 128%
Antioch 349 175 18 193 55% 205 290 300 145% 214 117%
16% 680 795
Brentwood 234 2 1% 124฿ 16 1144%
13% 123 69% 279 3.192
Clayton 0% 25 20% 31 24%
0% 34
Concord 795 0% 444 0% 559 30%
2% 1,677 501
Danville 196 20 20 10%5 111 27 27% 124 38 40 126 384%
32% 484
El Certo 100 62 62 62% 63 10% 69 277%
19% 166 450
Hercules 220 0% 118 14% 100 217 217 217% 244 209%
509
Lafayette 138 6% 78 8% 85 24 322%
75% 99
Martinez 124 0% 72
195
.. • ° • ° • o 0%
Moraga 75 0% 44 0% •
12% 60
Oakley 317 8 8 3% 174 ...° 170 175 26 208 234
134% 502
Orinda 84 0% 47 0% 54 30
55% 42
• °
Pinole 80 0% 48 43 1 ...... . . .
126
Pittsburg 392 75 75 19% 254 708 34 742 292% 316 71 978
22% 1,063
Pleasant Hil 118 0% 09 19 19 84 41 41 49% 177 112
Richmond 438 266 266 61% 305 81 410
1.282 812
San Pablo 56 0 0% 53 13% 75 21
39% 265 36
San Ramon 516 25 25 55 279 87 31% 282 164 68% 340 1,547 455% Walnut Creek 604 96 96 16% 355 28 8% 381 44 135%
12% 895 1,210
Contra Costa • °
374 62 1 63 17% | 218 243 31 130 532 288%
Unincorporated 53% 1,534
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met >100
75> %RHNA Met >100
%RHN Met <75
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 F06:25 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031
ABOVE MODERATE
VERY LOW INCOME LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME INCOME
(<50% of Area (50-80% of Area (80-120% of Area I>120% of Area Jurisdiction Median Income) Median Incorne) Median Incone) Median Income TOTAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Antioch 456 493 3,016
1,275
Brentwood 232 247 641 1,522
Clayton 97 84 570
Concord 744 847 5,073
Danville 376 338 2,241
El Cerrito 192 241 1,391
Hercules 198 126 995
Lafayette 344 326 2,114
Martinez 201 221 1,345
Moraga 183 172 1,118
Oakley 161 172 1,058
Orinda 215 215 1,359
Pinole 69 87 500
Pittsburg 296 346 2,052
Pleasant Hill 326 254 1,803
Richmond 485 638 3,614
San Pablo 100 132 746
San Ramon 862 767 5,111
Unincorporated Contra Costa 1,194 1,211 7,610
Walnut Creek 954 890 5,805
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
A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income and Low-Income 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 1, 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.
10 FOSTER CITY 29 SANTA ANA
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 38 WOODSIDE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 osi27 of 38 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% Attordability
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 are 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
4 ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5 AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6 AMADOR CO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8 ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9 ARCATA 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
13 AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14 AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15 AZUSA 42 COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43 COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44 COLUSA 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 49 CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50 CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79 GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53 CUDAHY 80 GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 0B:28 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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
88 HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90 HIGHLAND 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. 133 MAYWOOD 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 foвi:29 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 240 TURLOCK
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 245 VISALIA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247 WEED
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 256 WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO 257 WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207 SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259 YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260 YREKA
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 oBi30 of 38 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 ≥ 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
2 ALAMEDA 29 CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3 ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4 ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5 ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 EL DORADO CO.
8 ANDERSON 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 39 CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13 ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43 CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44 CORONADO 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 49 CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25 CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27 CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 fo8i31 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
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 132 MONO CO. 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 o8i32 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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 204 SONOMA 225 VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226 VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228 WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208 STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230 WASCO
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 238 YUBA CO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.
