Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
• Agency Response
Response to:
Pension Reform
Subject: Response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1614, Entitled "where Will WE Live?" Recommendation(s):*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
PDAs recognize the importance of housing near transportation and jobs for developing prosperous communities. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The city should consider increasing AH in PDAs. Response: Response not required.
F2
Plan Bay Area 2040 seeks to combine transportation, jobs and housing as a solution to the needs of our growing population. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The city should consider adopting an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Response: Response not required.
F3
While State law mandates that ABAG conduct the RHNA process, a city is not required to subsidize and/or build the units; it is only required to demonstrate that local zoning will not impede development. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The city should explore rehabilitating existing housing stock as AH for purchase or rental, and identify funding to do so. Response: Response not required.
F4
While State law mandates that ABAG conduct the RHNA process, the County is not required to subsidize and/or build the units. It is only required to demonstrate that local zoning will not impede development. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The County should explore rehabilitating existing housing stock as AH for purchase or rental, and identify funding to do so. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The County currently provides Community Development Block Grant funds to rehabilitate both existing rental and ownership properties and has done so for over 30 years.
F5
Inclusionary zoning programs provide incentives and regulatory waivers to builders and developers who produce both affordable and market rate homes within the same project. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The city should explore increasing existing "impact fees" or "linkage fees" or enacting such fees in order to generate revenue with which to assist funding of AH. Response: Response not required.
F6
The city's Inclusionary Housing ordinance helps to provide AH in that city. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The city should consider designating an employee within the city's planning or housing department to coordinate with property management to maintain current waiting and interest lists of available AH and ensure information is posted on the city website, and identifying funding to do so. Response: Response not required.
F7
The County's Inclusionary Housing ordinance helps to provide AH in the County. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The city should consider seeking federal, state, and local funding sources for AH. Response: Response not required.
F8
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances sometimes include the option for the developer to pay in lieu fees instead of constructing AH units. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The city should consider partnering with for-profit and not-for-profit builders to secure land suitable for AH, and identify funding to do so. Response: Response not required.
F9
The city supplements the shortage of funds for AH by requiring builders to pay impact fees, in lieu fees, or other construction and remodeling fees. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
The County should consider seeking federal, state, and local funding sources for AH. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The County is an entitlement grantee for HOME, CDBG and ESG (HUD Emergency Solutions Grant) funds. It receives HOPWA through the City of Oakland. It has applied for State AHSC funds. It is typically the developers that apply for AH funds, not the County. The County has provided federal funds to support 3,226 units in 60 developments throughout the County. In addition, it has served as the issuer of tax exempt bonds to support 5,950 units in 44 developments. (Fifteen projects with 1,009 units have both tax exempt bonds and federal funds.)
F10
Infill costs less to service than new development because it takes advantage of the existing infrastructure. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "costs less to service." While infill sites often offer numerous advantages including cost efficiencies, they can sometimes be more expensive to develop because such sites sometimes have aging infrastructure that is either in need of replacement or does not have the capacity to serve the new development without substantial improvements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The County should consider partnering with for-profit and not-for-profit builders to secure land suitable for AH, and identify funding to do so. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not feasible. The County has provided funds to developers in the past to acquire sites for affordable housing development after there is a complete, feasible development plan. However, most funding sources prohibit "land banking" when there is not a feasible development plan with a reasonable timeline.
F11
The elimination of redevelopment agencies resulted in a reduction of the number of AH units constructed in the city by eliminating a major source of funding for affordable development projects. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
The city should consider undertaking an education initiative in the earliest phase of affordable planning projects in order to alleviate community concerns regarding AH, and identify funding to do so. Response: Response not required.
F12
The city delegates to the builder, owner, or management company of AH properties the responsibility for gathering and validating AH clientele information, as well as maintaining lists of potentially interested buyers. Response: Response not required.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The County should consider undertaking an education initiative in the earliest phase of affordable planning projects in order to alleviate community concerns regarding AH, and identify funding to do so. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The affordable housing developers and advocacy groups are the most appropriate entities to engage in community education.
F13
There is no accessible centralized information source for available AH, which compounds the problems created by the AH shortage for those who are searching for affordable housing. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. The County provides centralized information on rental housing on its website at http://www.cccounty.us/affordablehousing and http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/5553/Affordable-Rental-Map.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
The city should consider identifying all infill and vacant land not in PDAs and encourage use of it for AH through tax incentives, density bonuses, etc. Response: Response not required.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.