Dear Judge Fannin and Foreperson Roberts: In June 2023, the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury issued Report No. 2306*

achieving RHNA permitting targets.

City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets. City Response: Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 2 because, while the City recognizes the challenges ahead, the City of Pleasant Hill Housing Element identifies a clear path to accommodate the RHNA targets. The City actively and continuously explores and implements policies, programs, and strategies to satisfy state-mandated RHNA targets. Despite the complexity of the task, the City is committed to finding viable solutions and collaborating with stakeholders to address the housing needs of the region. While it may be a challenging endeavor, the dedication and proactive approach of the City demonstrates a commitment to addressing the housing crisis and fulfilling obligations in accordance with state mandates. Although the City is not a housing developer and therefore does not physically construct any units, the City is currently streamlining and accommodating housing projects by revising applicable sections of the zoning ordinance and providing information to community members and the development community in order to facilitate the construction of affordable housing units.

There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan. City Response: Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 3, as a noncompliant Housing Element does disqualify the City from receiving various State originated grant funding for various City purposes, which is a measureable financial penalty. In addition, there are currently no legal or financial penalties if the City of Pleasant Hill does not achieve its RHNA targets, though there are penalties for not accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive. In addition, jurisdictions are subject to penalties if they do not adopt a Housing Element that is certified by the State, including designating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA targets. For example, cities and the County may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights' organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court decisions, local control may be further diminished, beyond that prescribed in State law, including, for example, the suspension of a city's authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits. A city may also be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion. 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). City Response: Partially Disagree. It is true that many cities and the County as a whole missed their RHNA targets for very low and low-income housing, and that the RHNA for very low- and low-income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past three cycles demonstrate that the current cycle (the 6th cycle) has had the largest increase - 2.5 times greater than that of the 5th cycle for very low- and low-income housing requirements. Cycle Very Low % permitted Low % permitted Source 1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% link 2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% link 2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% link 2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a link

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. City Response: Partially Disagree, as noted below: a. The City of Pleasant Hill is mostly built-out, with small pockets of vacant land available throughout the City. This results in the majority of development projects to be infill in nature. Despite this, the City has identified housing sites in our approved-but-not-yet- certified Housing Element that have been considered acceptable to HCD. b. Zoning policies apply to all residential development; affordable housing does not have a more restrictive provisions. In addition, existing State law and more recent legislation streamline the process and grant affordable housing projects advantages that are not applicable to market rate housing projects, including concessions and waivers from local zoning regulations. c. The City has approved multiple affordable housing projects (SAHA Senior Affordable Housing, Hookston Senior Apartments, Grayson Creek Apartments) within the City. d. Though available funding can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City has addressed this in the Housing Element programs, policies, and actions to the extent feasible and considered acceptable to HCD. e. When sited and designed consistent with surrounding development, affordable housing does not enjoy any less community support in the City of Pleasant Hill. f. The Pleasant Hill City Council has approved affordable housing projects throughout the City despite NIMBY resistance, including 401 Taylor Boulevard (small lot residential), 85 Cleaveland Road (five story apartment complex), and 490 Golf Club Road (affordable senior housing).

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. City Response: Partially Disagree, as noted below: a. The recent City Housing Element identifies affordable housing sites within close proximity to alternative modes of transportation and necessary services. However, comments from the State HCD have required revisions to the City's inventory of opportunity sites that have reduced access to alternative modes of transit and necessary services. b. The City is in the process of a comprehensive rezoning effort that will provide more flexible height and density in Pleasant Hill to allow for higher density development. c. The City of Pleasant Hill has had an inclusionary housing ordinance since 1996.

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 City Response: Agree

Builder's Remedy and S835 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects. City Response: Partially Disagree. While Builder's Remedy and SB35 are tools available to developers to expedite review of affordable housing development proposals, they may not comprehensively address all the ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that hinder the completion of approved AH projects. The effectiveness of these streamlined processes can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while they can help overcome certain barriers like restrictive zoning policies and prolonged approval timelines, other challenges mentioned in the report, such as limited available funding, community support, and NIMBY opposition may continue to persist in diverse degrees in different locations. To achieve the successful completion of approved AH projects and effectively address these obstacles, a multifaceted and jurisdiction-specific approach is required, taking into account the unique circumstances and complexities faced by each locality. 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. City Response: • Partially Disagree. While the County and cities did not create or find new sources to fund affordable housing development after the State discontinued 452 RDAs, State law limits local jurisdictions' ability to create new funding sources. Voters need to approve virtually all new funding or financing mechanisms to generate the revenues or funds needed to preserve existing affordable housing and construct or finance new affordable housing. The Board of Supervisors and Town/City Councils cannot, for example, float bonds any longer without voter approval. While voters approved Measure X, the countywide, 20-year, half-cent sales tax, in November 2020, Measure X is projected to provide up to $12 million annually for "housing and related services" for the entire County (emphasis added). Measure X Affordable Housing funds will be distributed through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, a competitive process.

Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low- income residents. City Response: Agree

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. City Response: Partially Disagree. Bond funding requires voters' approval. Given timing considerations (economic conditions and bond measures for other competing interests), bond financing has not been the most significant source of affordable housing financing. While local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund in Contra Costa County are a beneficial component to help fund affordable housing construction, the amount of funding available from Measure X is not high enough to bolster a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an affordable housing (AH) development. Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13% of FY 2022-23 funding and about 4.5% of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the Health Services' Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD-H3) Services, and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. While a contributing factor and certainly welcome, Measure X dollars are too small to be considered "critical" to the overall ability of the jurisdictions to meet their RHNA requirements for affordable housing. 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. City Response: Partially Disagree. The City agrees that proactive strategies can help attract affordable housing developers and mitigate the barriers to housing production; however, proactive strategies alone do not yield affordable housing projects. For example, while the City of Pleasant Hill engages in many of the above strategies, a variety of other obstacles to affordable housing development exist beyond a local jurisdiction's control. This includes the gap in financing between constructing market-rate versus affordable housing; high land costs, especially for Central County jurisdictions like Pleasant Hill; land-to-building ratios for properties with underutilized structures; the cost to upgrade or renovate an existing nonresidential building to accommodate housing; infrastructure costs (on- and off-site); fees for public utilities and special districts (particularly for non-municipal utilities), etc.