198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219 TRUCKEE
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 FoB:33 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article
NEW HOMES
Bay Area cities may
not hit state deadline
Only Alarneda has had next year to finalize their so
housing element OKa called housing elements - de
ahead of Jan. 31 date tailed road maps to meet their
dramatically increased state-
andated houing goals. 1
sis - and so far, state officials
ure sending most of their plans nia Department of Housing ack to the drawing board Under state law, local juris- and Community Development dictions have until Jan. 31 of had rejected drafts from 14 of HOUSING » PAGE 10
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 08/34 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
the 15 Bay Area municipal- hanl." he said. "The expec
ities it had reviewed so far tation is to say, What can - with Alameda the lone you do to address some of
success. the things that are making
The agency told San it hard" And the expecta-
Francisco, Oakland, tion is high."
Sunnyvale, Mountain View, In Oakland, meanwhile,
Redwood City, Antioch residents of the largely sub-
and others to rewrite their urban Rockridge neighbor-
drafts to provide proof hood are asking the city to
the sites identified for fu- plan for more apartments
ture homes have a realis. and town hotes in their
tie chance of development. community. In their rejec-
and to offer the possibility tion of Oakland's housing
of rezoning certain neigh- element, state ofncials di-
borhoods for denser hous- rected the city to examine
ing, among various other recomunendations made by
instructions the Rockridge Community
Public officials and hous. Planning Counei!
ing experts say the denials *We believe that wekom
weren't a surprise given the ing significant numbers of state's high planning ex- new residents to Rockridge
pectations. They anticipate would be entirely consis-
many more rejection letters tent with our values and
are on the way the cherished historically
But HCD's hard line is diverse character of cur
raising questions about neighborhood." the group
whether Bay Area cities and wrote in a letter to city
VOSE CAR,05 FAJARCO - START PHOTDORAPHEN planning staff. countles can meet the fast- A view of a sitting orea at Rosefield Village apartments during the grand opening celebration in Alameda last month As the certification
approaching housing plan Alameda is the only Bay Area city whose housing element plan has been approved by the state deadline approaches, hous deadline at the end of Jan-
uary. Failing to do so risks Mathew Reed, ing advocates are warn. direc- Andrew Thomas said while ing citles of another. rela mising out on affordable tor of policy for the Sill- datory rezoning timelines, Andreessen - vehemently housing and infrastructure some residents protested the state is threatening to tively little known conse con Valley affordable hous the small island city's plans objected to adding multi- quence of falling to finish funding and could put juris ing advocacy group SVe sue noncompliant jurisdic family housing. dictions in jeopardy of law. to accommodate more than tions to compel a judge to their housing elements in Home, said the state is de 5,500 new homes, it was im In an Interview last time: the "builders' suits, fines and the loss of manding far more than take over the process for month, Atherton Mayor local control over land-use portant to finalize the draft approving and permitting edy." The three-decade-old during prior planning pe so the City Council could Rick DeColia said building law forces noncompliant decisions. riods. For example, citles new homes multifamily homes con "I don't know if we'te go. adopt It before the election "At the end of the day we cities to accept large hous and counties are now ex- in Nosember. sidered affordable by state ing projects with afford Ing to meet the deadline." pected to address housing This is the City Coun need to sce local account- standards isn't practical be said Mountain View Mayor ability." Newsom said able units, even when the equity and discrimination cil that's been involved in cause the cost of land in the developments far exceed in Lucas Ramirez "We're go- issues in their plans pro- "We're going to celebrate town is around $9 million ing to do the best we can. It the preparation of this doe success, but we're going to cal zoning limits actively. But Reed said Bay ument for the last three call out faiture." per acte, and there is little Chris Elmendorf, a law may very well be that HCD Area jurisdictions shouldn't publicly owned land to de- professor at UC Davis, said says this is a strong start, years, and we deckled this At the event, Newsom use that increased burden should be the City Council highlighted a first-ever velop. Instead, Atherton's that while there are few but you have to do even as an excuse housing element draft fo more." that makes the final deci state investigation by HCD known instances of the *It's been apparent that sion, " Thomas said. Into San Francisco's restric- cuses on a program to help builders' remedy coming Judging by how the If you don't reach the bar Gor. homeow ners create new in- housing element process Gavin Newsom, tive housing policies. He into play, developers have (set by the state), you'll at a bill signing law units for rent. in recent years become cm- has gone in other parts of have more work," he said. lant month in San also singled out the town "If (state officials) refuse, the state, that result seems Fran- of Atherton, the wealthy boldened to take advantage *I'm not sure the public or cisco, made clear that un San Mateo County enclave we're going to be in a fight of other state housing laws possible for much of the elected officials have been with them," DeGolia said Bay Area. In Southern Cal. like in years past, state of that gained national atten that bypass local control. as conscious of that fact." ficials aren't going to look Judging by Southern Cal- "We're seeing the emer.
