Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2022-2023

Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report 2306

Published: June 14, 2023 42 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 13 findings

F1
Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
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.
F2
City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
No recommendations for this finding
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).
Related Recommendations (2)
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.
R5
Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
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.
Related Recommendations (2)
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.
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.
Related Recommendations (3)
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.
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 (if not already in place).
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
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents.
Related Recommendations (2)
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 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.
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.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding
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.
No recommendations for this finding