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. City Response: Agree

St Contra Costa County Income Limits by Household Size - Effective May 13, 2022 . Median Family Income - $142,800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 - 80 Extremely Low Very Low Moderate 1 15 / Acutely Low 37.50 Persons per Low Income 40 Median ? Income: Income Income: Income Household 80% AMI Income 15% AMI 30% AMI 50% AMI 120% AMI 1 $15,000 $50,000 $30,000 $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 $198,750 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 08J21 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 Income Status - % of % of Monthly Mean Annual % of Monthly Occupation Income Needed AMI * Wage (2022) Income Needed for a 2-Bedroom for a 3-bedroom Unit Unit Extremely Low 87% 113% Food Service Worker $36,488 (<30% AMI) 82% 107% Extremely Low $38,853 Dishwasher $42,203 75% 98% Extremely Low Hairdressers Retail Salespersons $43,018 74% 97% Very Low (50% AMI) $45,998 90% Very Low Security Guards 69% 89% 68% Very Low Receptionists and $46,833 Information Clerks 90% Preschool Teachers $46,103 69% Very Low Medical Assistants $59,313 54% 70% Very Low Education and Childcare 48% 62% $66,492 Very Low Administrators 41% Ucensed Practical and $78,255 53% Low Licensed Vocational (80% AMI) Nurses $91,041 34% 46% Low Education Teachers, Postsecondary Police and Sheriff's Patrol 25% $126,289 33% Median Officers Computer and $132,023 24% 32% Median Mathematical Occupations Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 08/22 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 RHNA Permits Allocation RHNA Permits Allocation RHNA Permits Allocation Permits Allocation issued Permitted Allocation issued Permitted Allocation issued Permitted Allocation Issued Pennitted Estued Contra Costa County Antiocha 921 435 47% 509 403 79% 1,156 1,923 165% 1,873 3,213 172% 5,974 Brentwooda 906 376 42% 238 476 50% 958 2,166 226% 1,733 7,687 10,467 444% Claytona 55 67 122% 33 17 52% 84 16 19% 274 119 215 43% 453 Concord' 171 273 38% 115 42% 606 76 13% 987 2,411 2,773 244% 140 Danvillec 85 61% 88 56 64% 215 84 39% 666 496 74% 721 37 El Cerrito 0 0% 23 5 22% 48 19 40% 77 210 273% 234 Hercules* 101 96 95% 62 68 110% 195 93 48% 434 1,818 419% 2,075 30 Lafayette* 15 17 2 50% 12% 42 0 105 0% 186 177% 203 Martinez 248 0 0% Đ 139 0% 341 0 0% 613 424 69% 424 32 21 Moraga* 66% 17 0 0% 45 0 120 65 0% 88 54% Oakleya 209 168 80% 125 293 234% 321 51 16% 553 1,888 341% 2,400 Orindab 31 0 0% 18 0 0% 43 0 0% 129 157 122% 157 Pinolea 48 34 35 6 71% 17% 74 80 131 108% 52 40% 172 534 247 Pittsburg* 46% 296 381 129% 696 800 987 115% 2,477 251% 3,905 129 Pleasant Hill 95 74% 79 69 87% 175 226 129% 331 362 109% 752 Richmond 471 200 273 42% 1,093 400% 625 131 21% 1,234 805 65% 2,229 San Pabloa 147 214 146% 69 70 123 101% 16 13% 155 366 235% 666 San Ramona 157 599 26% 372 407 109% 984 1,143 116% 2,492 5,538 222% 7,245 Walnut Creek 289 99 34% 195 80 41% 175 418 42% 751 1,123 150% 1,477 Unincorporated3 1,101 372 34% 177 642 28% 1,401 77 5% 2,292 5,151 225% 5,777 1/2 Total 6,481 2,852 44% 3,741 3,480 93% 8,551 7,076 83% 15,937 34,548 217% 47,956 Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 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 of RHNA Permits of RHNA Permits of RHNA Permits Permits of RHNA RHNA RHNA Met RHNA Issued Issued Met RHNA Issued Met RHMA Issued Met RHNA Issued Met Antioch 516 8 2% 339 20 6% 381 834 219% 1.046 381 36% 2,282 54% 1243 Brentwood 717 27% 192 435 58 13% 480 36% 175 1,073 1,608 150% 2,705 2,033 75% Clayton 49 0% 35 . 1 3% 33 2 6% 34 135% 45 32% 151 49 Concord4 639 0% 2 426 0% 498 . 8 2% 1,480 216 15% 3,043 225 7% Darwille* 196 2 1% 130 84 65% 146 101 69% 111 287 259% 583 81% 474 El Cerrito 93 142 153% 59 38 64% 80 13 16% 199 163 82% 431 83% 356 Hercules 143 74 0% 0% 73 0% . 163 . 153 94% 453 34% 153 Lafayette* 77 113 47 42% 10% 80 8 8 10% 91 170 187% 361 233 65% 261 Martinez 48 18% 166 0% 179 2% 4 454 148 33% 19% 1,060 200 73 0% Moraga 47 0% 52 0% . . 62 . 9 15% 234 4% 9 Oakley® 219 242 111% 120 191 159% 88 874 993% 348 331 95% 775 211% 1,638 Orinda 70 72 103% 48 20 42% 55 22 40% 45 137 304% 218 115% 251 83 2 Pinole 2% 49 1 2% 48 10 21% 143 59 41% 323 22% 72 322 25% 223 Pittsburg 79 126 57% 296 225% 666 931 90% 839 1,772 1,710 97% 160 Pleasant Hill 105 9 6% 1 1% 106 8 8% 257 34% 194 75% 628 212 Richmond 391 74 19% 339 153 45% 540 243 45% 1,555 892 57% 2,826 48% 1,362 San Pablo 22 0% 38 3% 60 35 58% . 1 178 12% 0% 298 36 . 1,174 196 San Ramon 17% 36% 715 255 740 302 41% 834 2,247 269% 3,463 87% 3,000 456 Walnut Creek 150 33% 302 25 8% 374 19 5% 826 1,206 146% 72% 1,958 1,400 Contra Costa County* 815 11% 88 598 53 9% 687 330 48% 1,408 119% 1,672 3,508 61% 2,143 6,512 1,353 County Totals 21% 4,325 1,035 24% 4,996 3,654 73% 11,239 10,750 96% 27,072 16,800 62% CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation K KHOL K RHNA CRHOL APPLA rsout ar C BO PHOLE EHAL Deed Non Own Deed British Non-Deed Deed Non-Times Total Met Det Total fotal Met Men ssued Festivated Restricted estricted Asstricted Restricted Restricted 5,254 ontra Costa County 755 19 817 16% 3,006 1,580 1,456 116 55N 3,416 260 951 1.213 225 8,794 14,020 128 175 intech 340 18 193 553 205 299 300 3401 214 34 -34 160 880 795 1177 234 rentwo 11 124 25 23% 123 2 20 85 83 $39 279 3.152 11441 52 layton Dis. 0 25 31 34 241 758 - 444 pricord D 550 10 21 1,677 101 30 196 20 10%62% 20 331 27 10 27% 124 40 32% 2.5 126 A84 3841 100 62 I Cerrito 62 63 10% 69 11 . 13 2175 366 2 459 2775 220 terpyles D) 9 . 118 16 10% 100 217 217 . 264 100 200 139 Mayette $5 78 ZN. . 85 24 ag 64 1225 721 99 319 128 Mirtinez ٥ one 77 en 72 0 2 - 0 . 295 23 433 25 Meraga QU 44 OW 50 - 6 12% . 60 143% 26 317 Califer 174 179 170 98% 175 234 26 208 134% 502 1,273 254% Drings 84 Øy. Oil. 54 20 16% 47 $435% 98 254 42 -23 Statues 393 25 75 254 177 342 700 14 2921 316 71 21 221 1,051 876 92% 110 Freatient 100 0 0 60 13 19 C1 0 207 84 41 41 4 jn 377 10 63% 435 kinmond 266 256 615 20% 81 Bt 22% 410 0 1,207 612 45% San Poblo 16 0 0 5.2 13% 75 3 21 24 265 24% 24 ian Ramon 516 25 25 229 27 27 31% 252 154 154 1,547 53 140 455%135% Mad Creek 50s374 9662 9683 230 255 14 10 23 21 327 2 44 44 179 1,210 20% vitra Costa U Affordable Housing A Plan Without a Home Vety Law Incom Lowinter Moderate four Abov Moderate Bicon Balling Consideration 201 15% 99 166 44 98% 128 35% 1798 1000 Antioch 349 175 18 193 55% 205 299 1 300 146% 214 0 117% 34 34 16% 880 795 Brentwood 234 2