Ifornia, just 48 of 196 local Officials In Alameda the other way if cities and tion earlier this year when Ifornia's example, he ex. governments in the region it scrubbed its hotwing cle- gence of developers who spent years preparing their countles ignure their hous ment draft of town homes pects to have until the end are not relying on their re have submitted housing ele- 228-page housing plan. of 2023 to come to some ments after most blew their ing responsibilities. In ad- after tech industry resi- lationships with city coun Jetober 2021 deadline which the state appruved fa dition to withholding grant settlement with the state." cils and instead on their Arpisi Plannina /liree.w fondline and lone dents - Incheding billion. Reed with SVe Home rights under state law," be Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report : 2306 foBl35 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
East Bay Times article
4ST BAY TIMES » SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2022
News on your phone:
Local News Download the East Bay
Times mobile app for
iPhone or Android
ORE LOCAL NEWS » EASTBAYTIMES.COM
0DO SECTIONB
ARGEST IN EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Antioch unveils affordable housing complex
'he 394-unit development sits on 14.85 acres in northeast section of the city Developer AMCAL
•y Judith Prieve new life into the Bridgehead area, scres between twa residential unveiled its which lost major retailer Kmart neighborhoods. Of the 390 afford. newly opened and has not seen much develop. able apartments in the pated com affordable The largest affondable-income ment in recent years. The apart. plex, 214 are designed for families imily and senior apartment com- ments were developed by AMCAL and 150 for tenants 55 and older. complex, the
lex ever in east Contra Costa (a Southern California descaper Four will be mander apartments. Antioch Family ounty has opened in the north that has been constructior affort- "We're excited; tenants are and Senior ast area of Antioch. able housing since the 1990k starting to move in, sald Alex Apartments, in The new 394-anit comples. Located southwest of Enst 18th Pratt, ASCAL vice president hich was celebrated at a ribbon Street and Holub Lane just west northeastern of development. This is an Antioch on
utting Thursday, Is expected to of Highway 160, the AMCAL Fam- Intergenerational project, and Thursday. issen the shortage of affordable Ily and Senior Apartments include there are 395 units and 100% ousing in the city and breathe li three-story baildings on 14.A5 HOUSING • PAOR A Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 o8:36 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury 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
By Ethan Varian
[email protected]
It's a NIMBY's worst nightmare: high-rise
apartment buildings going up in suburban neigh-
borhoods - and local officials helpless to halt
construction,
help solve a deepening housing crisis.
's all thanks to a little-used section of stat
ousing law known as the "builder's remedy." Ur
certainties remain, but the three-decade-old pro-
vision could enable developers to push through
projects of virtually any size almost anywhen
incides tortible as a portion of the building
surge of proposals may be on the horizon, esp
fally in wealthier areas that have made it cha
lenging to build denser housing, but where devel-
San Francisco real estate attorney Daniel Golub,
BUILDERS • PAGE B
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 08.37 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Builders to actually "pencil ou:" -
developer-speak for "turn It's unclear what the up- It's definitely going to be a scale Silicon Valley suburb, fight." she said
FROM PAGE: mush of a proft so get home to Stanford Univer- For some local officials.
alty, would do if faced with a brewing clash over the
adding he's received "very In part because of that f. a flurry of bullder's remedy substantial interest" about nancial reality, Campos said builder's remedy la only the the bullder's remedy in re- It's unlikely the Bay Area applications. Burt expects latest result of what they cent months. will see many projects that an eventual court ruling say are punitive state lawy on the Soutbern California and policies that are wrest.
It's already starting in are drastically larger than proposals will determine Southern Californla what local zoning laws al- whether Palo Alto would ing away local control and where over a hundred citles ready allow. Instead, he threatening to destroy the are behind on their hous. views the provision as a need to approve them. character of their citles. The ing plans due last year and way to soften or eliminate Sonja Traus, founder of looming specter of largely the San Francisco-based unrestricted development is
developers have blitzed a soine heavy-handed local bousing advocacy group handful of affluent enclaves regulations." For VIMBY Law, which launched creating a sense of urgency with builder's reinedy pro- ple, developers conld add a to push back. posals in recent months. TIERA - START PHOTOGRAPHER few stories onto apartment an online workshop to help *It's the responsibility of A drone photographs development along Clement Avenue take advantage of the bulld the state Legislature to step That Includes more than a in Alameda, one of only two Bay Ares cities that have had projecta to offset city devel. er's remedy, acknowledsed opment fees. in and ensure we don't wit-
dozen high-rise projects in their housing plans approved by the state. the scheme has not been le- ness a drastic overreach,* Santa Monica and a 2,300- The type of city where gally teated. Potential stick- Burt said. unit oceanside comples in by the state have doobled or clear they wont simply the builder's remedy makes Ing points Include how the Redondo Beach. the most sense, Campos State Sen. Scutt Wiener. even tripled for many cities. rubber-atarop cities hous- slates strict eavironmen- a Democrat from San Fran- In the Bay Area, citles As a whole, the Bay Area is Ing plans, and intend to and other esperta said. is tal laws apply and whether cisco and one of the prinel. have until Jan. 31 to get on the hook for approving hold Jurisdictions account- one where rents are high acity can deny proposals by pal backers of recent laws their housing plans certi- more then 441,000 units and developers have often essentially self certifying its fied and stave off a similar able for actually meeting struggled to get large proj- that have cleared the way for all income levels over their new goals. The state housing plan. for the bullder's remedy, outcome. But so far, Just two the next decade, represent- ects across the inish line. Another question Is said he has no such intent. - Alameda and Encryville is threatening fines, with- Palo Alto, which has a whether a builder's rem. ing a 15% Increase in the re- holding affordable housing "It's time to actually have - have approvals. However, gion's total homes. funding and loss of permit- population and median rent edy proposal would still be enforceable standard». the growing t nterest in the For the current espiring level roughly simllar to that valld If a noncompllant city bullder's remedy Is adding ting authority for cities that in Santa Monica, could fit Wiener said. "What's more eight-year cycle, the Bay skirt their housing respon rets Its housing plan certi- important, local control or pressure to meet the fast- the bill.
Area permitted only about sibilities. "(Santa Monica is) en- fed after the planning and having enough housing for approaching deadline. 190,000 units, according to Peul Campos, a renfor permitting process for the everyone?" A big part of why devel- state housing data. Of that countering now what we pagect has already begun. For now, he said the opers see the proviston as a vice preaident with the Bay very possibly will be in amount, just 41,000 are for Area Building Industry The state housinr. depart- bullder's remedy appears to viable option now, despite low- or middle-income res- three months," said Palo ment has sald such projects it being on the books since Association, said despite Alto Mayor Pat Burt. be serving its primary pur- Idents, well under half the the rush of builder's rem must go through. pose by convincing citfes 1990, appears to be that new combined goal for those In- Burt said Palo Alto is Still, Trauss sald cities state laws and policies have edy proposals in Southern "racing" to finalize Its to get their housing plans come leveis. California, the provision's planning on challenging In order sooner rather than added teeth to the planning This time around, state plan for where new hous- the provision shouldn't ex- process for housing. requirement that 20% of Ing should be built, but he later. officials, including Gov. units be affordable makes pect an easy victory. The goal is not to ever Homebullding targets set Gavin Newsom, have made doesn't expect to meet the *They may go to court, have to Invoke the bullder's It challenging for projects state's Jan. 31 deadline. and they could prevail, but remedy," he said.
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 Fobi38 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury