Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

CONTRA COSTA CONSORTIUM 2000-2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN EXECUTIVE

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 256

									                             CONTRA COSTA CONSORTIUM
                            2000-2005 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                            PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                              i


I.     INTRODUCTION                                                                           1


II.    SUMMARY OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN DEVELOPMENT                                           3
       PROCESS
       CITIZEN PARTICIPATION                                                                  3
       CONSULTATIONS                                                                          3
       SOURCE OF DATA                                                                         4

III.   CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BACKGROUND                                                         5

       PHYSICAL SETTING                                                                       5

IV.    HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT                                                  6

       CDBG ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES/HOME CONSORTIUM                                           6
       DEMOGRAPHICS                                                                          12
          Population and Housing Projections                                                 12
          Race/Ethnicity                                                                     13
          Age                                                                                13
       CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED                                                        14
          Income                                                                             14
          Overall Affordable Housing Need                                                    16
          Extremely Low-Income Households                                                    20
          Very Low-Income Households                                                         20
          Other Low-Income Households                                                        20
          Moderate-Income Households                                                         21
          Public Housing and Section 8 Waiting Lists                                         22
               Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC)                              22
               Pittsburg Housing Authority                                                   22
          Supportive Housing and Services for Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs        23
               Elderly                                                                       23
               Frail Elderly                                                                 24
               Large Families                                                                24
               Persons with Disabilities                                                     24
                    Physically Disabled                                                      25
                    Developmentally Disabled                                                 26
                    Mentally Disabled                                                        26
               Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions                                 26
               Persons with HIV/AIDS                                                         27
               Female-Headed Households                                                      28
               Farmworkers                                                                   28
               Victims of Domestic Violence                                                  28
          Existing Supportive Housing with Services for Non-Homeless Persons with Special    29
               Needs
       DIFFERENCE IN HOUSING NEEDS AMONG CITIES                                              29
          Incidence of Housing Problems                                                      30
          Incidence of Overcrowding                                                          30
          Assessment of Housing Need Experienced by Very Low-Income Minorities               31
               Assessment of Need by Racial Group                                            32
       HOMELESS NEEDS                                                                        32
         Nature and Extent of Homelessness                                                32
             Overall Needs                                                                33
             Subpopulation Perspectives and Additional Needs                              34
             System Coordination Needs                                                    34
          Special Needs Populations                                                       35
             Homeless Families                                                            35
             Homeless Individuals                                                         35
             Physically Disabled                                                          35
             Mentally Disabled                                                            35
             Individuals with Alcohol and/or Substance Abuse Problems                     36
             Disabled Persons with Alcohol and/or Substance Abuse Problems                36
             Victims of Domestic Violence                                                 36
             Runaway/Abandoned Youth                                                      36
             Persons with AIDS-Related Diseases                                           36
             Veterans                                                                     37
             Rural Homelessness                                                           37
             Assessment of Homeless Needs by Racial Group                                 37
         Needs of Persons Threatened With Homelessness                                    37
         Lead-Based Paint Hazards                                                         38
      FOCUS GROUP AND COMMUNITY HEARING RESULTS                                           41

V.    HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS                                                             43

          Housing Stock Inventory                                                         43
          Household Size                                                                  44
          Vacant Housing                                                                  45
          Public Housing Waiting Lists                                                    47
          Housing Stock Available to Special Needs Populations                            48
          Housing Condition                                                               48
          Housing Cost                                                                    49
              Rental Housing                                                              50
              Owner-Occupied Housing                                                      51
          Identification of Areas of Racial/Ethnic Low-Income Concentrations              52
          Public and Assisted Housing                                                     53
              Housing Authority Units and Assistance Programs                             53
              Public Housing Units                                                        55
              Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers                                         55
              Other Publicly-Assisted Housing                                             56
          Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate                                      56
          Homeless Facilities                                                             57
              Emergency Shelter                                                           60
              Transitional Housing                                                        60
              Permanent Supportive Housing and Related Services                           60
              Supportive Housing Programs Provided by Housing Authority of Contra Costa   60
                   County
          Inventory of Other Supportive Services                                          61
          Barriers to Affordable Housing                                                  62
              Overall Barriers                                                            62
              Local Barriers                                                              63

VI.   FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN                                                            65

      PRIORITY HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES                                  65
         Priority Analysis and Strategy Development                                       65
         Affordable Housing Priorities                                                    66
             Priority H-1 – Expand Affordable Rental Housing Opportunities for Lower-     66
                  Income Households
             Priority H-2 – Increase Homeownership Opportunities for Lower-Income         67
                  Households
             Priority H-3 – Maintain and Preserve the Affordable Housing Stock            69
        Priority H-4 – Improve the Public Housing Stock                                       71
        Priority H-5 – Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the Overall Approach to            72
           Addressing Homelessness in the Consortium
        Priority H-6 – Assist the Homeless and Those At-Risk of Becoming Homeless             73
           by Providing Emergency, Transitional, and Permanent Affordable Housing
           with Appropriate Supportive Services
        Priority H-7 – Increase the Supply of Appropriate and Supportive Housing for          76
           Special Needs Populations
        Priority H-8 – Alleviate Problems of Housing Discrimination                            77
        Priority H-9 – Remove Constraints to Affordable Housing Development                    78
   Strategy to Address Negative Effects of Identified Barriers                                 80
   Court Orders and HUD Sanctions                                                              81
   Lead-Based Paint Hazards                                                                    81
        Organize a Lead-Based Paint Task Force                                                 81
        Compile Information                                                                    81
        Analyze Approaches and Programs Undertaken in Other Areas                              82
        Undertake Education and Outreach to Property Owners                                    82
        Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction For Public Housing                                   82
        Lead-Based Paint Hazard Management Plan                                                82
NONHOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS                                                         83
   Introduction                                                                                83
   Methodology                                                                                 83
   Economic Development: Jobs and Businesses                                                   84
   Transportation                                                                              86
   Fair Housing                                                                                88
   Persons with Special Needs                                                                  90
        Youth                                                                                  90
        Seniors                                                                                92
        Other Needs                                                                            94
            HIV/AIDS                                                                           94
            Alcohol and Drug Abuse                                                             95
            Childcare                                                                          95
            Child Abuse and Domestic Violence                                                  96
            Community Discussion of Other Needs                                                96
   Historic Preservation                                                                       97
   Infrastructure Improvements                                                                 98
   Other Community Development Needs                                                           98
NON-HOUSING PRIORITY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT                                                  98
   Priority Analysis and Strategy Development                                                  99
   Five-Year Non-Housing Priorities                                                           100
        Priority CD-1      Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons below           100
           the poverty level, expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-
           income residents and increase the viability of neighborhood commercial
           areas.
        Priority CD-2      Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality recreational,   103
           public facilities, and adequate infrastructure and ensure access for the
           mobility impaired.
        Priority CD-3      Accessibility Improvements: Continue to identify and address       104
           physical access barriers to public facilities and infrastructure as required
           through the Americans with Disabilities Act.
        Priority CD-4      Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and            105
           assist in alleviating the needs of the homeless.
        Priority CD-5      Special Needs -- Prevention: Ensure access to programs that        105
           promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social
           concerns such as domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, illiteracy,
           and other issues experienced by special needs populations.
           Priority CD-6       Special Needs -- Services: Ensure that opportunities and         106
               services are provided to improve the quality of life and independence for
               persons with special needs such as frail elderly, disabled persons, migrant
               farm workers, abused children, those with substance abuse problems,
               illiterate adults, battered spouses and persons with HIV/AIDS.
           Priority CD-7       Families: Promote and support programs that assist families to   107
               be safe, stable and nurturing.
           Priority CD-8       Communities: Target resources to underserved areas of the        107
               County to ensure that communities are safe and provide a high quality of life.
           Priority CD-9       Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and      108
               enable them to maintain independence.
           Priority CD-10 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy,       109
               succeed in school and prepare for productive adulthood.
           Priority CD-11 Historic Preservation: Preserve and protect historic properties       110
               for use and enjoyment of citizens primarily of lower income, or to eliminate
               conditions of blight.
           Priority CD-12 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and         110
               affirmatively further fair housing.
           Priority CD-13 Administration/Planning: Support development of viable urban          111
               communities through extending and strengthening partnerships among all
               levels of government and the private sector, and administer federal grant
               programs in a fiscally prudent manner.
    ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY                                                                       112
    INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE                                                                     113
       Public Institutions                                                                      113
           State                                                                                113
           County                                                                               114
           Consortium Cities                                                                    116
           Umbrella Organizations                                                               117
       Nonprofit Organizations                                                                  117
       Private Industry                                                                         118
           Developers                                                                           118
           Major Corporations                                                                   118
           Lenders                                                                              119
       Public Housing Authorities                                                               119
       Overcoming Gaps in the Institutional Structure                                           119
    COORDINATION                                                                                120
    PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENT INITIATIVES                                                         121
    RESOURCES                                                                                   121
       Federal Housing Programs                                                                 121
           Acquisition                                                                          121
           Rehabilitation                                                                       121
           New Construction                                                                     122
           Homebuyer Assistance                                                                 122
           Rental Assistance                                                                    122
           Homeless Assistance                                                                  122
       Non-Federal Housing Programs                                                             122
           State Programs                                                                       122
           Local Programs                                                                       123
       Private Resources                                                                        123
           For-Profit                                                                           123
           Nonprofit                                                                            123

SUMMARY OF CITIZEN COMMENTS                                                                     124


FOCUS GROUP NOTES                                                                               125


APPENDICES
A.   THEMATIC MAPS
B.   TABLE 2A: PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS
C.   TABLE 1A: GAPS ANALYSIS
D.   UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE
E.   JANUARY 2000 “STREET SHEET”
F.   INVENTORY OF ASSISTED UNITS
G.   PARTIAL LISTING OF SUPPORT SERVICES
H.   CONTINUUM OF CARE RECOMMENDATIONS
I.   TABLE 2B: PRIORITY NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
J.   TABLES 1C AND 2C: HOMELESS/SPECIAL NEEDS, HOUSING. AND
     COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
K.   GLOSSARY OF TERMS
L.   MONITORING
M.   CERTIFICATIONS
N.   APPROVALS
                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION

Federal law requires each local jurisdiction or Consortium to describe its housing needs
and market conditions, set out a Five-Year Strategy that establishes priorities and
identifies resources anticipated to be available to address the priority needs, and
establish a One -Year Action Plan that outlines the intended uses of the resources. The
Consolidated Plan incorporates the following federal programs:
     1.       The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).
     2.       The HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME).
     3.       The Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG).
     4.       The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA).

The preparation of the Consolidated Plan provides an opportunity for local entitlement
jurisdictions to undertake a joint planning process to assess the needs of the community
across jurisdictional lines, and to formulate strategies that meet the needs of lower-
income persons in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Consortium members
intend to use the Plan as a tool to allocate funds for projects and programs that carry
out a variety of housing and community development activities.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

The Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan was created through extensive citizen
outreach and review of existing planning documents adopted by the Urban County, its
constituent cities, and the four entitlement cities. Consistent with the jurisdictions’
respective Citizen Participation Plans, the Consortium made significant efforts to reach
all sectors of the community in order to gauge housing and non-housing community
development needs affecting the broadest range of County residents. These efforts
included:
1.        Holding three open community meetings in West, East and Central Contra Costa County to hear
          from residents on Consolidated Planning-related issues of concern.
2.        Convening five targeted focus groups to hear from experts in the community on the following
          topics: affordable housing, economic development, youth, seniors and special needs (including
          disabled).
3.        Holding the required public hearing on the draft Plan before the Board of Supervisors, as well as
          hearings before several of the Consortium jurisdictions’ City Councils (Antioch, Concord, and
          Pittsburg).

CDBG ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES/HOME CONSORTIUM
All CDBG funded activities must meet at least one of three statutory objectives:
     1.   Primarily benefit very low- and low-income persons;
     2.   Eliminate or prevent slum or blight;
     3.   Meet other urgent local community development needs.

The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, Walnut Creek, and the Urban
County (all other cities and unincorporated areas) are entitlement jurisdictions under the
                                           Contra Costa Consortium
                                2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                                   Page i
CDBG program. Each of the entitlement jurisdictions manages independent CDBG
programs and allocates funds annually through a competitive application process to
carry out eligible activities that include affordable housing, economic development,
infrastructure/public facilities improvements, and public service programs. The maps on
the following pages show the jurisdictions relevant to this Consolidated Plan.

HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Population and Housing Projections
Over the preceding decade, the County as a whole experienced an estimated 17%
increase in population, reaching just under 942,000 people by the year 2000. Over the
next five to ten years, the County’s population will increase to about 1,077,000,
representing a growth rate of 14% between 2000 and 2010. This growth rate for
individual jurisdictions is described below.
                          CHANGE IN POPULATION, 1990 – 2010

                                1990          2000     %   Change          2010     %   Change
       Consortium Total          717,713       847,400      18.07%          974,100      14.95%
       Urban County              436,034       533,800      22.42%          624,600      17.01%
       Antioch                    62,195        83,600      34.42%          102,300      22.37%
       Concord                   111,308       115,200       3.50%          120,900       4.95%
       Pittsburg                  47,607        50,400       5.87%           59,300      17.66%
       Walnut Creek               60,569        64,400       6.33%           67,000       4.04%

Income
Statistics on mean income show how much income is expected to grow by jurisdiction
over the next ten years. The following table highlights the differences between each
jurisdiction and the County as a whole (statistics are not available for the Urban County
alone).
                                                             %                     %
                JURISDICTION        1990       2000      CHANGE      2010      CHANGE
            Antioch                 $59,800    $63,200     5.69%     $77,500    22.63%
            Concord                 $57,400    $65,100    13.41%     $72,000    10.60%
            Pittsburg               $48,600    $50,900     4.73%     $58,800    15.52%
            Walnut Creek            $70,500    $81,100    15.04%     $89,400    10.23%
            Contra Costa County     $67,800    $79,000    16.52%     $89,400    13.16%




                                      Contra Costa Consortium
                           2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                              Page ii
Overall Affordable Housing Need

The Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) allocates a share of the anticipated regional housing need to
local jurisdictions for inclusion in their Housing Elements. The following table shows the
preliminary need figures for Contra Costa County for the next seven-and-a-half-year
planning period.

                          Total     VLI (0-50% LI (51-80%   MOD (81-   Above MOD   Average
                       Allocation      AMI)        AMI)     120% AMI) (120%+ AMI) Yearly Need
 ANTIOCH                     5,698         1,180        670      1,465       2,383        760
                                         20.71%      11.76%     25.71%     41.82%
 BRENTWOOD                   6,100         1,362        734      1,421       2,583        813
 CLAYTON                        768           95         60        143         470        102
 CONCORD                     1,608           315        195        417         681        214
                                         19.59%      12.13%     25.93%     42.35%
 DANVILLE                    1,409           179        116        271         843        188
 EL CERRITO                     222           45         28         57          92         30
 HERCULES                    1,059           135         87        259         578        141
 LAFAYETTE                      243           38         22         52         131         32
 MARTINEZ                       982          182        105        248         447        131
 MORAGA                         246           36         21         52         137         33
 OAKLEY                         874          152         93        230         399        117
 ORINDA                         323           46         27         62         188         43
 PINOLE                         327           55         41         83         148         44
 PITTSBURG                   2,634           561        319        724       1,030        351
                                         21.30%      12.11%     27.49%     39.10%
 PLEASANT HILL                  572          104         65        139         264         76
 RICHMOND                    1,599           415        198        408         578        213
 SAN PABLO                      266           79         38         66          83         35
 SAN RAMON                   4,254           576        371        932       2,375        567
 WALNUT CREEK                1,256           220        152        315         569        167
                                         17.52%      12.10%     25.08%     45.30%

 URBAN COUNTY               27,728       5,132        3,034       6,592   12,970        3,698
                                        18.51%       10.94%      23.77%   46.78%

 CONSORTIUM TOTAL           38,924       7,408        4,370       9,513   17,633        5,190
                                        19.03%       11.23%      24.44%   45.30%

 COUNTY TOTAL               40,523       7,823        4,568       9,921   18,211        5,403
                                        19.31%       11.27%      24.48%   44.94%

According to the Census, over 100,000 households in the Consortium area required
housing assistance in 1990 to alleviate one or more housing problems, including
overcrowding, a lack of affordability, and/or structural problems (e.g., lack of kitchen,
bathroom). The following table summarizes this information.




                                     Contra Costa Consortium
                          2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                             Page ix
                         HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 CENSUS
                                         Senior 1 &
                                         2 Member- Small (2-4 Large (5+ All Other     Total     Seniors    All Other     Total
                                            HHs     Persons) Persons)      HHs       Renters               Owners       Owners   Total HHs
Very Low Income                               6,156     9,852     2,749      6,532     25,289     10,843        7,885     18,728     44,017
     Extremely Low Income (0-30%)             3,812     5,363     1,472      3,473     14,120      5,017        3,445      8,462     22,582
          With Any Housing Problem            2,745     4,666     1,384      2,674     11,296      2,860        2,687      5,585     16,711
                                     %         72%       87%       94%        77%        80%        57%          78%        66%        74%
         Cost Burden >30%                     2,707     4,559     1,266      2,639     11,155      2,860        2,584      5,416     16,711
                                     %         71%       85%       86%        76%        79%        57%          75%        64%        74%
         Cost Burden >50%                     1,868     4,022       957      2,396      9,178      1,856        2,239      4,062     13,323
                                     %         49%       75%       65%        69%        65%        37%          65%        48%        59%
    Other Very Low-Income (31-50%)            2,344     4,489     1,277      3,059      1,169      5,826        4,440     10,266     21,435
         With Any Housing Problem             1,922     3,861     1,213      2,814      1,029      1,748        3,374      4,928     14,790
                                     %         82%       86%       95%        92%        88%        30%          76%        48%        69%
         Cost Burden >30%                     1,617     2,559       536      2,355        736      1,165        2,708      4,414     11,146
                                     %         69%       57%       42%        77%        63%        20%          61%        43%        52%
         Cost Burden >50%                       398       359         38       336        105        350        1,243      1,951      3,001
                                     %         17%        8%         3%       11%          9%        6%          28%        19%        14%
    TOTAL Very Low Income                     6,156     9,852     2,749      6,532     15,289     10,843        7,885     18,728     44,017
        With Any Housing Problem              4,667     8,526     2,597      5,488     12,325      4,607        6,062     10,513     31,501
                                     %         76%       87%       94%        84%        81%        42%          77%        56%        72%
         Cost Burden >30%                     4,324     7,117     1,802      4,995     11,891      4,025        5,292      9,830     27,857
                                     %         70%       72%       66%        76%        78%        37%          67%        52%        63%
         Cost Burden >50%                     2,266     4,381       995      2,733      9,283      2,206        3,482      6,012     16,324
                                     %         37%       44%       36%        42%        61%        20%          44%        32%        37%
Low Income (51-80%)                           1,518     5,985     1,520      4,165     13,188      6,710        8,561     15,271     28,459
         With Any Housing Problem             1,047     3,771     1,307      3,249      9,363      1,342        5,479      6,872     16,222
                                     %         69%       63%       86%        78%        71%        20%          64%        45%        57%
         Cost Burden >30%                     1,047     3,411       638      3,207      8,308      1,342        5,222      6,567     14,799
                                     %         69%       57%       42%        77%        63%        20%          61%        43%        52%
         Cost Burden >50%                       258       479         46       458      1,187        403        2,397      2,901      3,984
                                     %         17%        8%         3%       11%          9%        6%          28%        19%        14%
Moderate Income (80-95%)                        568     3,389       775      3,023      7,755      3,748        8,065     11,813     19,566
          With Any Housing Problem              216     1,423       450      1,391      3,490        637        4,920      5,552      9,000
                                     %         38%       42%       58%        46%        45%        17%          61%        47%        46%
         Cost Burden >30%                       216     1,220       194      1,330      2,947        637        4,516      5,198      8,218
                                     %         38%       36%       25%        44%        38%        17%          56%        44%        42%
         Cost Burden >50%                        40       136          0        60        233        150        1,210      1,299      1,565
                                     %          7%        4%         0%        2%          3%        4%          15%        11%         8%
TOTAL Low-Mod Households                      8,242    19,226     5,044     13,720     36,232     21,301       24,511     45,812     92,042
        With Any Housing Problem              5,930    13,720     4,354     10,128     25,178      6,587       16,460     22,937     56,723
                                     %         72%       71%       86%        74%        69%        31%          67%        50%        62%
         Cost Burden >30%                     5,587    11,749     2,634      9,532     23,147      6,004       15,031     21,594     50,873
                                     %         68%       61%       52%        69%        64%        28%          61%        47%        55%
         Cost Burden >50%                     2,564     4,996     1,041      3,251     10,703      2,758        7,089     10,213     21,874
                                     %         31%       26%       21%        24%        30%        13%          29%        22%        24%
Homelessness
Table 1A (Gaps Analysis) at the end of this report presents limited information on the
number of homeless persons and provides estimates for special population groups. At
least 13,000 people experience an episode of homelessness each year, with 4,000
people homeless on any given night. More than 75% of them are members of a family,
including almost 7,000 children. On any given night, more than 3,600 people are
homeless, living on the streets or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency
shelter or a friend’s couch. In addition, many others are at risk of becoming homeless,
including the nearly 17,000 extremely low-income households in the County who are
paying more than 30% of their income for rent or mortgage and struggling to make ends
meet.


Special Needs

There are significant numbers of people in Contra Costa County with a variety of special
needs, including seniors, youth, and the disabled. In addition to affordable housing,
persons with special needs may require a broad range of service to assist them, such
as transportation, job training, childcare, drug and alcohol treatment, and mental health
assistance.

HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS

Lead-Based Paint Hazards
Units built before 1979 are considered to be at-risk for lead-based paint hazards
because 1978 was the year lead-based paint was outlawed. Based on this information,
there are approximately 210,000 units constructed before 1980 in the Consortium. Of
this number, the following table estimates the number of units with lead hazards by
jurisdiction.
              ESTIMATED NUMBER OF UNITS WITH LEAD HAZARDS

                                                      POTENTIAL
                                                      UNITS WITH
                               JURISDICTION         LEAD HAZARDS
                          Antioch                         10,700
                          Concord                         26,200
                          Pittsburg                        7,900
                          Walnut Creek                    17,900
                          Urban County                    87,900
                          Consortium                    150,700
                        Contra Costa County Total       171,600




                                    Contra Costa Consortium
                         2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                            Page xi
Changes in the Housing Stock

The State of California’s Department of Finance publishes estimates of population and
housing over a period of several years. These statistics show that the population and
number of households have continued to increase at a faster rate than the number of
new units in the Consortium.
               CONSORTIUM HOUSING AND POPULATION ESTIMATES

                                                                           HOUSING UNITS               MOBILE
                    POPULATION                    TOTAL               DET’D    ATT’D   2 T0 4 5 PLUS   HOMES
         1999            822,590                   313,933             207,456  25,901   18,661 54,429    7,486
         1990            717,713                   282,268             182,877  23,820   18,207 50,009    7,355
     % change            14.61%                    11.22%              13.44%    8.74%   2.49%   8.84%   1.78%

Housing Cost
Rental Housing
According to the Real Estate Research Council of Northern California, average rents for
apartments of all sizes have increased significantly since the third quarter of 1994.
Although this increase has not been as great as for the Bay Area as a whole, average
rents for Contra Costa County apartments increased more than 25% in just five years.

                            Average Apartment Rents, Contra Costa County and Bay
                                               Area, 1994-1999

           $1,200

           $1,150

           $1,100

           $1,050

           $1,000

            $950

            $900

            $850

            $800

            $750

            $700
                     94-3


                            94-4


                                   95-1


                                          95-2


                                                 95-3


                                                        95-4


                                                               96-1


                                                                       96-2


                                                                              96-3


                                                                                     96-4


                                                                                            97-1


                                                                                                    97-2


                                                                                                           97-3


                                                                                                                  97-4


                                                                                                                         98-1


                                                                                                                                98-2


                                                                                                                                       98-3


                                                                                                                                              98-4


                                                                                                                                                     99-1




                                                                      Bay Area                     Contra Costa




Rising rents are particularly troublesome for lower-income households, who often
cannot absorb any increase in rents. The table below presents data on the rents that
would be affordable to extremely low-income households (earning 30% or less of the
area median income) if they were to pay 30% or less of gross income for gross housing
costs. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are estimates of the rent plus utilities that would be
required to rent privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest
nature with suitable amenities. This information suggests that the discrepancy between
FMRs and affordable rents increases with bedroom size, indicating that while
                                                     Contra Costa Consortium
                                          2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                                             Page xii
affordability for all extremely low-income renters is a problem, it is especially
problematic for larger households.
                  FAIR MARKET RENTS AND AFFORDABLE RENTS

                                             Rent Affordable
                             Applicable           to ELI
                               FMR                                Rent Gap
                                               Household
                    0BR         $607               $355              -$252
                    1BR         $734               $405              -$329
                    2BR         $921               $508              -$414
                    3BR        $1,263              $588              -$676
                    4BR        $1,509              $669              -$840

Owner-Occupied Housing
The following table, which includes all housing types (condos and townhomes as well as
single-family), shows the change in median home price between October of 1998 and
1999 for Contra Costa jurisdictions.
             MEDIAN HOME PRICES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 1999

                                                                  % Change
                                                                  From Prior
                        Jurisdiction      Oct. 1999 Oct. 1998        Year
                  Contra Costa County       $220,000  $197,000      11.70%
                  Antioch                   $178,000  $155,000      14.80%
                  Concord                   $190,000  $167,250      13.60%
                  Pittsburg                 $160,000  $129,500      23.60%
                  Walnut Creek              $325,500  $250,000      30.20%


Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate
There are several housing projects in Contra Costa County that are at-risk of conversion
to market rate, either because their project-based Section 8 subsidies are about to
expire, or because the owner has decided to prepay the federally-insured mortgage.
Based on available information, the County has a medium to high risk of losing an
estimated 766 units of affordable housing over the next decade. Lower-income senior
and disabled populations currently occupy about half of these units. The following table
shows these developments.




                                     Contra Costa Consortium
                          2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                             Page xiii
             UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION: MEDIUM AND HIGH RISK

                                                               AFFORDABLE             TARGET
       PROJECT            LOCATION           RISK LEVEL           UNITS             POPULATION
 Lakeshore Apts.            Antioch          Medium/Low            54                 Families
 Clayton Gardens            Concord            Medium              130             Seniors/disabled
 Clayton Villa              Concord            Medium              79
 Martinez Senior Apts.      Martinez            High               100             Seniors/disabled
 East Santa Fe             Pittsburg           Medium              19              Seniors/disabled
 Woods Manor               Pittsburg            High               77                 Families
 Pleasant Hill Village    Pleasant Hill        Medium              101                 Seniors
 St. Johns Apts.           Richmond            Medium              156                Families
 Cedar Point              San Ramon            Medium              50                  Seniors
                                                    TOTAL          766


Barriers to Affordable Housing
Market factors tend to be the most significant constraints on the development of
affordable housing in the Consortium area. In addition, a variety of local government
constraints can contribute to the high cost of housing construction. These potential
constraints include the countywide growth management program, local growth control
initiatives, land use policies and controls, building codes and enforcement, fees and
exactions, and processing and permit procedures.


FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
PRIORITY HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES

Based on available needs data, the Consortium has developed a list of housing
priorities for funding during the 2000-2005 Plan period. Table 2A at the end of this
report shows the priority needs for housing for each jurisdiction. In accordance with
these figures, the Contra Costa Consortium Five-Year Strategy for 2000-2005
establishes the following priorities for affordable housing programs and projects:
H-1    Expand housing opportunities for lower-income households through an increase in the supply of
       decent, safe and affordable rental housing and rental assistance.

H-2    Increase homeownership opportunities for lower-income households.

H-3    Maintain and preserve the affordable housing stock.

H-4    Improve the public housing stock.

H-5    Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the overall approach to addressing homelessness in the
       Consortium.

H-6    Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency,
       transitional, and permanent affordable housing with appropriate supportive services.

H-7    Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations.

H-8    Alleviate problems of housing discrimination.

H-9    Remove constraints to affordable housing development.

                                        Contra Costa Consortium
                             2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                                Page xiv
Table 1C outlines those actions that a jurisdiction will take to address the needs of the
homeless and special needs populations. Each jurisdiction is required to describe in
detail the actions it anticipates taking to address these priorities over the life of the Plan.
Table 2C outlines these quantifiable objectives for each jurisdiction.

Lead-based Paint Hazards
Some of the strategies under consideration by the Consortium for the Plan period
include:
v      Organize a Lead-Based Paint Task Force

v      Compile Information on the Impact and Applicability of Lead Paint Laws

v      Analyze Approaches and Programs Undertaken in Other Areas

v      Undertake Education and Outreach to Property Owners

v      Prepare a Lead-Based Paint Hazard Management Plan

NONHOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND STRATEGY

Non-housing community development needs are those public service, infrastructure,
economic development and other development needs in the community that have an
important impact on the living conditions of County residents. By providing access to
services and projects to address these non-housing needs, a community can provide
opportunities for self-sufficiency and empower those most in need.
Economic Development: Jobs and Businesses
The California Employment Development Department’s Labor Market Information
Division (LMID) shows an anticipated growth of 62,400 jobs countywide between 1995
and 2002. Much of that job growth is expected to occur in highly skilled jobs, including
executives, professional and technical positions, and computer programmers. Within
the top 20-growing job classes expected in Contra Costa are a large number of
unskilled or low skilled, very low paying jobs, including laborers, light truck drivers,
janitors and packagers. Relatively low paying retail positions will also increase.
A report by the California Budget Project (1999) showed that in order to support a
modest standard of living, the yearly income for a Bay Area family of four needs to be at
least $53,736 – and that was assuming the family could find an appropriately sized
affordable apartment for less than $1,100. Translated into an hourly wage, the parents
would need to earn a total of about $26 per hour. For a single parent, the amount is
about $17.50 per hour.
Unemployment has been dropping throughout the Bay Area, including Contra Costa
County:

                         UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, JANUARY 2000

                                      Jurisdiction            Rate
                                Contra Costa County          2.4%

                                       Contra Costa Consortium
                            2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                               Page xv
                             Antioch                       3.2%
                             Concord                       2.2%
                             Pittsburg                     3.4%
                             Walnut Creek                  1.6%

Transportation

For those at the lower incomes, efficient and affordable mass transit is critical to one’s
ability to travel between work and home, and to access services. A study prepared for
the Contra Costa Transportation Alliance found that there are serious deficiencies in
transportation services, which constitute a significant barrier to the ability of CalWORKS
clients in accessing pre-employment and placement services. In addition, the study
found that these deficiencies significantly limited access to job sites.

Fair Housing
As defined by HUD, impediments to fair housing choice can include a broad range of
issues, from outright discrimination by private landlords, to well-intentioned land use
policies that have the effect of limiting housing choice. Discrimination by landlords
against families with children appears to be the most common complaint, followed by
discrimination based on disability and racial/ethnic status. Anecdotal information
suggests that the problem of fair housing is increasing, especially as housing prices
rise.
Local jurisdictions are also required to assess their own practices, laws and operations
to determine if such activities have the effect of limiting housing choices. While specific
problems throughout the various jurisdictions tended to be minor, it is apparent that
some jurisdictions are not fully aware of recent developments in fair housing law.
Persons with Special Needs
Youth
A study by the State Department of Education shows that African American and Latino
students had higher dropout rates (3.1% and 2.7%) than the average of 1.5% for all
students. The following table shows the average Statewide graduation rates of various
ethnic groups for the study year:




                                     Contra Costa Consortium
                          2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                             Page xvi
                    CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRADUATION RATES
                           BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 1996-7

                          Category             Number           Percentage
                     Asian                         824             93.2%
                     Filipino                      342             87.9%
                     Pacific Islander               38             84.4%
                     Native American                32             82.1%
                     White                       4,990             81.0%
                     Latino                      1,052             64.0%
                     African American              835             52.7%
                     TOTAL                       8,113             75.5%


Drug and alcohol abuse among children under the age of 18 is growing significantly. A
1998 report showed that Contra Costa high school students reported that 80% of their
friends used alcohol and 76% used marijuana. Heavy substance abusers were found to
have started using at an earlier age, had poorer grades, and cut classes more often
than youth who reported less frequent use.
Seniors
By 2010, the population of seniors over 55 years of age will have increased more than
100%, while those over 85 years of age will have increased more than 200%. The
following table shows these figures compared with the Bay Area as a whole.
    PROJECTED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SENIOR POPULATION, 1990-2010

                                                         Contra Costa      % Bay Area
           Age Group      1990       2000      2010       % Change          Change
              55+         153,38     219,83   312,55          103.8%          77.2%
                               8          0        6
              85+          7,249     15,759   24,446          237.2%         146.5%

Approximately 108,000 Contra Costa seniors over 55 years of age – about 44% of all
seniors – are estimated to be of very low-income.
HIV/AIDS

Almost 2,110 cases of AIDS have been reported since 1982, including 748 persons who
are currently living with the disease. At the present time, an estimated 4,900 County
residents are living with HIV infection. The vast majority have incomes of less than
$900 per month (84.0%).

Alcohol and Drug Abuse

As tobacco use has declined since 1991, other forms of substance abuse have
continued to increase in Contra Costa County. For example, drug -related deaths have
increased from 6.2 per 100,000 population in 1991, to 8.8 per 100,000 in 1995, the most
recent year for which statistics are available. Althoug h deaths from alcohol declined
during the same period, the number of alcohol-related discharges from hospitals
increased from 100.2 per 100,000 in 1991 to 123 per 100,000 in 1995.

                                      Contra Costa Consortium
                           2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                             Page xvii
Childcare

Affordable and available childcare is critical for all working parents. The demand is
growing as more people are employed and is greatest for single parents and lower-
income families. There is a wide gap between the need for childcare and its availability
in Contra Costa County:
                                            Eligible          Population
                     Location               Children           Served            Shortfall
                East County                  10,485              1,765            -8,720
                West County                  13,274              2,970           -10,304
                North County                 10,046              1,128            -8,918
                South County                  1,557                  1            -1,556
                     TOTAL County            35,362              5,864           -29,498

Child Abuse and Domestic Violence

The number of reported incidents of child abuse and neglect in Contra Costa increased
from about 17,300 in 1993 to about 20,400 in 1996, representing an increase of about
5% to 7% each year. The growth in abuse is most likely the result of several factors,
including substance abuse, pove rty status, and the parent’s inability to meet basic
needs like childcare, housing and medical care.
Although Contra Costa County statistics showed a drop in number of reported cases of
domestic violence between 1995 and 1996, that figure has begun to rise again. It is not
known how many cases of domestic violence go unreported, but it is assumed that
there are many.

NON-HOUSING PRIORITY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

The Consortium jurisdictions are committed to allocating funds that serve the needs of
the lowest income and most disadvantaged residents. Research on the current non-
housing community development needs highlights the interrelated nature of housing
and non-housing community development. The statistics provided above, in
conjunction with the findings of the various community meetings and focus groups,
confirm the ongoing need to provide CDBG funds to a host of non-housing community
development activities. Table 2B summarizes the non-housing needs for each
jurisdiction. The following discussion highlights the strategies intended to address these
needs.

CD-1   Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons below the poverty level, expand
       economic opportunities for very low- and low-income residents and increase the viability of
       neighborhood commercial areas.
CD-2   Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality recreational, public facilities, and adequate
       infrastructure and ensure access for the mobility impaired.
CD-3   Accessibility Improvements: Continue to identify and address physical access barriers to public
       facilities and infrastructure as required through the Americans with Disabilities Act.
CD-4   Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the
       homeless.




                                         Contra Costa Consortium
                              2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                                Page xviii
CD-5    Special Needs -- Prevention: Ensure access to programs that promote prevention and early
        intervention related to a variety of social concerns such as domestic violence, HIV/AIDS,
        substance abuse, illiteracy, and other issues experienced by special needs populations.
CD-6    Special Needs -- Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve the
        quality of life and independence for persons with special needs such as frail elderly, disabled
        persons, migrant farm workers, abused children, those with substance abuse problems, illiterate
        adults, battered spouses and persons with HIV/AIDS.
CD-7    Families: Promote and support programs that assist families to be safe, stable and nurturing.
CD-8    Communities: Target resources to underserved areas of the County to ensure that communities
        are safe and provide a high quality of life.
CD-9    Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and enable them to maintain independence.
CD-10 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school and prepare for
      productive adulthood.
CD-11 Historic Preservation: Preserve and protect historic properties for use and enjoyment of citizens
      primarily of lower income, or to eliminate conditions of blight.
CD-12 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing.
CD-13 Administration/Planning: Support development of viable urban communities through extending
      and strengthening partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, and
      administer federal grant programs in a fiscally prudent manner.




                                         Contra Costa Consortium
                              2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary
                                                 Page xix
I.     INTRODUCTION
Federal law requires each local jurisdiction or Consortium to describe its housing needs
and market conditions, set out a Five-Year Strategy that establishes priorities and
identifies resources anticipated to be available to address the priority needs, and establish
a One-Year Action Plan that outlines the intended uses of the resources. The Consolidated
Plan incorporates strategies and resources through the following federal programs:

1.     The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).
2.     The HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME).
3.     The Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG).
4.     The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA).

The preparation of the Consolidated Plan provides an opportunity for local entitlement
jurisdictions to undertake a joint planning process to assess the needs of the community
across jurisdictional lines, and to formulate strategies that meet the needs of lower- and
moderate-income persons in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Consortium
members intend to use the Plan as a tool to allocate funds for projects and programs that
carry out a variety of housing and community development activities.

The Consortium’s Plan will help advise decision makers and other interested public and
private organizations on goals, strategies and funding recommendations. It is intended
that the Plan will encourage other funders to enter into collaborative relationships that help
foster the leveraging of funds and expand housing opportunities and services to very low-
and low-income households. The Plan will also be made available to potential project
sponsors to assist them in understanding the needs of the County and developing
programs to address those needs.

The preparation of the Consolidated Plan is guided by the following three major
commitments and priorities:
•      To provide decent housing by assisting the homeless in obtaining appropriate housing; by
       preserving the affordable housing stock; by increasing the availability of permanent housing that is
       affordable to lower-income households without discrimination; and by increasing the supply of
       supportive housing for those with special needs.

•      To provide a suitable living environment by improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; by
       reducing the isolation of income groups within an area through deconcentration of housing
       opportunities and revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods; by restoring and preserving properties
       of architectural, historic, or aesthetic value; and by conservation of energy resources.

•      To expand economic opportunities by creating jobs accessible to lower-income persons; by
       providing access for lower-income households to mortgage financing and credit for development
       activities that promote long-term community viability; and by empowering lower-income persons to
       achieve self-sufficiency to reduce poverty in federally-assisted and public housing.

To meet these objectives, the Consolidated Plan must include the following six
components:
1.     a housing and homeless needs assessment;

2.     a housing market analysis;

                                         Contra Costa Consortium
                                       2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                 Page 1
3.        an analysis of the priority needs and strategies and objectives to meet those needs, including both
          housing and non-housing community development needs;

4.        an Action Plan, including a discussion of general priorities for the use of HOME, HOPWA, and ESG
          funds, and a list of the proposed projects to be funded under the CDBG program;

5.        certifications; and

6.        a monitoring plan.

The Contra Costa Consortium has prepared a Consolidated Plan for the Consortium area
for the five-year period represented in 2000-2005.1 The Consortium consists of Contra
Costa County as the Urban County2 representative, and the Cities of Antioch, Concord,
Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek.

Every five years, the federal government requires that the entire document be updated.
During the intervening years, the one-year plan must be submitted for approval, along with
any substantial changes to the Five-Year Strategy. This document establishes the new
Five-Year Strategy period; however, because Census data required to be used in updating
the needs section of this document have not yet been collected, HUD is allowing local
jurisdictions to review their existing five-year Consolidated Plans and update them only to
the extent that new information is readily available.

Further, jurisdictions are not required to develop new priorities for assistance if no new
data are available to support such changes. The Consortium jurisdictions expect to revise
this document as needed once new Census data are available. In the interim, this report
provides limited new data to help establish the current climate of community development,
but no substantial changes to the overall approach of the 1995 document have been made.
 Additionally, this document has been reorganized and edited to conform to HUD’s
guidance on the preparation of this year’s document.

In addition to the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment and Housing
and Community Development Five-Year Strategic Plan, each Consortium member is also
required to prepare an annual Action Plan. Annual Action Plans for FY 2001 are included
as a separate document for each entitlement jurisdiction.




     1 The period covered by this Consolidated Plan is FY2000/01 – 2004/05. For clarity, this period is represented in the document
by “2000-2005.”
     2 The Urban County is defined as the unincorporated areas of the County as well as the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Danville,
El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, and San Ramon.

                                                  Contra Costa Consortium
                                                2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                          Page 2
II.       SUMMARY OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN DEVELOPMENT
          PROCESS
The Contra Costa Consortium Plan has been prepared in accordance with 24 CFR Parts
91 et seq. As lead agency, Contra Costa County is responsible for ensuring that the
document is completed in a timely fashion and that all aspects of the Plan preparation are
managed in accordance with federal regulations. However, the Consolidated Plan is the
result of a collaborative effort among the Consortium member jurisdictions, and the cities
and the County have shared equally in its preparation and implementation.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

The Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan was created through extensive citizen
outreach and review of existing planning documents adopted by the Urban County, its
constituent cities, and the four entitlement cities. Consistent with the jurisdictions’
respective Citizen Participation Plans, the Consortium made significant efforts to reach all
sectors of the community in order to gauge housing and non-housing community
development needs affecting the broadest range of County residents. These efforts
included:
1.        Holding three open community meetings in West, East and Central Contra Costa County to hear
          from residents on Consolidated Planning-related issues of concern.
2.        Convening five targeted focus groups to hear from experts in the community on the following topics:
          affordable housing, economic development, youth, seniors and special needs (including disabled).
3.        Holding the required public hearing on the draft Plan before the Board of Supervisors, as well as
          hearings before several of the Consortium jurisdictions’ City Councils (Antioch, Concord, and
          Pittsburg).

As required in the Consolidated Plan regulations, the draft Consolidated Plan was made
available for public review and comment at the County Community Development
Department, at City agencies in each of the four member jurisdictions, and in every major
public library branch in the Consortium. Summaries of the various hearings and focus
groups are included at the end of this report, along with comments from citizens and
Consortium responses as part of the hearings on the draft Consolidated Plan. By the time
this document is submitted to HUD, a total of twelve hearings and meetings will have been
held to discuss Consolidated Plan-related issues.

CONSULTATIONS

Federal regulations include the requirement to consult extensively with community service
providers, other jurisdictions, and other entities with a potential interest in or with
knowledge of Contra Costa County’s housing and non-housing community development
issues as part of the Consolidated Plan development process. The following table
highlights the specific areas of consultation required, including a brief synopsis of the ways
in which the Consortium has complied with these requirements.

       24 CFR CITE            REQUIREMENT                       CONSORTIUM’S ACTION TO COMPLY
      91.100(a)(1)    Housing Services/Affordable       Held community meetings in three areas
                      Housing                           Held five targeted focus groups
                      Social Services                   Held community meetings in three areas
                                                        Held five targeted focus groups
                      Health Services                   Held community meetings in three areas
                                               Held five targeted focus groups
                  Homeless Services            Held community meetings in three areas
                                               Held five targeted focus groups
                                               Consulted with County Health Services’ Homeless
                                                 Program
                                               Consulted with Continuum of Care Board
   91.100(a)(2)   Lead-Based Paint             Conferred with the Contra Costa County Health
                                                 Services Department’s Community Wellness and
                                                 Prevention Program.
   91.100(a)(3)   Adjacent Government          Conducted, on an ongoing basis, collaboration
                                                 among the Consortium member jurisdictions
                  State (Non-Housing)          Requested information from the State on housing
                                                 and non-housing community development
                                                 concerns, and provided drafts of the Consolidated
                                                 Plan for review
                  County (Metro City)          Conducted, on an ongoing basis, collaboration
                                                 among the Consortium member jurisdictions
   91.100(a)(4)   Metro Planning Agencies      Provided drafts of the Consolidated Plan to the
                                                 Association of Bay Area Governments for review
   91.100(b)      HOPWA                        Held community meetings in three areas
                                               Held five targeted focus groups
                                               Consulted with HIV/AIDS service providers
   91.100(c)      PHA-Comp. Grant Plan         At HACCC’s initiation, provide annual input into its
                                                 Comprehensive Grant Plan

In addition, jurisdictions are required to consult with the local Housing Authority regarding
the completion of its Agency Plan, a report with similarities to the Consolidated Plan. This
consultation was completed January 2000, through the focus groups on affordable housing
and discussions with the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) concerning
strategies and priorities identified in the Plan. The Housing Authority contributed to several
Consolidated Plan sections related to HACCC activity and reviewed the overall draft
document. In addition, the Community Development Department reviewed the HACCC’s
Five-Year Public Agency Plan to ensure consistency.
SOURCE OF DATA

Much of the information contained in this Consolidated Plan is derived from 1990 Census
data, the only such data available at this time. Wherever possible, this report uses
additional data to give a more complete picture of the economic and social conditions in
Contra Costa County. A complete resource list is included at the end of this report.
III.   CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BACKGROUND
PHYSICAL SETTING

Contra Costa County is adjacent to Alameda, Marin, San Joaquin, Sacramento and
Solano Counties in Northern California. The County stretches approximately 40 miles from
west to east and approximately 20 miles from north to south. The County covers a total of
805 square miles, of which approximately 732 square miles (468,500 acres) are land, with
the remainder consisting of water areas. The San Francisco and San Pablo bays form its
western border, with Suisun Bay and the San Joaquin Delta to the north.

The County is divided into three regions: west, central, and east and has 19 cities and over
21 unincorporated areas. The West County area includes the urbanized shoreline of the
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, and is separated from the rest of the County by the
Briones Hills and the open space watershed lands. West County was among the first
areas of the County to develop with medium density suburbs and industry. West County
includes the cities of El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules, as well as the
unincorporated communities of Crockett, El Sobrante, Kensington, Montalvin Manor, North
Richmond, Port Costa, Rodeo and Tara Hills.

The Central County area is the largest of the three areas, including ten of the nineteen
cities in Contra Costa and over half the population. Central County is composed of mostly
low-density bedroom communities that have developed in the flat valleys between the East
Bay Hills and the Diablo Range to the east, extending north and south of Mt Diablo. The
cities and towns within this area include: Clayton, Concord, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez,
Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. Unincorporated
communities include Alamo, Blackhawk, Canyon, Clyde, Dougherty Valley, Pacheco,
Pleasant Hill BART, Saranap, Tassajara area, and Vine Hill.

East County is the most rural, agrarian part of the County; it has the largest land area and
includes much of the hilly terrain of the Diablo Range as well as the Tassajara area along
the Alameda County border. The eastern portion of the County also encompasses the
southern shoreline of the Suisun Bay and Sacramento River and most of the California
Delta islands. East County includes the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and
Pittsburg, as well as the unincorporated areas of Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery
Bay, and Knightsen.




                                   Contra Costa Consortium
                                 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                           Page 5
IV.        HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
CDBG ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES/HOME CONSORTIUM

Cities with populations over 50,000 and counties with populations over 200,000 are
eligible to receive annual entitlement grants under the CDBG program. The amount of
entitlement funds a state or local government receives is based on a dual formula that
considers problems of growth and decline. All CDBG funded activities must meet at least
one of three statutory objectives:
1.         Primarily benefit very low- and low-income persons;3
2.         Eliminate or prevent slum or blight;
3.         Meet other urgent local community development needs.

The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, Walnut Creek, and the Urban County
(all other cities and unincorporated areas) are entitlement jurisdictions under the CDBG
program. Each of the entitlement jurisdictions manages independent CDBG programs
and allocates funds annually through a competitive application process to carry out eligible
activities that include affordable housing, economic development, infrastructure/public
facilities improvements, and public service programs. See the maps on the following
pages.

Funds provided through the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program are allocated on a
needs-based formula to local jurisdictions to carry out affordable housing activities. For
purposes of participation in the HOME program, the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg,
Walnut Creek and the County on behalf of the Urban County formed the HOME
Consortium. Contra Costa County manages the HOME program on behalf of the HOME
Consortium and allocates funds annually through a competitive application process.4

As required by federal regulations a HOME Consortium must submit a joint Consolidated
Plan to identify housing needs and strategies for the Consortium area. This report
addresses the four primary funding programs of HOME, CDBG, HOPWA and ESG. The
non-housing section of the Consolidated Plan addresses other activities that may only be
undertaken with CDBG funds that include economic development, public
facilities/infrastructure, and public services activities. The needs and strategies for non-
housing activities may not be applicable to all entitlement jurisdictions, but provide an
overview of needs identified within the Consortium area.


                                                     URBAN COUNTY


      3 Unless otherwise noted, the following income definitions are used throughout this document:


                                       Income Category                   Percentage of Median
                               Extremely low-income                              0-30%
                               Very low-income                                   0-50%
                               Low-income                            51-80% (or as adjusted by HUD)
                               Moderate-income                                  80-120%
                               Above moderate income                             120%+

      4 The City of Richmond receives HOME funds as a separate entitlement.

                                                   Contra Costa Consortium
                                                 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                           Page 6
DEMOGRAPHICS

The following discussion on population is relevant to both the housing and non-housing
sections of the Consolidated Plan. For brevity, this information is provided in the housing
and homeless needs section only. Selected information on population has been mapped
(see Appendix A).

Population and Housing Projections

Over the preceding decade, the County as a whole experienced an estimated 17%
increase in population, reaching just under 942,000 people by the year 2000. The
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that over the next five to ten years,
the County’s population will increase to about 1,077,000, representing a growth rate of
14% between 2000 and 2010.

The following table shows the percentage change in population from 1990 projected
through 2010 for the Consortium as a whole and for the individual Consortium members.
The most rapid rate of growth is expected to occur in Antioch, while the Urban County will
produce the largest absolute increase.

                          CHANGE IN POPULATION, 1990 – 2010

                                                     % Change               % Change
                               1990        2000      1990-2000    2010      2000-2010
       Consortium Total          717,713     847,400    18.07%      974,100    14.95%
        Urban County             436,034     533,800    22.42%      624,600    17.01%
        Antioch                   62,195      83,600    34.42%      102,300    22.37%
        Concord                  111,308     115,200     3.50%      120,900     4.95%
        Pittsburg                 47,607      50,400     5.87%       59,300    17.66%
        Walnut Creek              60,569      64,400     6.33%       67,000     4.04%

Although the Consortium’s population increased 18% between 1990 and 2000, the number
of households increased only 14%, representing a trend toward larger households. ABAG
expects that the number of households will continue to increase over the next five to ten
years, but less rapidly than the population by 2010. The following table shows this
expected growth. Although Antioch shows the greatest percentage growth in households
between 1990 and 2000, it is tied with Pittsburg for the greatest growth 2000-2010.

                 CHANGE IN NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 – 2010

                               1990        2000      % Change     2010      % Change
       Consortium Total          268,136     304,670    13.63%      345,970    13.56%
         Urban County            160,816     187,360    16.51%      215,330    14.93%
         Antioch                  21,401      27,860    30.18%       34,100    22.40%
         Concord                  41,917      43,190     3.04%       45,040     4.28%
         Pittsburg                15,654      16,900     7.96%       20,750    22.78%
         Walnut Creek             28,348      29,360     3.57%       30,750     4.73%


Race/Ethnicity
The Consortium area's racial/ethnic composition experienced considerable change during
the 1980s, due primarily to the high growth rate among the ethnic population. In 1980, 82%
of the population was White, 8% was Hispanic, 7% was Asian/Pacific Islanders, 4% was
Black, and less than 1% was Native-American. In 1990, 74% was White, 11% was
Hispanic, 9% was Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% was Black, and less than 1% was Native-
American.

Although in absolute numbers the White, non-Hispanic population increased in size more
than any other single racial/ethnic group by 1990 (growing by more than 56,394 persons),
the rate of growth of this category was the least of any single group (12%). In contrast, the
minority population as a whole experienced a rate of growth of 75% (from 104,709 in 1980
to 182,918 by 1990). The numeric increases in the Hispanic (30,485) and Asian & Pacific
Islander (37,019) populations were the most significant.

West County had the highest proportion of Blacks (25.6%) and Asians (16.2%). A larger
proportion of East County was Hispanic (almost 20%) compared to other sub-areas.
Central County was predominately White (88.3%).

                                                                 1980 Census             1990 Census
                     POPULATION                                     Data                    Data               % Change
     White (non-Hispanic)                                              476,995                 533,389             11.8%
     Black (non-Hispanic)                                               24,019                  35,338             47.1%
     Hispanic (all races)                                               48,107                  78,592             63.4%
     Native American (non-Hispanic)                                      1,442                   4,004            177.7%
     Asian & Pacific Islanders (non-Hispanic)                           26,921                  63,940            137.5%
     Other (non-Hispanic)                                                4,220                   1,044            -75.3%
                                 Total Population                      581,704                 716,307             23.1%
     Household Population                                              575,472                 707,304             22.9%
     Non-household Population                                            6,232                   9,003             44.5%

Note: Some of the dramatic changes between races may in part be the result of changing definitions in the Census regarding
“Hispanic” and “non-Hispanic.”



Age

In 1990, median age of the population in Contra Costa's cities and communities varied
from a low of 25.5 years in North Richmond to a high of 46.7 years in Bethel Island. The
median for the County was 34.2 years. Median age increased from 26.9 years in 1950 to
a high of 34.2 years in 1990. However, median age is predicted to increase to 39.5 years
by the year 2010 as the baby boomers age. In 1990, 21.4% of the population was under
age 15 while 10.9% was 65 or older. Over the twenty-year period from 1990 to 2010,
demographic projections indicate the population will continue to age. By 2010,
approximately 15% of the County's population will be 65 or older and only 19% will be
under 15.

The 65 and older age group will almost double between 2000 and 2010 and by 2020 it is
projected to comprise 19.5% of the population. Since the under 15 age group will be
about 19.6% of the population, the two groups will be of approximately equal size.
CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AFFECTED

Income

In 1990, Contra Costa County ranked third in the State in per capita income ($20,423). By
1997, the State Department of Housing and Community Development reported that per
capita income for Contra Costa County was one of the highest in the State, at $32,355.5


                                        Per Capita Income for Selected Counties, 1997

 $45,000


 $40,000


 $35,000


 $30,000


 $25,000


 $20,000
                                                           LA County




                                                                                                                  San Mateo




                                                                                                                                          Marin
                                                                                  Contra Costa




                                                                                                                              Francisco
              California




                                             San Diego
                           Sacramento




                                                                                                 Santa Clara
                                                                        Alameda




                                                                                                                                 San
While the countywide median household income was $45,087 in 1990, there was great
variation in median income between cities and communities. North Richmond had the
lowest level of income ($8,763) and Blackhawk the highest ($129,135).

ABAG projects mean household income for jurisdictions throughout the nine-county Bay
Area. These statistics show how much mean income is expected to grow by jurisdiction
over the next ten years. The following table highlights the differences between each
jurisdiction and the County as a whole (statistics are not available for the Urban County
alone).
                                                                                  %                                   %
                      JURISDICTION                       1990          2000   CHANGE                       2010   CHANGE
                   Antioch                               $59,800       $63,200 5.69%                       $77,500 22.63%
                   Contra Costa County                   $67,800       $79,000 16.52%                      $89,400 13.16%
                                        Difference        -$8,000      -$15,800                        -$11,900
                                                                                  %                                   %
                     JURISDICTION                        1990          2000   CHANGE                       2010   CHANGE
                   Concord                               $57,400       $65,100 13.41%                      $72,000 10.60%
                   Contra Costa County                   $67,800       $79,000 16.52%                      $89,400 13.16%
                                        Difference       -$10,400      -$13,900                        -$17,400


   5 The State of California’s Housing Markets 1990-1997.
                   Pittsburg                      $48,600       $50,900 4.73%              $58,800 15.52%
                   Contra Costa County            $67,800       $79,000 16.52%             $89,400 13.16%
                                  Difference      -$19,200     -$28,100                   -$30,600


                   Walnut Creek                   $70,500       $81,100 15.04%             $89,400 10.23%
                   Contra Costa County            $67,800       $79,000 16.52%             $89,400 13.16%
                                  Difference        $2,700       $2,100                           $0

 There is significant variation in household income across the racial/ethnic groups in the
 Consortium area. As of 1990, approximately 75% of White and Asian households were
 classified as moderate-income or higher. According to the 1990 Census, 68% of the
 White and Asian households earned in excess of 95% of the median area income of
 $52,400. In contrast, almost one-third of all Black households and one-quarter of Hispanic
 households living in the Consortium area earned below 50% of the area median income,
 compared to 15% of the White and Asian households.

 Although the percentage of White, non-Hispanic households earning less than 50% of the
 area median income was much lower than that of the Hispanic or Black populations in
 1990, White households comprised the majority of households that were very low-income.
 There were a total of 32,318 White VLI households, compared to 3,651 VLI Black
 households and 5,320 VLI Hispanic households. Therefore, although a higher proportion
 of Hispanic and Black households were VLI, a greater number of White households were
 very low-income.

                                    HOUSEHOLD INCOME TRENDS, 1990
                                                                             % Very                           %
                                            Total HHs % of Total              Low            % Low        Moderate       % Above
            Households                         1990      HHs                Income          Income        Income6         Mod.
White (non-Hispanic)                         215,456    80%                   15%             10%            7%            68%
Black (non-Hispanic)                          11,779     4%                   31%             14%            9%            46%
Hispanic (all races)                          21,278     8%                   25%             16%            9%            50%
Native American (non-Hisp.)                   1,464      1%                   20%             13%           10%            57%
Asian/Pacific Islanders (non-Hisp.)           18,066     7%                   14%              9%            8%            69%
All Households                               268,289    100%                  16%             11%            7%            66%

 The federal government annually adjusts the income limits for areas throughout the county
 that experience either unusually high or low median incomes.7 These income limits must
 be used in determining program eligibility for a wide range of housing and non-housing
 programs available to lower-income households. They are provided here to give a
 concrete indication of the maximum amount a household can earn to be in one of the
 various income categories.




      6 80 to 95% of median.
      7 Normally, the definition of lower-income includes household incomes not exceeding 80% of median income. However,
 because of the relatively high median income levels in Contra Costa County, HUD, in conjunction with the State, adjusts these
 figures to ensure that the upper dollar amount limit for low-income is the same throughout the United States. For example, the
 national low-income limit of 80% of median is about $50,000 for a family of four. In Contra Costa County, however, $50,000
 represents about 74% of median. Therefore the income limit for low-income of $50,200 for Contra Costa County is 74%.
                  PRELIMINARY INCOME LIMITS, EFFECTIVE MARCH 2000

                                                              Number of Persons in Family
           Income Category                   1       2       3       4       5       6       7        8
 Extremely low-income (to 30% AMI)        $14,200 $16,200 $18,250 $20,300 $21,900 $23,500 $25,150 $26,750
 Very low-income (to 50% AMI)             $23,650 $27,050 $30,400 $33,800 $36,500 $39,200 $41,900 $44,600
 Low-income (to 74% AMI)                  $35,150 $40,150 $45,200 $50,200 $54,200 $58,250 $62,250 $66,250
 Median income (100% AMI)                 $47,300 $54,100 $60,800 $67,600 $73,000 $78,400 $83,800 $89,200
 Moderate-income (to 120% AMI)            $56,760 $64,920 $72,960 $81,120 $87,600 $94,080 $100,560 $107,040

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Note: Median Income (except for family of four) and Moderate-Income
   levels are preliminary pending final calculations from the State Department of Housing and Community Development.


According to the Census, 7.3% of Contra Costa County residents lived below the federal
poverty line in 1990, which for a family of four was about $16,000. In 1993, the Census
Bureau estimated the poverty rate at 9%.
Overall Affordable Housing Need

The Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) process is a State mandate, devised
to address the need for and planning of housing across a range of affordability and in all
communities throughout the State. Each jurisdiction in the Bay Area (101 cities, 9
counties) is allocated a share of the anticipated regional housing need. The Bay Area's
regional housing need is determined by the California State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) through negotiations with the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). The timeframe for this RHND process is January 1, 1999 through
June 30, 2006 (a seven and a half year planning period).

According to ABAG, the regional numbers supplied by HCD are "goal numbers" and are
not meant to match anticipated growth in housing units. In developing the RHND, a goal
vacancy rate is set by HCD and then a housing unit need to meet that vacancy rate is
derived by assessing potential growth rates (population, jobs, households) and loss of
housing due to demolition. The numbers produced by HCD are provided to ABAG in the
form of a regional goal number, which is then broken into income categories. ABAG is
then mandated to distribute the numbers to Bay Area jurisdictions by income categories.

ABAG produced a housing needs methodology based on its Projections 2000 that takes
into account projected growth in households and jobs during the seven-and-a-half year
period.8 The methodology is further used to distribute a share of housing to each
jurisdiction by income category. This portion of the methodology distributes the share of
each jurisdiction's need by moving each jurisdictions income percentages 50% toward the
regional average. In essence, each allocation is based on what the anticipated growth is in
a particular jurisdiction and what percentage of the expected regional growth this figure
represents.

The following table shows ABAG’s distribution of the regional need in Contra Costa
County:9

                                   Total     VLI (0-50%   LI (51-80%   MOD (81-   Above MOD   Average
                                Allocation      AMI)          AMI)     120% AMI) (120%+ AMI) Yearly Need
  ANTIOCH                             5,698         1,180          670      1,465       2,383        760
                                                  20.71%       11.76%      25.71%     41.82%
  BRENTWOOD                           6,100         1,362          734      1,421       2,583         813
  CLAYTON                                768           95           60        143         470         102
  CONCORD                             1,608           315          195        417         681        214
                                                  19.59%       12.13%      25.93%     42.35%
  DANVILLE                            1,409           179          116        271         843         188
  EL CERRITO                             222           45           28         57          92          30
  HERCULES                            1,059           135           87        259         578         141
  LAFAYETTE                              243           38           22         52         131          32
  MARTINEZ                               982          182          105        248         447         131
  MORAGA                                 246           36           21         52         137          33
  OAKLEY                                 874          152           93        230         399         117
  ORINDA                                 323           46           27         62         188          43
  PINOLE                                 327           55           41         83         148          44
  PITTSBURG                           2,634           561          319        724       1,030        351


     8 This growth is weighted to 90% households and 10% jobs (Jobs/Housing Balance adjustment) to determine a regional
allocation factor (the share of regional growth) to be applied to the regional allocation from HCD.
     9 These figures are preliminary, pending revisions by ABAG in response to input received from local jurisdictions.
                                              21.30%       12.11%       27.49%        39.10%
    PLEASANT HILL                   572          104           65          139           264           76
    RICHMOND                      1,599          415          198          408           578          213
    SAN PABLO                       266           79           38           66            83           35
    SAN RAMON                     4,254          576          371          932         2,375          567
    WALNUT CREEK                  1,256          220          152          315           569          167
                                              17.52%       12.10%       25.08%        45.30%


    URBAN COUNTY                 27,728        5,132        3,034        6,592        12,970         3,698
                                              18.51%       10.94%       23.77%        46.78%


    CONSORTIUM TOTAL             38,924        7,408        4,370        9,513        17,633         5,190
                                              19.03%       11.23%       24.44%        45.30%


    COUNTY TOTAL                 40,523        7,823        4,568        9,921        18,211         5,403
                                              19.31%       11.27%       24.48%        44.94%

According to the Census, over 100,000 households in the Consortium area required
housing assistance in 1990 to alleviate one or more housing problems, including
overcrowding, a lack of affordability, and/or structural problems (e.g., lack of kitchen,
bathroom). The purpose of this section is to discuss these needs in greater detail,
including variations in need experienced by very-low, low- and moderate-income
households, seniors, large related households, renters, and owner-occupants.

According to the HUD data, households are defined as having a need for housing
assistance if they are experiencing any of the following:
v        Overcrowding - the number of occupants in a residential unit exceeds the number of rooms.

v        Excessive cost burden - total housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30% of gross household
         income.

v        General housing need - household is experiencing one or more housing problems, including
         overcrowding, excessive cost burden, and/or structural problems.

Among Consortium residents of all income levels, 38% or approximately 102,000
households had at least one housing problem in 1990. Renters had a higher incidence of
housing problems than owners. However, since there were more owners in the Consortium
than renters, a higher number of owners had housing problems. Forty-eight percent of all
renters or 38,500 households had a housing problem, compared to 33% of all owners or
approximately 62,000 households. Both renter and owner households with problems were
much more likely to be experiencing high cost burdens rather than overcrowding. For
example, 35% of all Consortium households had housing cost burdens in excess of 30
percent, and 12% had housing cost burdens in excess of 50%. However, only 8% of
households were overcrowded.

This pattern was the same for lower-income households earning less than 95% of median.
 In 1990, of the 36,232 lower- and moderate income renters, 69% (25,178 households) had
one or more housing problems, and 23,147 or 64% had housing cost burdens in excess of
30%. Among lower- and moderate-income owners (45,812 total households), about 50%
(22,937) had housing problems. A nearly equal number of households had housing cost
burdens in excess of 30% (21,594).10 The table on the following page illustrates in detail
the housing problems of overcrowding and housing cost burdens for renters and owners.

Among renters, the following incidence of housing problems was identified in the 1990
Census:
♦        86% of large renter households (4,354) had housing problems. Of the renter households that were
         overcrowded, 57% were large renter households.
♦        42% or 12,517 elderly households had housing problems.
♦        71% or 13,720 small renter households had housing problems.

Although a higher percentage of large households had housing problems in 1990, more
small households had housing problems in absolute numbers.

Among owners, non-elderly owners were more likely to have a housing problem than
elderly owners. Thirty-seven percent of non-elderly owners (53,850) had a problem
compared to 20% (8,500) of all elderly owners. Housing problems of owners were
primarily explained by high housing cost burdens.

Thirty-one percent of all owners (58,300) had a cost burden in excess of 30%, and 15,750
or 8% of all owners paid more than 50% of their incomes for housing costs. Non-elderly
owners were much more likely to experience excessive cost burdens than were elderly
owners, regardless of income.




    10 HUD provided information on overcrowding for all households and for those households at 80% or below area median
income. Information on over-crowding among households for moderate-income households was not available. Therefore, this
subsection does not present information on overcrowding among all low- and moderate-income households.
                         HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS OF LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 1990 CENSUS
                                         Senior 1 &
                                         2 Member- Small (2-4 Large (5+ All Other     Total     Seniors    All Other     Total
                                            HHs     Persons) Persons)      HHs       Renters               Owners       Owners   Total HHs
Very Low Income                               6,156     9,852     2,749      6,532     25,289     10,843        7,885     18,728     44,017
     Extremely Low Income (0-30%)             3,812     5,363     1,472      3,473     14,120      5,017        3,445      8,462     22,582
          With Any Housing Problem            2,745     4,666     1,384      2,674     11,296      2,860        2,687      5,585     16,711
                                     %         72%       87%       94%        77%        80%        57%          78%        66%        74%
         Cost Burden >30%                     2,707     4,559     1,266      2,639     11,155      2,860        2,584      5,416     16,711
                                     %         71%       85%       86%        76%        79%        57%          75%        64%        74%
         Cost Burden >50%                     1,868     4,022       957      2,396      9,178      1,856        2,239      4,062     13,323
                                     %         49%       75%       65%        69%        65%        37%          65%        48%        59%
    Other Very Low-Income (31-50%)            2,344     4,489     1,277      3,059      1,169      5,826        4,440     10,266     21,435
         With Any Housing Problem             1,922     3,861     1,213      2,814      1,029      1,748        3,374      4,928     14,790
                                     %         82%       86%       95%        92%        88%        30%          76%        48%        69%
         Cost Burden >30%                     1,617     2,559       536      2,355        736      1,165        2,708      4,414     11,146
                                     %         69%       57%       42%        77%        63%        20%          61%        43%        52%
         Cost Burden >50%                       398       359         38       336        105        350        1,243      1,951      3,001
                                     %         17%        8%         3%       11%          9%        6%          28%        19%        14%
    TOTAL Very Low Income                     6,156     9,852     2,749      6,532     15,289     10,843        7,885     18,728     44,017
        With Any Housing Problem              4,667     8,526     2,597      5,488     12,325      4,607        6,062     10,513     31,501
                                     %         76%       87%       94%        84%        81%        42%          77%        56%        72%
         Cost Burden >30%                     4,324     7,117     1,802      4,995     11,891      4,025        5,292      9,830     27,857
                                     %         70%       72%       66%        76%        78%        37%          67%        52%        63%
         Cost Burden >50%                     2,266     4,381       995      2,733      9,283      2,206        3,482      6,012     16,324
                                     %         37%       44%       36%        42%        61%        20%          44%        32%        37%
Low Income (51-80%)                           1,518     5,985     1,520      4,165     13,188      6,710        8,561     15,271     28,459
         With Any Housing Problem             1,047     3,771     1,307      3,249      9,363      1,342        5,479      6,872     16,222
                                     %         69%       63%       86%        78%        71%        20%          64%        45%        57%
         Cost Burden >30%                     1,047     3,411       638      3,207      8,308      1,342        5,222      6,567     14,799
                                     %         69%       57%       42%        77%        63%        20%          61%        43%        52%
         Cost Burden >50%                       258       479         46       458      1,187        403        2,397      2,901      3,984
                                     %         17%        8%         3%       11%          9%        6%          28%        19%        14%
Moderate Income (80-95%)                        568     3,389       775      3,023      7,755      3,748        8,065     11,813     19,566
          With Any Housing Problem              216     1,423       450      1,391      3,490        637        4,920      5,552      9,000
                                     %         38%       42%       58%        46%        45%        17%          61%        47%        46%
         Cost Burden >30%                       216     1,220       194      1,330      2,947        637        4,516      5,198      8,218
                                     %         38%       36%       25%        44%        38%        17%          56%        44%        42%
         Cost Burden >50%                        40       136          0        60        233        150        1,210      1,299      1,565
                                     %          7%        4%         0%        2%          3%        4%          15%        11%         8%
TOTAL Low-Mod Households                      8,242    19,226     5,044     13,720     36,232     21,301       24,511     45,812     92,042
        With Any Housing Problem              5,930    13,720     4,354     10,128     25,178      6,587       16,460     22,937     56,723
                                     %         72%       71%       86%        74%        69%        31%          67%        50%        62%
         Cost Burden >30%                     5,587    11,749     2,634      9,532     23,147      6,004       15,031     21,594     50,873
                                     %         68%       61%       52%        69%        64%        28%          61%        47%        55%
         Cost Burden >50%                     2,564     4,996     1,041      3,251     10,703      2,758        7,089     10,213     21,874
                                     %         31%       26%       21%        24%        30%        13%          29%        22%        24%
Extremely-Low Income Households

Housing needs of extremely low-income households, or ELI (0-30% Area Median Income -
AMI) were the highest in 1990. It is not surprising that the major problem experienced by
these households resulted from the excess cost-burden imposed by housing costs. Just
under three-fourths (16,711 households) of all ELI households paid more than 30% of their
income for housing and 59% (13,323 households) paid more than 50%. The problem was
more severe for renters than owners, with small-related and large renter families
experiencing the highest incidence of excess housing cost-burden.

Very Low-Income Households

In 1990, a substantial proportion of very low-income (VLI, 0-50% AMI) households
experienced one or more housing problems: 31,501 households or 72% of all households
with incomes at/below 50% AMI had housing needs resulting from overcrowding, excess
cost burden, or structural problems.

Renters: Housing needs of VLI renters were significant and relate primarily to excess cost
burdens: 78% or 11,891 households in this group paid more than 30% of their gross
monthly income for rent and utilities and 61% (9,283households) paid more than half of
their income for this purpose. Large renter households experienced the highest incidence
of housing problems (94% or 2,597 households), primarily due to overcrowding (61%).
However, larger numbers of small-related households experienced housing problems
(8,526 households or 87%).

Owners: VLI owner households also experienced substantial housing problems in 1990.
Among VLI owners, 56% (10,513 households) had one or more housing problems. Again,
the major difficulty faced by these households resulted from an excess housing cost
burden. About 52% of VLI owners paid more than 30% of gross monthly income for
housing costs (9,830 households) and 32% (6,012 households) paid more than 50%.

Other Low-Income Households

In 1990, other low-income households were defined as households earning from 51 to 80%
of the AMI. Over 16,000 LI households (57% of the total) in the Consortium area
experienced one or more housing problems. The incidence of problems experienced by
this income group were similar to those exhibited by VLI households in that the percentage
of renters experiencing housing needs was higher than that of owners.

Renters: Overall, 71% or 9,363 LI renter households had a housing need. Excessive cost
burden was still the primary problem in that 63% of renter households (8,308 households)
paid more than 30% of their income for housing. However, there was a much lower
percentage of households in this income group that were severely cost-burdened: only 9%
of LI renters or 1,187 households paid more than 50% of their incomes for rent.

Among other low-income renters, there were some significant differences in 1990:
Ø     Proportionately, large households were more likely to have problems than other renter households in
      this group; 86% or 1,307 large renter households had housing problems. As the 1990 Census
      indicates, a much higher percentage of large households were overcrowded.

Ø     A higher percentage of elderly renters paid more than 50% of their incomes for rent; 17% of elderly
      renters in this income category were severely cost-burdened compared to 9% of renters overall.
      However, the elderly represented less than one-third of all low-income renters with excessive
      housing cost burdens.

Ø     Small households represented the largest group of LI households experiencing housing problems;
      3,771 small households had housing problems. This represented 40% of other low-income
      households with housing problems.

Owners: In 1990, 45% of all owners or 6,872 households had a housing problem. As the
table on page 19 indicates, housing problems were primarily cost burdens exceeding
30%. Among owners, there were some differences among household types:
Ø     The number and percentage of elderly owners with any housing problem was much lower (20% or
      1,342 households) than non-elderly households (64% or 5,479 households).

Ø     About 28% or 2,397 non-elderly owners paid housing costs that exceeded 50% of their gross
      incomes.
Moderate-Income Housing Needs

Moderate-income (MOD) households are defined as households with incomes from 80%
to 95% or 120% AMI, depending on the statistics used.11 Households in this group
demonstrated a lower incidence of housing problems than LI households in 1990.
However, needs remained significant: 9,000 MOD households (46%) experienced one or
more housing problems. Unlike LI households, renter and owner MOD households had a
similar incidence of housing need: 45% of all renter households had one or more housing
problems compared to 47% of owner-occupants.

Renters: Not surprisingly, MOD renters were less likely to experience a housing problem
than lower-income households. Forty-five percent of MOD renters (or 3,500 households)
had at least one housing problem. There was a low incidence (only 3%) of housing cost
burdens in excess of 50%.
•        Large households were much more likely to have a problem than other groups (58% had problems),
         but the number of large households with problems (450) was smaller than other groups with housing
         problems. For example, among small households 1,423 households had housing problems, and
         among "other" households 1,391 households had housing problems.

•        Thirty-eight percent of elderly renter households had housing problems, representing 216
         households.

Owners: Again, moderate-income owners experienced fewer housing problems than owners at
lower income levels in 1990. Forty-seven percent or 5,552 moderate-income owners had a
housing problem, primarily cost burdens that exceeded 30%. Eleven percent of owners or
1,299 households had cost burdens that exceed 50%. (This was a higher rate than that for
moderate-income renters.) Significantly fewer elderly households in this income group had
high cost burdens.

Table 2A shows the number of units needed overall in the Consortium by income category
(see Appendix B).




     11 Census information uses 95% of median as the upper limit of moderate-income; however, State programs typically use 120%
of median as the upper limit. For the purposes of this discussion, Census statistics showing 80-95% of median will be used.
Elsewhere in this report, 80-120% of median will be used.
Public Housing and Section 8 Waiting Lists

Another indicator of housing need is the number of households that are waiting for public
housing units or Section 8 Rental Assistance. As the numbers below document, there is a
sizeable housing need within the Consortium area.

Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC)12

The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County maintains two mutually exclusive countywide
waiting lists – one for the Section 8 programs and the other for Conventional public
housing. The Section 8 waiting list has not been open since November 1996. It will likely
be opened in the year 2000 for a very brief period. There are 5,064 Section 8 certificates
and vouchers presently utilized in the County, and 2,094 on the Section 8 waiting list for
rental assistance. There are 1,272 public housing units in the County and 5,300 on the
waiting list for these units. The Public Housing waiting list has always been open but will
close in mid 2000. Public Housing Preferences are given to eligible applicants in all
programs who are terminally ill, in a witness protection program, victims of domestic
violence, victims of hate crimes, who are local (in the County when applying), and who are
veterans.

Pittsburg Housing Authority

The City of Pittsburg Housing Authority has a Section 8 waiting list of 642 applicants. The
Waiting list was last open May 1999. The Housing Authority has a total of 747 Section 8
voucher/certificate participants. In October 1999, HUD merged the two programs into a
new Housing Choice Voucher Program.




      12 The HACCC waiting list covers units located in the Urban County and the four Consortium cities. The Section 8 Programs
waiting list covers the Urban County and three Consortium cities (with the exception of Pittsburg's Section 8 Program, which is
administered by the Pittsburg Housing Authority.)
Supportive Housing and Services for Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs

In the Consortium area, lower-income residents with special and supportive housing needs
include: the elderly and frail elderly; large families; disabled persons, including those with
physical, developmental, or mental disabilities; persons who have alcohol and/or drug
addictions; persons with AIDS and related diseases; female-headed households;
farmworkers; and domestic violence victims. The specific housing needs of each group
are summarized in the following.

Elderly

Elderly households accounted for 52,450 of the total 268,300 households in the
Consortium area, or nearly 20% during 1990. It is projected that there will be a higher rate
of increase in the number of persons 65 years or older between 1990 and 2010 than the
estimated rate of increase in the general population.

Housing needs of the elderly stem in part from the fact that many elderly live on fixed
incomes that do not keep pace with inflation. For example, rents have increased
substantially in the Bay Area over last ten years, with the result that a portion of the elderly
are no longer able to maintain their existing residences. Elderly homeowners faced with
increased expenditures for medical care, food, utilities, transportation, and other basic
needs may also find themselves ultimately unable to maintain their current home.

Despite housing affordability problems, the elderly in the Consortium area have not
experienced a higher rate of poverty than that experienced by the general population.
Approximately 4.7% of persons 65 years and older in the Consortium area had incomes in
1990 that were below the poverty line, in comparison with 5.5% of total households in the
Consortium area. Nevertheless, waiting list information available from the HACCC
indicates that there has been a higher percentage of elderly households on the Section 8
and Public Housing waiting lists than their percentage representation among all renter
households within the Consortium area.

In addition to housing affordability problems, housing needs of the elderly have also
evolved with changes in household circumstances and health status. As family members
leave, elderly parents may find themselves in a residence too large for their needs with
maintenance and financial requirements beyond their physical and financial capabilities.
Reluctant to leave familiar surroundings and discouraged by often high costs of relocation,
elderly homeowners may find themselves in an increasingly untenable situation. Senior
residents in such circumstances would benefit from the increased availability of
independent, but small-scale affordable housing designed to meet the physical and social
needs of the elderly. Shared-housing and reverse-equity programs offer additional
alternatives for this population.

Finally, as individuals age, they may experience a gradual increase in health problems,
decreasing their ability to maintain an independent living situation. Depending on the
nature and extent of health problems encountered, the housing needs of elderly populations
in this group cover a broad range, including: independent multifamily housing units
architecturally suitable for elderly populations; congregate care facilities with independent
units, transportation, and central dining and social activities; life care facilities with

                                      Contra Costa Consortium
                                    2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                              Page 21
housekeeping, meal service and medical care; and nursing facilities for the physically and
mentally disabled elderly.

According to the 1990 Census, the number of persons in the Consortium age 65 years and
older with a mobility or self-care limitation totaled 14,650 persons or 17% of all elderly,
compared to 7% of the population aged 16 to 64 years. Of the total population with
mobility limitations, 56% (5,850 persons) were elderly; of those with self-care limitations,
21% (3,050) were elderly, and of those with both mobility and self-care limitations, 55%
(5,700) were elderly. Again, the incidence of these problems increases with age: the
highest percentage of the population with both mobility and self-care limitations is 75 years
or older.

Frail Elderly

The frail elderly constitute a subgroup within the elderly population. In general, a person is
considered to be a frail, elderly person if he or she is at least 62 years old and has a health
problem that creates a difficulty with one or more aspects of personal care or household
management. As previously stated, 14,650 persons aged 65 years or older had a mobility
and/or self-care limitation in 1990. The number of elderly persons with both a mobility and
self-care limitation was 5,700, the majority of which (64%) were 75 years or older.

The needs for housing and supportive services for frail elderly persons have been similar,
but more intensive than those of elderly persons without significant health problems. The
frail elderly often face additional needs for suitable facilities that are modified for use by
persons with limited mobility, dexterity, or strength. Frail elderly persons have increased
needs for medical services, assistance with personal care and household management,
transportation, and meals.

Large Families

There were 7,550 large renter families in the Consortium area in 1990, according to the
Census (large families are defined as those with five or more related members). Seventy
(70)% of these experienced at least one type of housing problem. In addition, there was a
relatively low number of vacant units with 3 or more bedrooms that were available to rent or
buy. This limited housing stock for large families represents a problem for this population,
especially those with low household income.

Persons with Disabilities

HUD defines a disabled family as a household composed of one or more persons at least
one of whom is an adult (at least 18 years of age) who has a disability. A person is
considered to have a disability if the person has a physical, mental, cognitive, or emotional
impairment that is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite duration, substantially
impedes his or her ability to live independently, and is of such a nature that the ability to live
independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. The US Bureau of
the Census produces data on “mobility impaired” and “self-care-limited” persons to help
define those within the disabled population. What little data that are available were
provided in the 1990 Census, unless otherwise noted.


                                      Contra Costa Consortium
                                    2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                              Page 22
The Contra Costa County/United Way Hospital Council Collaborative Community
Assessment of 1999 reported that about 10,000 Contra Costa residents suffer from either
a mobility or self-care limitation. In addition, according to the 1990 Census:
ü      41,500 adults have a work disability, but no mobility or self-care limitation; and

ü      an additional 14,500 adults have a mobility or self-care limitation, but no work disability.

Thus, an estimated 66,000 adults have some form of disability related to work, mobility, or
self-care. It is noteworthy that this data represents only adults with disabilities and does not
include children under 16, thus understating the number of disabled residing in the County.

The following table shows the breakdown by type of disability for those clients served by
the State Department of Rehabilitation over two years.

    CHARACTERISTICS OF REHABILITATED CLIENTS FOR CONTRA COSTA
                   COUNTY, FY 96-97 AND FY 97-98

                            DISABLING CONDITION          NUMBER           PERCENT
                       Blind                                 467             5.7%
                       Other Visual                          103             1.3%
                       Deaf                                  217             2.6%
                       Other Hearing                         180             2.2%
                       Physical                            2,283            27.8%
                       Psychological                       1,408            17.2%
                       Other Mental                          167             2.0%
                       Alcoholism                            296             3.6%
                       Drug Addiction                        314             3.8%
                       Mental Retardation                    704             8.6%
                       Learning Disabilities               1,877            22.9%
                       Acquired Traumatic Brain Injury       188             2.3%
                       No Disability                           4             0.0%
                                                   TOTAL   8,208

The County's disabled populations generally share a need for affordable housing that is
close to services and transportation. The specific housing and non-housing needs of
mentally, physically, and developmentally disabled populations as well as those suffering
from alcohol and/or drug abuse are described in the following.

Physically Disabled: The physically disabled generally require housing that is
handicapped accessible and appropriately modified to facilitate independent living (e.g.,
barrier-free wheelchair access, special modifications for the blind and hearing impaired).
Depending on the nature and extent of the disability, a portion of this population may also
require ongoing supportive services, ranging from transportation and light housekeeping to
full-time medical and personal care. In addition, transitional housing with supportive
services is beneficial for the recently handicapped, who may require short-term medical
care, special training and other assistance before returning to an independent living
environment.




                                          Contra Costa Consortium
                                        2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                  Page 23
Developmentally Disabled: The Regional Center of the East Bay estimates that there
are more than 3,000 individuals in Contra Costa County with developmental disabilities.
Persons who have developmental disabilities may have communication and learning
disorders, as well as limited abilities to handle basic life skills. Individuals that are
developmentally disabled may have needs that range as follows:
1.     Independent living with support services;

2.     Group homes, which provide a supportive environment at the same time encouraging independence
       and social skills; and

3.     Housing facilities that provide a supervised living environment with extensive support services.

Mentally Disabled: Estimates of the County's mentally disabled population range from
8,000 to more than 17,000. Approximately 7,200 mentally disabled adults (18 - 60 years
old) are served through the County's mental health system each year. As is the case with
the physically handicapped, transitional housing with support services (mental health
counseling, medical care, job training, substance abuse programs) is needed to facilitate
the eventual return to society of the mentally disabled who are capable of living
independently. An additional segment of this population is capable of functioning in a
semi-independent living environment, with some supervision and supportive services as
required. Individuals that are mentally disabled may have needs that include:
1.     Permanent affordable housing with support services, designed to enable households to live
       independently;

2.     Special-user housing including group Board and Care Homes which provide case management and
       medical supervision;

3.     Other housing related assistance such as locating and securing housing, dealing with landlords,
       neighbors, and roommates, and independent living skills training; and

4.     Provision for extended stays in public emergency shelters.

Persons with Alcohol or Other Drug Addictions

Recovering alcohol and drug abusers represent an additional component of the effectively
disabled population. According to the draft Drug and Alcohol Abuse Needs Assessment
Study, as much as 10% of the general County population may be experiencing problems of
alcohol abuse, while an additional 5% suffer from drug abuse. Frequently, problems of
substance abuse overlap with other social difficulties, (e.g., poverty, physical and mental
disability, child and spouse abuse, and homelessness), greatly increasing the complexities
of treatment for this group. In addition to extensive treatment and support services
generally required for individuals and families with this problem, a portion of this population
would be assisted by a move to transitional or permanent supportive housing for substance
abusers.




                                         Contra Costa Consortium
                                       2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                 Page 24
Persons with HIV/AIDS

As of January 2000, Contra Costa County has the eleventh highest incidence of AIDS in
the State. Through January 31, 2000, there have been 2,109 cases of AIDS reported in
Contra Costa, with approximately 720 people currently living with AIDS. It is estimated that
over 4,900 people are estimated to be living with AIDS or HIV infection. Within Contra
Costa County, heterosexual intravenous drug users and their partners, women, Blacks and
Latinos are being infected with the AIDS virus at higher rates than is the case for the
general population.

Over 80% of the people with HIV/AIDS have a monthly income of less than $900.
Therefore, this group experiences many of the same housing issues as do other extremely
low-income residents of the County. In addition, those with substance abuse require
housing in areas that do not pose a threat to maintaining their sobriety.

The Contra Costa County HIV/AIDS Housing Plan additionally reports that:
     •   Finding and keeping housing is a crisis for many people with HIV/AIDS.
     •   Homelessness and HIV/AIDS are an overwhelming – and common – combination.
     •   Many people living with the disease could lose their housing at any time because of poverty.
     •   People with HIV/AIDS have complex health care needs and cannot always get the health and
         supportive services they need to stay independent.
     •   Many people are struggling with substance abuse and mental illness in addition to HIV/AIDS.
     •   Women and families with children affected by HIV/AIDS have unique social and support service
         needs that negatively impact their ability to maintain housing.
     •   Poor rental and previous criminal histories make it hard for many people living with HIV/AIDS to find
         housing.
     •   Some people living with HIV/AIDS feel they face discrimination when looking for and trying to keep
         housing in Contra Costa County.
     •   People want to remain in their homes and live as independently as possible for as long as possible.

The Plan calls for housing resources to be targeted to individuals who meet the following
threshold characteristics:
1.       those disabled with HIV/AIDS;
2.       those of low income; and
3.       those who are either homeless or have unstable housing.

According to the Contra Costa AIDS Program, of the 681 clients served between March 1,
1999 and January 31, 2000:
q        41% were homeless or in an unstable living situation
q        Over 80% had a monthly income of less than $900
q        14% were homelessness on intake
q        12% live with one or more children
q        24% sought HIV/AIDS housing advocacy or assistance



                                           Contra Costa Consortium
                                         2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                   Page 25
Female-Headed Households

As of 1990, 41,550 households or just under one-fourth of all households in the Urban
County were headed by women, including 10,700 households with children. Most of the
special housing needs of this population stem from the relatively low income levels
associated with female-headed households and from the presence of children.
Households in this group have predominantly low incomes, pay a relatively high percentage
of their incomes for housing, and experience high rates of overcrowding. Women with
children also experience discrimination in rental housing. In addition to family housing
affordable to very-low and low-income households, special assistance needs of this group
include supportive childcare services and job training to facilitate access to higher paying
employment opportunities.

Farmworkers

According to the California State Employment Development Department (EDD), there
were 1,200 agricultural workers in Contra Costa County during 1991. In general, the
County's year-round farmworkers tend to have relatively low incomes and, consequently,
suffer from housing problems associated with the general shortage of affordable housing in
Contra Costa. Further, although no specific data are available on Contra Costa, a study on
migrant farmworker housing in California found seriously substandard housing conditions,
including basic structural deficiencies, lack of utilities, contaminated water supplies, and
other significant health hazards.

Although there are many year-round workers, the number of agricultural workers rises
during the peak season. According to EDD, 800 seasonal migrant labor families worked
in East County in 1991. Some housing is provided in County farmworker camps, but there
is an additional need for family housing in this area.

Victims of Domestic Violence

Although Contra Costa County statistics showed a drop in number of reported cases of
domestic violence between 1995 and 1996, that figure has begun to rise again. It is not
known how many cases of domestic violence go unreported, but it is assumed that there
are many. Substance abuse figures significantly in domestic violence cases, as does child
abuse (and, increasingly, animal abuse). While high-income women are as likely to be
abused as lower-income women, they are not as likely to seek public assistance and are
therefore difficult to count. Research additionally shows that the number of calls to Battered
Women’s Alternatives crisis hotline far exceeds the calls to 911, therefore giving further
credence to the notion that many if not most battered women do not seek law enforcement
assistance.13

In terms of the housing needs of domestic violence survivors, it is often the case that
families become homeless once they leave the abusive household. Battered Women's
Alternatives provides emergency shelter with support services and works with the families
to move them into transitional housing and ultimately into permanent housing. Many of the


    13 Northern California Council for the Community, Contra Costa/United Way Hospital Council Collaborative Community
Assessment: Volume I, Health, Social and Economic Indicators Report (January 1999), page 107.

                                                Contra Costa Consortium
                                              2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                        Page 26
women seeking help also have problems of alcohol or drug abuse requiring special
treatment and counseling programs.

In addition to a secure living environment for themselves and their children, victims of
domestic violence need education and job skills training in order to achieve economic
independence, along with extensive support services, including healthcare, mental health
counseling, alcohol and drug abuse programs, parenting classes, and childcare.




                                   Contra Costa Consortium
                                 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                           Page 27
DIFFERENCE IN HOUSING NEEDS AMONG CITIES

The preceding discussion analyzed housing needs for the Consortium area as a whole.
The purpose of this section is to describe significant housing needs of Consortium
members, including the Urban County and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and
Walnut Creek.

Incidence of Housing Problems

Renters: In general, within the four entitlement cities and the Urban County, large renter
households have a higher incidence of housing problems than either small or elderly
households. However, in absolute terms, there are typically more elderly or small
households with housing problems. According to the 1990 Census:
Urban County - 82% or 10,800 very low-income renters had housing problems. Of these, 3,950 were small
   households, 1,400 were large related households, and 2,500 were elderly households.

Antioch - 85% or 2,600 VLI renters had housing problems. Of these, 1,450 were small households, 316
    were large related households, and 500 were elderly households.

Concord - 86% or 4,300 VLI renters had housing problems. Of these, 1,900 were small households, 400
   were large related households, and 800 were elderly households.

Pittsburg - 82% or 1,850 VLI renters had housing problems. Of these, 800 were small households, 400
     were large related households, and 300 were elderly households.

Walnut Creek - 90% or 1,650 VLI renters had housing problems. Of these, 400 were small households, 99
   were large related households, and 600 were elderly households.

Owners: Within the four cities and the Urban County, large owner households were also
more likely to have housing problems than either small or elderly households. However, in
general there were a larger number of elderly or small households with housing problems.
The differences are as follows:
Urban County - 54% or 5,900 very low-income owners had housing problems in 1990. Of these, 1,700 were
   small households, 657 were large related households, and 2,500 were elderly households.

Antioch - 52% or 850 VLI owners had housing problems. Of these, 300 were small households, 150 were
    large related households, and 300 were elderly households.

Concord - 59% or 1,600 VLI owners had housing problems. Of these, 500 were small households, 50 were
   large related households, and 650 were elderly households.

Pittsburg - 58% or 850 VLI owners had housing problems. Of these, 296 were small households, 150 were
     large related households, and 300 were elderly households.

Walnut Creek - 67% or 1,250 VLI owners had housing problems. Of these, 150 were small households and
   850 were elderly households.14


Incidence of Overcrowding

Renters: In 1990, the incidence of overcrowding among renters was highest in Pittsburg
(16%) and lowest in Walnut Creek (4%). Large related households had the highest
incidence of overcrowding in all the jurisdictions. The number of overcrowded renter


    14 According to the 1990 Census, there are no large very low-income owner households in Walnut Creek.
households was as follows: Urban County (3,057), Antioch (633), Concord (1,270),
Pittsburg (923), and Walnut Creek (350).

Owners: Although the pattern of overcrowding among owners has been similar to that for
renters, the incidence and number of owners that were overcrowded in 1990 was generally
lower. In the Urban County, 2,924 households were overcrowded; 251 households in
Antioch; 598 households in Concord; 807 households in Pittsburg, and 97 households in
Walnut Creek.

Assessment of Housing Need Experienced by Very Low-Income Minorities

The following discussion summarizes differences in the incidence of housing problems for
VLI minority populations in the Consortium as a whole and among member jurisdictions in
1990.

Renters: In general, the incidence of housing problems among VLI minority populations
renting homes in the Consortium area was essentially the same as for all VLI households.
In 1990, there were 9,450 VLI minority/renter households in the Consortium, including
7,100 experiencing one or more housing problems. While more small households
experienced problems (3,600 or 83%), the incidence of problems was highest among
large renter households (95%, 1,700 households). VLI elderly minority households had the
lowest number and incidence of housing problems (650 renter households, 74%).

With the following exceptions, Consortium members exhibited the same pattern with
respect to the incidence of housing problems among VLI minority renter households and all
VLI renter households:
In Antioch, the incidence (59%) and number (20) of very low-income minority elderly households
    experiencing housing problems was less than the incidence for VLI households in general (71%, 486
    households).

In Walnut Creek, VLI minority seniors had a lower incidence of problem than all VLI senior renters, while
    small and large-related households had a somewhat higher incidence of housing problem.

Owners: Minority owner-occupant households with very low incomes in the Consortium
area have had a higher incidence of housing problem than VLI owners in general (67%
compared to 56%), with the largest differences exhibited by large-related and small
households. Among VLI minority owner-occupants, large-related households had the
highest incidence of problem in 1990 (93%, 550 households), while the largest number of
households experiencing problems were in the small-related household category (850
households, 79%). Again, VLI elderly households demonstrated the lowest incidence of
problem (42%, 550 households).

Among Consortium members, the following differences existed in 1990:
In the Urban County, the incidence of housing problems was higher among VLI minority owner-occupants
     than among all VLI owners (64% versus 54%). Large-related and small households in this group
     showed a higher incidence of problem among minorities, while elderly minority households showed a
     somewhat lower incidence of problem than was the case for all VLI elderly owners.

VLI minority households in the other jurisdictions also experienced a generally higher incidence of housing
    problem than was the case for all VLI owner-occupants. In Antioch, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek,
    minority elderly households experienced a higher degree of housing problem than VLI elderly in general,
    while in Concord, small households experienced the highest incidence of problems.
Assessment of Need by Racial Group

Section 92.205(b)(2) of the Consolidated Plan regulations requires identification of
disproportionate need among minority populations. According to the regulations,
disproportionate need exists when the percentage of minority persons experiencing
housing problems exceeds the percentage of the total population experiencing problems
by 10 percentage points or more.

The following presents available data on housing problems experienced by lower income
households in 1990. Based on this data, extremely low and very low-income black renters
experienced a disproportionate housing need compared to all extremely low and very low-
income households. Among black households, disproportionate need was experienced by
small renter households; among Hispanic households, disproportionate housing need was
experienced by small and large renter households and large owner households.
Disproportionately low housing need was experienced by Black and Hispanic elderly renter
households and Hispanic owner households.

              ASSESSMENT OF NEED BY RACIAL/ETHNIC CATEGORY
                                    All Households    Black Households    Hispanic Households
                                0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 0-30% 31-50% 51-80%
Renter HHs with Any Housing     11,383 9,810 9,376 1,651      686     751 1,708 1,555 1,344
  Problem
                   Percentage   29.4%    25.3%    24.2%    46.6%   41.6% 21.2%     30.4%   27.7%   23.9%
Owner HHs with Any Housing       5,540    4,951    6,864     259     207   246       510     512    1,052
  Problem
                   Percentage   8.9%  8.0% 11.1% 13.2% 10.6% 12.5%    9.1%  9.1% 18.7%
                              Senior Small Large Senior Small Large Senior Small Large
Renters with Incomes <51% AMI  4,651 8,511 2,613    224 1,279    354   227 1,730    913
  with Any Housing Problems

                   Percentage   21.9%    40.1%    12.3%     9.6%   54.9% 15.2%      6.9%   53.0%   28.0%
Owners with Incomes <51% AMI     4,622    2,940    1,023     175     172     90      246     361     244
  with Any Housing Problems

                  Percentage    44.1%    28.1%     9.8%    37.1%   36.4%   19.1%   24.2% 35.5%     24.0%
Nature and Extent of Homelessness

Like the rest of the nation, homelessness is usually the result of several convergent factors
in Contra Costa County. The combination of a loss of employment, inability to find a job
because of a lack of skills, and high housing costs lead some individuals and families to
lose their housing. For others, the loss of housing is the result of chronic health problems,
physical disabilities, mental health disabilities or substance abuse problems along with an
inability to access services and support needed to address these conditions. While the
specific nature of the factors causing homelessness vary from person to person, there are
typically three root causes to every incidence of homelessness:15
ü          the lack of affordable housing
ü          the lack of access to affordable support services
ü          low household incomes

The Contra Costa Continuum of Care Plan (1996-2001) indicates that at least 13,000
people experience an episode of homelessness each year, with 4,000 people homeless
on any given night. More than 75% of them are members of a family, including almost
7,000 children. On any given night, more than 3,600 people are homeless, living on the
streets or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency shelter or a friend’s
couch. In addition, many others are at risk of becoming homeless, including the nearly
17,000 extremely low-income households in the County who are paying more than 30% of
their income for rent or mortgage and struggling to make ends meet.

Although there is no exact information on the distribution of the homeless within the
Consortium area, there are some cities, subareas, and unincorporated areas in which a
larger proportion of homeless live. These areas are North Richmond, Bay Point, Pittsburg,
San Pablo and the Pacheco area near Concord.16 The County homeless shelters
maintain data on city of origin for each client. These figures demonstrate a distribution of
homelessness across the County. 17

Finally, although there is no comprehensive information on the extent to which the incidence
of homelessness varies in the Consortium area by racial and ethnic status, the 1990
Census data provided by HUD suggests that non-White homeless individuals make up a
disproportionate share of the homeless. Of the total homeless reported in the 1990
Census for the Consortium area, 42% or 268 individuals were members of a minority
group. In comparison, the minority population of the Consortium area is 26%.

The following information from the Continuum of Care Plan summarizes the overall needs
of the homeless:

Overall Needs
1.         Accurate, updated information on where and how to get help, with effective linkages to support
           services.
2.         Early intervention: timely prevention and emergency services on demand.

      15 Contra Costa Continuum of Care Plan (1996-2001), page vii.
      16 This information was provided by the consultant to the Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers.
      17 For the last six months of 1998, the distribution by area of the County follows: Antioch (31); Bethel Island (1); Clayton (3);
Concord (139); Crockett (2); Danville (2); El Cerrito (3); Lafayette (5); Martinez (30); Oakley (3); Orinda (3); Pinole (1): Pleasant Hill (7);
Pittsburg (29); Richmond (208); Rodeo (4); San Pablo (10); Walnut Creek (7).
3.         Employment at a living wage.
4.         Transportation.
5.         Affordable counseling, life skills and support groups.
6.         Affordable housing.
7.         Post-program linkages and follow-up support.
8.         Community education, involvement and advocacy.


Subpopulation Perspectives and Additional Needs
     Individuals                                           Families
       A place to go, showers, laundry, telephone,          Emergency shelter with support services
           message services and storage space with
                                                             Transitional housing with support services
           case management and other support
           services                                          Permanent housing with support services
       More emergency shelter beds and/or legal              Affordable childcare
          camps
       Transitional and permanent housing


     People with Mental Health Disabilities                People with Substance Abuse Problems
      More emergency shelter beds                           More residential treatment programs on demand
       Supportive housing                                    More detox programs
       Expanded access to mental health                      Intensive case management and support
                                                                  services
       Triage services (enhanced accessibility)
                                                             Transitional clean and sober housing with
                                                                 support services


     Youth and Young Adults                                People with HIV/AIDS
      Youth crisis residential programs                     Service-enriched emergency/transitional housing
       Emergency services for runaway/throwaway              Supportive housing
          youth
                                                             Education programs
       Transitional and permanent housing with support
           services for youth leaving foster care
       Transitional shared housing for young adults
     Seniors
      Assessment of needs of those seniors who are
          homeless or at risk of homelessness
       Accessible, affordable support services


System Coordination Needs
1.         Capacity for system-wide data collection and analysis.
2.         Coordinated service delivery upon demand that is affordable and easily accessible.
3.         Coordinated planning, program and policy development.
Special Needs Subpopulations

Homeless Families

Table 1A (Gaps Analysis) presents limited information on the number of homeless persons
and provides estimates for special population groups (see Appendix C). The majority of
known homeless persons in Contra Costa are one- or two-parent families with children.
The fastest growing segment of the homeless population is women with children. It is
estimated that there are at least 1,900 homeless adults and children living in families.
Additional and special assistance needs of this group include emergency and transitional
housing suitable for families, basic education, job training and counseling, childcare, family
counseling, drug and alcohol detox and recovery programs, mental health and medical
services, and assistance in locating and obtaining affordable housing appropriate for
families.

Homeless Individuals

The second largest group of homeless in the Consortium area consists of single men and
women. Based on a questionnaire distributed by Contra Costa County's Office of
Homelessness and human service organizations in 1987 to 1,000 homeless persons, 18%
of those responding were single men, 8% were single women, and 3% were childless
couples. The majority of this group is either unemployed or a member of the working poor
whose resources are inadequate to obtain housing on a long-term basis. Many homeless
men and women also suffer from physical and/or mental health problems, as well as
substance abuse problems. Homeless women also face the problem of sexual assault.
According to the Rape Crisis Center of Contra Costa County, 46 unsheltered, homeless
women were assaulted in 1993. In addition to emergency and transitional housing,
assistance needs of this group include education and training programs to facilitate
economic independence, medical care, mental health counseling, drug and alcohol
recovery programs, and increased access to affordable housing.

Physically Disabled

Although there is no accurate count of the number of homeless who are physically disabled,
a 1988 national survey of shelters for the homeless reported that 11% of the nation's
shelter population had physical disabilities. The special needs of this population include
medical treatment and physical rehabilitation, as well as emergency and transitional
housing which is accessible to the handicapped. In addition, long-term subsidized housing
with supportive services is required for that component of the physically disabled which,
due to physical or earnings limitations, is unable to move into an independent living
environment.
Mentally Disabled

The State Comprehensive Housing Assistance Plan (CHAP) estimates that 25 to 30% of
the homeless population is mentally disabled. Estimates of homeless Contra Costans with
mental disabilities range from 2,000 to 5,000 per year. Special needs of this population
include provision of mental health services at homeless shelters, outreach to encourage
participation in long-term mental health programs, and follow up to aid the homeless
mentally ill to secure and maintain stable, supportive housing upon shelter discharge. In
                                    Contra Costa Consortium
                                  2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                            Page 33
addition, permanent subsidized housing with supportive services is needed for that portion
of the mentally disabled population that is unable to achieve an independent living status.

Individuals with Alcohol and/or Substance Abuse Problems

The County's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Needs Assessment estimates that 23 to 40% of the
County's homeless population suffer from problems of drug and alcohol abuse. Effective
assistance for this population frequently requires special outreach programs including
emergency, transitional, and long-term housing combined with substance abuse programs,
education, job training and other services designed to assist individuals in achieving
economic independence.

Disabled Persons with Alcohol and/or Substance Abuse Problems

A portion of the homeless suffer from a combination of disability and problems of
alcohol/drug abuse. For example, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
estimates that 10 to 20% of all homeless persons are mentally disabled with drug or
alcohol abuse problems. In addition to a stable living environment, efforts to meet the
special needs of this population require a combination of support services including
extensive mental and physical health treatment, substance abuse programs, education, job
training, and benefits counseling.

Victims of Domestic Violence

The special needs of this homeless population are discussed in the section on Special and
Supportive Housing Needs.

Runaway/Abandoned Youth

Runaway youth are estimated to be about 10% of the homeless population.18 They are
particularly vulnerable to crime and problems of mental, physical, and sexual abuse. In
addition to the need for shelter and basic services, runaway youth frequently require
extensive counseling, medical care, and emotional and social support. For those who are
without families or who come from dysfunctional households, long-term supportive housing
may also be required.

Persons with AIDS-Related Diseases

The incidence of AIDS among the homeless population is largely unknown. The National
Commission on AIDS has estimated that 15% of the homeless are infected with AIDS.19
Additionally, given the relationship between AIDS and drug abuse and the relatively high
incidence of drug abuse within the homeless population, it is likely that a portion of the
County's homeless population has AIDS. Special needs for this segment of the homeless
population include subsidized supportive living situations for those who can no longer
remain independent, counseling, medical services, and hospice care.

Veterans


    18 Framework for the Development of an Integrated Plan for Delivering Homeless Servi ces in Contra Costa County, County
Department of Public Health, September 1994.
    19 Lambert, B. (1989) Study finds alarming AIDS rate in homeless shelter. New York Times, June 5:B1.

                                                 Contra Costa Consortium
                                               2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                         Page 34
Informal surveys conducted by the Contra Costa County Veterans Service Office indicate
that 20 to 27% of shelter populations are veterans. According to the State CHAP, as many
as one-third of the Bay Area homeless are veterans. As is the case with other subgroups
of the homeless population, veterans often suffer from a combination of problems, including
physical and mental disabilities and substance abuse, which inhibit or preclude gainful
employment and economic independence. In addition to the special needs of populations
suffering these problems, homeless veterans frequently require assistance in identifying
and securing veterans' benefits.

Rural Homelessness

The Consortium currently has no data on rural homelessness. The County consulted with
the Health Care for the Homeless Team and nonprofit organizations that currently serve the
homeless population in Contra Costa County. These groups are unable to identify
quantitative data for this population.

Assessment of Homeless Needs by Racial Group

The Consortium's data on homeless need by racial group is limited to data that the
County’s Health Services Department Homeless Program maintains on the ethnicity of
those clients who receive services through either of the two County-funded homeless
shelters located in Central County and North Richmond. For the period from July 1998
through June 1999, 54% of the clients served were Black, 38% were White, 5% were
Hispanic, 2% were Asian-Pacific Islander, and 1% were Native American.20




   20 The County homeless shelters serve an average number of 111 persons per day.

                                              Contra Costa Consortium
                                            2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                      Page 35
Needs of Persons Threatened with Homelessness

The population that is at-risk of becoming homeless consists of a segment of the extremely
low-income population that is subject to a variety of conditions that increase the possibility
of becoming homeless. These conditions are related to an individual's circumstances (for
example, having very low incomes or special needs), and to an inadequate supply of
affordable rental housing. According to Census data, in the Consortium area there were
600 households whose incomes were 30% or below area median income in 1990, yet only
8% or 6,600 of the Consortium’s existing rental units and 2% (3,800) of the owner-
occupied housing units were affordable to this population.

Further, a significant portion of this income group faces excessive housing cost burdens;
13,250 extremely low-income households or 59% of all households in this group pay more
than 50% of their incomes for housing costs. The more a household pays for shelter costs,
the fewer resources remain to pay for other expenses. Coping with emergencies, such as
illness or unemployment, can be catastrophic. Consequently, extremely low-income
households with excessive housing cost burdens are more at-risk for becoming homeless.

Another at-risk group are families with children who receive welfare. While grant amounts
have generally remained stable, or in some cases, declined, rental costs have been rising.
 Unless a CalWORKS recipient household occupies subsidized housing, it may be at-risk
of becoming homeless. According to the Contra Costa County Employment and Human
Services Department, the total number of CalWORKS cases in the Consortium area was
9,347 in March 2000. An additional 533 adults received General Assistance, for a total of
9,880 families and individuals living on public assistance, a portion of which are potentially
at risk of becoming homeless. In addition to supportive services designed to facilitate
greater economic independence, the primary need of the at-risk population is the provision
of housing that is affordable to households with less than 30% of the Area's Median
Income.
Lead-Based Paint Hazards

The State Health Department has estimated that 560,000 children in California may be at
risk of lead poisoning. The results of lead poisoning include kidney and brain damage,
behavioral and neurological problems, sleepiness, learning problems, and retardation.

Although there is little data available on the extent of the problem in the Consortium area,
the age of a housing unit is a useful indicator of whether a lead-based paint hazard could
exist. Units built in 1978 and before are considered to be at-risk for lead-based paint
hazards because 1978 was the year lead-based paint was outlawed. For the purposes of
this analysis, HUD requires jurisdictions to provide information on the age of housing stock
as the most readily available indicator of potential lead hazards in the community.

The table on the following page was provided by Contra Costa County Health Services
Department’s Community Wellness and Prevention Program. It shows the number of total
people and children under the poverty level in 1990, and the number of units that were built
before 1980. This information is used to identify potential areas of the County with
concentrations of lead-based paint in the housing stock as well as concentrations of
children below the poverty level.

Based on this information, there are approximately 210,000 units constructed before 1980
in the Consortium. Of this number, the following table estimates the number of units with
lead hazards by jurisdiction.21

                     ESTIMATED NUMBER OF UNITS WITH LEAD HAZARDS

                                                                             POTENTIAL
                                                                            UNITS WITH
                                           JURISDICTION                    LEAD HAZARDS
                                      Antioch                                   10,700
                                      Concord                                   26,200
                                      Pittsburg                                  7,900
                                      Walnut Creek                              17,900
                                      Urban County                              87,900
                                      Consortium                               150,700
                                    Contra Costa County Total                  171,600


The Contra Costa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Project provided the following facts
about lead poisoning in Contra Costa County.

Ø         More than 570 children with elevated blood lead levels have been identified in
          Contra Costa as of October 1999. Most of these children have been identified in
          the last six years because of routine screening.




      21 The figures presented here represent the number of units that may have been painted with lead-based paint and do not
necessarily represent units with a proven incidence of lead-based paint. According to HUD, the relationship of age and the possibility
of lead-based paint is as follows: 90% for units built prior to 1940, 80% for units built between 1940 and 1959, and 62% for units built
between 1960 and 1979. Since these are estimates, HUD suggests applying a confidence interval of plus or minus 10%. In other
words, the true estimate for units built before 1940 could be between 80% and 100% of all units.
    v      About 46% of the children are from the Richmond/San Pablo o area. Another 27% are from
           the Pittsburg/Antioch area. The rest of the children live throughout the County, in areas as
           diverse as El Cerrito, Crockett, Concord, Brentwood and San Ramon.

Ø   More than 63% of lead-poisoned children in Contra Costa have been under the age
    of three years. Most are one- and two-year olds.

Ø   Many sources of lead have been identified in Contra Costa, including:
    v      paint chips and paint dust, especially in houses built before 1950 that are in poor condition
           or are being remodeled or repainted;
    v      contaminated soil or household dust;
    v      jobs, work done at home or recreational activities that use lead (e.g., radiator repair, casting
           fishing sinkers, salvaging metals, soldering, and hobbies such as ceramics);
    v      consumer products, such as old imported dishes, pottery or pewter; and
    v      home remedies, such as Azarcon, Greta or Surma.

Ø   Many children with lead poisoning are anemic. Foods high in iron and calcium help
    protect children from lead poisoning.

Ø   Most children with lead poisoning do not look or act sick. Parents don’t know that
    their child might have been exposed to lead. The only way to find out if a child is
    lead poisoned is by a blood test.
                     POTENTIAL INCIDENCE OF LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS IN THE HOUSING STOCK,
                                           CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1990


                                                                                     %
                        TOTAL                              # CHILDREN # CHILDREN CHILDREN    PRE-                                TOTAL
                      ESTIMATED   TOTAL    # BELOW % BELOW UNDER AGE    BELOW     BELOW       1950          1950-1980           PRE-1980
                     LBP HAZARDS 1990 POP. POVERTY POVERTY      6      POVERTY   POVERTY     UNITS   %        UNITS      %       UNITS      %
ANTIOCH                     10,668    62,195    5,660    9.1%    7,241     1,093     15.1%  2,889 12.6%        11,938   52.0%     14,827   64.5%
BRENTWOOD                    1,119     7,563      726    9.6%      901        61      6.8%    370 14.1%         1,175   44.7%      1,545   58.8%
CLAYTON                      1,347     7,317       73    1.0%      546         0      0.0%     47 2.0%          1,871   79.2%      1,918   81.2%
CONCORD                     26,241   111,348    7,460    6.7%   10,168     1,098     10.8%  3,970 9.1%         32,950   75.4%     36,920   84.5%
DANVILLE                     5,992    31,306      657    2.1%    2,444        29      1.2%    335 2.9%          8,177   71.3%      8,512   74.2%
EL CERRITO                   7,078    22,869    1,166    5.1%    1,427        50      3.5%  3,757 36.4%         5,818   56.4%      9,575   92.9%
HERCULES                     1,137    16,829      353    2.1%    1,723         1     0.04%     25 0.4%          1,595   28.2%      1,620   28.7%
LAFAYETTE                    6,203    23,501      987    4.2%    1,624        49      3.0%  1,726 18.6%         6,889   74.3%      8,615   92.9%
MARTINEZ                     6,371    31,808    1,877    5.9%    2,645       251      9.5%  2,435 18.8%         6,319   48.7%      8,754   67.5%
MORAGA                       3,443    15,852      555    3.5%      940        13      1.4%     35 0.6%          4,878   85.8%      4,913   86.4%
ORINDA                       4,263    16,642      399    2.4%    1,196         6      0.5%  1,392 21.5%         4,499   69.5%      5,891   91.0%
PINOLE                       3,740    17,460      646    3.7%    1,493        78      5.2%    388 6.0%          4,899   75.4%      5,287   81.4%
PITTSBURG                    7,948    47,564    5,137   10.8%    5,867       827     14.1%  2,060 12.3%         9,000   53.8%     11,060   66.1%
PLEASANT HILL                7,130    31,585    1,137    3.6%    2,513        73      2.9%  1,769 13.0%         8,164   59.8%      9,933   72.8%
RICHMOND                    20,930    87,425   14,075   16.1%    8,956     2,445     27.3% 12,399 36.6%        15,730   46.4%     28,129   83.0%
SAN PABLO                    5,636    25,158    4,780   19.0%    3,001       774     25.8%  1,965 20.9%         5,805   61.6%      7,770   82.5%
SAN RAMON                    4,604    35,303      635    1.8%    3,034        39      1.3%     46 0.3%          6,525   48.2%      6,571   48.6%
WALNUT CREEK                17,935    60,569    2,302    3.8%    3,151       135      4.3%  1,841 6.1%         23,517   78.5%     25,358   84.6%
BAY POINT                    2,819    17,453    2,426   13.9%    2,256       467     20.7%  1,169 18.6%         2,691   42.8%      3,860   61.4%
NORTH RICHMOND                 490     2,347    1,239   52.8%      332       185     55.7%    313 38.5%           342   42.1%        655   80.6%

UNINCORPORATED              26,491   131,638    6,380   4.8%     9,312       746      8.0%   10,349 17.5%      26,017 44.1%       36,366 61.6%
INCORPORATED               145,092   672,094   52,292   7.8%    61,458     7,676     12.5%   38,931 15.1%     162,782 63.3%      201,713 78.4%

URBAN COUNTY                87,862   434,631   24,038   5.5%    35,387     2,822      8.0% 26,121 15.5%        95,664 56.6%      121,785 72.1%
CONSORTIUM                 150,653   716,307   44,597   6.2%    61,814     5,977      9.7% 36,881 13.1%       173,069 61.3%      209,950 74.4%
CONTRA COSTA TOTAL         171,583   803,732   58,672   7.3%    70,770     8,422     11.9% 49,280 15.6%       188,799 59.7%      238,079 75.3%
FOCUS GROUP AND COMMUNITY HEARING RESULTS

As noted in the Introduction, in order to create a framework for establishing priorities for the
next five years, the County of Contra Costa and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg
and Walnut Creek jointly convened five targeted focus groups to allow experts in the
community to articulate what they see as trends in the areas of economic development,
affordable housing, special needs, seniors and youth. These focus groups were convened
in addition to three public hearings on community needs held late in 1999. The focus group
on housing included developers, service providers, and advocates for the poor and
homeless.

By combining the information gleaned from the focus groups and community needs
hearings with available relevant statistical information, a broader image of the County
emerges. The following discussion highlights the outcomes from these various meetings.

It should be noted that nearly all focus groups felt that there are a wide variety of critical
non-housing needs, but the overwhelming need is the lack of affordable housing – housing
for both clients and employees of service providers – which makes it increasingly difficult
for these organizations to carry out their work. Most participants of the focus groups stated
that all other issues facing a client – whether it be childcare or a drug addiction – become
secondary in the event of a housing loss.
The following summarizes the comments from the focus group on affordable housing.

Ø      Participants saw the primary issue as one of enough supply, with all its various components (cost
       of land, quality of housing, unit type, etc.).
Ø      NIMBYism (“Not in My Backyard”) was identified as a concern in certain areas of the County –
       some participants are seeing increased resident opposition, and some perceive there is a lack of
       political will to develop affordable housing. Some service providers are continuing to counsel clients
       who face outright housing discrimination.
Ø      Housing for ELI families earning less than 15% of AMI is in critically short supply.
Ø      There continues to be a great need for housing for people with special needs, including those with
       disabilities.
Ø      The community needs both large affordable units for families as well as smaller units for seniors and
       single people.
Ø      The quality of the existing affordable housing stock is often poor.
Ø      People on fixed incomes have a difficult time finding rental housing they can afford.
Ø      There continues to be a need for entry-level homeownership developments, SRO projects in
       downtown areas, and supportive housing.
Ø      Disabled people have difficulty finding accessible units.
Ø      More housing should be located near transit corridors and in downtown areas – this may require
       increases in density.
Ø      Developers cannot find enough land on which to build housing, and the land that is available is
       extremely expensive.
Ø      It takes many sources of funds in order to have enough subsidy to create housing, and it is a very
       complicated process. Because of this, it may take years before housing can be built.


                                         Contra Costa Consortium
                                       2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                 Page 39
Ø     Now, even middle-income families cannot find the housing they need.
Ø     The types of housing being built sometimes depend on local politics, not what the needs are.
Ø     Developing housing is also an economic concern – some wealthier cities may not think they need
      affordable housing, or it costs too much.
Ø     As time progresses, and as housing becomes more costly, more landlords are likely to avoid
      subsidy programs because they are not as profitable as market housing.
Ø     One of the biggest barriers to developing housing is the amount of subsidy available in a given
      jurisdiction – just enough for one or two projects a year, and not enough to build all that is needed.

The sentiments expressed above were echoed in the three community hearings on needs.
A summary of relevant comments is as follows:

Ø     The County needs to increase the supply of low-income, disabled and HIV/AIDS housing throughout
      the community in small, clean and drug-free complexes.
Ø     There is a need to renovate outdated senior facilities to address the “aging in place” phenomenon.
Ø     Cities should use their own land to create small infill developments.
Ø     More housing is needed for families with children.
Ø     Affordable housing is also needed for elderly couples.
Ø     There is a need to increase awareness of the various funding sources for housing to ensure all funds
      are maximized.
Ø     Housing should be located close to public transportation.
Ø     There should be programs funded to educate potential housing clients in how to care for their homes
      as well as how to access services.
Ø     Cities should help clean up neighborhoods as well as individual houses by sponsoring neighborhood
      fix-up programs.
Ø     Government should look at new ways to support lower-income renters (including Section 8) by
      providing rent eviction assistance and move-in costs.




                                        Contra Costa Consortium
                                      2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                Page 40
V.       HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
Housing Stock Inventory

The Consortium area has experienced substantial growth in the supply of housing units
during the decades 1980 to 2000. By 1990, there were a total of 281,638 year-round
housing units in the Consortium area, the majority of which were occupied (95%).
Approximately 31% of all occupied units were rentals, with the remaining 69% owner-
occupied. A majority of the housing stock consisted of units with three or more bedrooms
– 62% of all occupied units contained three or more bedrooms, followed by 26% of units
with two bedrooms. The remaining stock was comprised of studios or one-bedroom units.
 The rental stock consisted of smaller size units, with 72% of rental units containing two or
fewer bedrooms. In contrast, over 75% of the owner-occupied stock contained units with
three or more bedrooms.

                                   HOUSING STOCK INVENTORY, 1990

                                                               Vacancy   0 and 1
        Housing Stock Inventory                   Total          Rate      BR        2 BR     3+ BR
     Total Year-Round Housing                     281,638          5%       36,740   74,046   170,852
     Total Occupied Units                         267,539          NA       33,407   68,580   165,552
     Renter                                        82,486          NA       26,666   33,447    22,373
     Owner                                        185,053          NA        6,741   35,133   143,179
     Total Vacant Units                            14,099          NA        3,333    5,466     5,300
     For Rent                                       5,960       6.74%        2,182    2,667     1,111
     For Sale                                       3,192       1.70%          194    1,068     1,930
     Other                                          4,947          NA          957    1,731     2,259

Source: 1990 U.S. Census


The State of California’s Department of Finance publishes official State estimates of
population and housing over a period of several years. These statistics show that the
population and number of households have continued to increase at a faster rate than the
number of new units. The following table illustrates this trend. It also shows what sectors of
the housing market have seen the most growth since 1990. The Consortium as a whole is
shown first, with the individual cities following.

                   CONSORTIUM HOUSING AND POPULATION ESTIMATES
                                          HOUSING UNITS                 MOBILE
                 POPULATION TOTAL     DET’D   ATT’D   2 T0 4   5 PLUS   HOMES
            1999      822,590 313,933 207,456  25,901   18,661   54,429    7,486
            1990      717,713 282,268 182,877  23,820   18,207   50,009    7,355
        % change      14.61%  11.22% 13.44%    8.74%    2.49%     8.84%   1.78%


Source: California State Department of Finance, January 1999


As shown above, the Consortium has a wide variety of housing types. As of 2000, the
State estimates that 23% of the housing stock consists of multifamily housing units, 66% of
the housing stock consists of detached single family homes and 8% are attached single
family homes. Other housing types include mobile homes (2%). The individual
jurisdictions are as follows:
                 JURISDICTIONS’ HOUSING AND POPULATION ESTIMATES

                                                                    HOUSING UNITS                   MOBILE
                        PERSONS          TOTAL           DET’D      ATT’D   2 T0 4       5 PLUS     HOMES
         URBAN COUNTY
             1999    509,562               190,884        135,747    16,108     9,236      24,771      5,022
             1990    436,034               168,914        119,275    14,342     8,732      21,650      4,916
         % change     16.86%               13.01%         13.81%    12.31%     5.77%      14.42%      2.16%
                                                     % DET’D % ATT’D          % MULTIFAMILY         % MBHM
                                                     71.11%   8.44%              17.82%              2.63%
         ANTIOCH
             1999              81,549       29,288         22,077     1,211      1,953      3,675        372
             1990              62,195       22,973         16,073     1,087      1,968      3,495        350
         % change             31.12%       27.49%         37.35%    11.41%     -0.76%      5.15%      6.29%
                                                         % DET’D % ATT’D      % MULTIFAMILY         % MBHM
                                                         75.38%  4.13%           19.22%              1.27%
         CONCORD
             1999             114,521       44,886         26,450     2,781     2,569     11,651       1,435
             1990             111,308       43,691         25,767     2,749     2,568     11,173       1,434
         % change              2.89%        2.74%          2.65%     1.16%     0.04%      4.28%       0.07%
                                                         % DET’D % ATT’D      % MULTIFAMILY         % MBHM
                                                         58.93%  6.20%           31.68%              3.20%
         PITTSBURG
              1999             53,014       17,919         11,613     1,046      1,342      3,277        641
              1990             47,607       16,721         10,485       913      1,471      3,213        639
         % change             11.36%        7.16%         10.76%    14.57%     -8.77%      1.99%      0.31%
                                                         % DET’D % ATT’D      % MULTIFAMILY         % MBHM
                                                         64.81%  5.84%           25.78%              3.58%
         WALNUT CREEK
             1999     63,944                30,956         11,569     4,755     3,561     11,055          16
             1990     60,569                29,969         11,277     4,729     3,468     10,478          16
         % change     5.57%                 3.29%          2.59%     0.55%     2.68%      5.51%       0.00%
                                                         % DET’D % ATT’D      % MULTIFAMILY         % MBHM
                                                         37.37% 15.36%           47.22%              0.05%

Source: California Department of Finance, January 2000
Household Size

One of the most striking changes in the demography of California and the nation during the
1970's was a decrease in the size of an average household. Between 1970 and 1980, the
average household size in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area decreased from 2.9
persons to 2.57, while the average in Contra Costa plummeted from almost 3.2 persons
per household to less than 2.7 ten years later. The major factors contributing to the decline
in household size in the 1970's were the large number of "baby boomers" who entered the
labor force and set up their own households, the increasing number of female-headed
households, and the historically low birth rates among women of childbearing age.

Although the size of the average household in the San Francisco Bay Area remained fairly
constant between 1980 and 1990, statewide the ratio increased from 2.68 to 2.79
persons. In Contra Costa County, however, the average household size continued to
decline after 1980, dropping from 2.69 persons to 2.64 in 1990.

Since 1990, the average household size has increased, to a projected 2.75 in 2000.
Projections from ABAG show that, although the persons-per-household ratio is expected to
peak in 2005 at 2.81, it will begin to drop again. The following table shows the projected
household size for the Contra Costa County as a whole through 2010 (information on the
Urban County alone is not available).

                        PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1990-2010

             Jurisdiction       1990        1995       2000        2005       2010
      Contra Costa County       2.64        2.67       2.75        2.81       2.79
      Antioch                   2.89        2.94       3.01        3.10       3.02
      Concord                   2.63        2.61       2.66        2.68       2.68
      Pittsburg                 2.99        3.09       3.17        3.22       3.17
      Walnut Creek              2.16        2.13       2.18        2.20       2.19

This table shows the wide variation in household size throughout the County. Antioch and
Pittsburg tend to have higher household sizes compared to the County as a whole, while
Walnut Creek tends to have the lowest.
Vacant Housing

According to the 1990 Census, the vacant housing stock has differed slightly from the
occupied housing stock. There has been a higher percentage of studio, one-bedroom,
and two-bedroom rental units available, and a lower percentage of three or more
bedrooms. The same pattern holds true for vacant units for sale. There has been a greater
proportion of two-bedroom units for sale and a smaller percentage of units with three or
more bedrooms for sale. Consequently, for households seeking to rent or purchase a
home in the Consortium area, it has been more difficult to locate a house or apartment with
more than two bedrooms. While this has not been a burden for smaller households, it can
be a significant problem for larger families on limited incomes.

Vacancy rates depend on several factors such as the owner/renter mix, the type of housing,
and the age of housing with both older, somewhat rundown housing and high
concentrations of new housing having the highest vacancy rates. San Pablo had the
highest vacancy rate in both 1990 (7.6%) and 1993 (7.4%) of any city in the County, due in
large part to the high proportion of renter households. Rental housing tends to turn over
more frequently than owner occupied housing, thus at any one time there are a higher
proportion of vacancies. Areas which have a large amount of new housing being built,
such as Hercules and Antioch, also tend to have higher than average vacancy rates due to
the number of new housing units for sale; whereas areas with a high incidence of seasonal
second homes also have high vacancy rates, such as Bethel Island (21.9%) and Discovery
Bay (21.2%). Areas with older and/or physically deteriorated housing may have high
vacancy rates, such as North Richmond (12.8%) and Pittsburg (6.4%).

While a low vacancy rate is an indication that the local economy is very strong, it makes it
difficult for people to find the housing they need, especially those of lower income. The
State Department of Housing and Community Development’s report The State of
California’s Housing Markets 1990-1997 shows that the vacancy rate for the Oakland
Metropolitan Statistical Area (of which Contra Costa County is a part) continues to have
very low vacancy rates, compared with the State as a whole.
                            Percentage Vacancy Rate for Selected MSAs, 1990-1997


   10.0%

    9.0%

    8.0%

    7.0%
                                                                                                                                                         San Francisco
    6.0%
                                                                                                                                                         CA
    5.0%                                                                                                                                                 Oakland

    4.0%

    3.0%

    2.0%

    1.0%
              1990            1991            1992              1993           1994           1995             1996            1997




The Real Estate Research Council of Northern California showed that, in the first quarter of
1999, vacancy rates in Contra Costa County had reached their lowest point since the third
quarter of 1994. The following chart illustrates this trend.

                              Apartment Vacancy Rates, Contra Costa County and Bay
                                           Area, 1994-1999 (by quarter)
                     Desired vacancy rate = 6%

             6.0


             5.0


             4.0


             3.0


             2.0


             1.0


             0.0
                     94-3

                             94-4

                                    95-1

                                           95-2

                                                  95-3

                                                         95-4

                                                                 96-1

                                                                        96-2

                                                                                96-3

                                                                                       96-4

                                                                                              97-1

                                                                                                       97-2

                                                                                                              97-3

                                                                                                                     97-4

                                                                                                                            98-1

                                                                                                                                   98-2

                                                                                                                                          98-3

                                                                                                                                                 98-4

                                                                                                                                                        99-1




                                                                        Bay Area                     Contra Costa


Note: Information on vacancy rates derived from RealFacts’ surveys of apartment buildings with more than 100 units. Total vacancy
rate for the universe of apartments may vary.
Public Housing Waiting Lists

Another indicator of market conditions and excess demand for affordable housing is the
number of households on the waiting list for public housing units or Section 8 Rental
Assistance.

•      There are 1,272 public housing units countywide (excluding Richmond) and 2,094 on the waiting
       lists for these units.

•      There are about 4,700 Section 8 certificates and vouchers available Countywide (including the
       Pittsburg Housing Authority and excluding Richmond) in the County, and about 5,500 on the waiting
       lists for rental assistance.

•      It is estimated that public housing units generally have a 3% vacancy rate.

                            PUBLIC HOUSING STATISTICS, 2000
                   Public                    Vacanc       0&1
                  Housing         Total      y Rate        BR         2 BR       3+BR
                 Total            1,272                   2,017      1,985       1,277
                 Vacant             40         3%          N/A        N/A            N/A

In the Section 8 program approximately 40 vouchers are issued each month with only 20-
30 participants successfully finding units. The shortage of available Section 8 units for
lease is a growing and significant problem in 2000.
Housing Stock Available to Serve Special Needs Populations

Housing stock available to serve non-homeless special needs populations including
persons with disabilities and persons with HIV/AIDS is discussed in the section on
Supportive Housing with Services for Non-Homeless Persons with Special Needs.

Housing Condition

There are several ways to assess the condition of the housing stock in the Consortium
area. These include the following:
1.        1990 Census data that indicate whether a unit lacks complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities;22

2.        Extrapolation from a 1987 survey of housing condition sponsored by the State Department of
          Housing and Community Development; and

3.        Age of the housing stock, implying that older housing is more likely to be substandard.

The findings from these three approaches indicate a wide variation in estimates of the
incidence of substandard housing conditions.

Based on the incidence of units lacking complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities as an
indicator, it does not appear that there has been a significant incidence of substandard
housing in the Consortium area. Specifically, in 1990 it was reported that less than 1%
(0.6%) of Consortium housing (or approximately 1,700 units) lacked either complete
plumbing or kitchen facilities. The majority of these units were in the Urban County, where
1,110 units (or 0.7%) lacked complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. The numbers for
the Consortium cities were as follows: Antioch, 136 units (0.6%); Concord, 131 units
(0.3%); Pittsburg, 171 units (1%), and Walnut Creek, 150 units (0.5%).

The 1987 State survey of housing conditions suggested a substantially higher incidence of
substandard housing conditions. According to this survey, 9% of Contra Costa County
housing units required rehabilitation or replacement. Applying the 9% estimate to the total
year-round inventory of housing units in the Consortium area indicated that 25,350 units
were potentially in need of rehabilitation or replacement. Based on available data, it is not
possible to differentiate this estimate by tenure (rental or owner-occupied) or to distinguish
between the number suitable for rehabilitation versus replacement.

Age of the housing stock provides a further indication of housing condition and the
potential need for rehabilitation and replacement. This indicator is based on the
assumption that as housing units age, major housing systems and other components
eventually wear out (e.g., electrical, plumbing, roof) or become obsolete (e.g., insulation),
requiring repair and replacement. Such repairs may be beyond the financial capabilities of
lower income households and property owners, resulting in deterioration and the need to
replace a portion of the housing stock.

Information is available about the age of housing from the 1990 Census. Housing units
built in 1959 or earlier are 41 years old or older. Of the total number of occupied housing

     22 1990 Census data provided by HUD did not provide information separately on physical defects, i.e., lacking a kitchen or
complete plumbing faciliti es. Consequently, this section depends upon census data obtained from published data books that do not
provide breakdowns by tenure or income status. In addition, there is some double-counting of units that lack both complete plumbing
and kitchen facilities. The Census provides information on both individually, and does not indicate whether a unit falls into both
categories.
units in the Consortium area, 29.7% were built prior to 1960. Altogether, 79,750 units
(22,900 rental units and 56,850 owner-occupied units) were constructed at least 41 years
ago.

VLI households are more likely to live in housing built more than 60 years ago (prior to
1940). Although VLI renter households in the Consortium area comprised 32% of the
renter population in 1990, they occupied 37% of the older housing stock. The disparity for
VLI homeowners was even greater. There were 3,337 units built prior to 1940 that were
occupied by VLI renters and owners in the County. Although only 10% of owners were very
low-income, they occupied 19% of the housing stock that was 50 or more years old.

Although statistics are not available on individual jurisdictions, HCD reports that in 1997
Contra Costa County’s housing stock was in significantly better condition than other areas
of the State. The following chart shows that Contra Costa County has a lower rate of
substandard units compared with the Bay Area average and significantly less than the
State and San Francisco.

                           Percentage of Housing Stock Considered Substandard for
                                      Selecetd Areas and the State, 1997

       18%
       16%

       14%

       12%
       10%

        8%
        6%

        4%

        2%
        0%
                                          San Jose




                                                                                                Francisco
               San Mateo




                                                                        Bay Area
                                                               Contra
                                                     Alameda




                                                                                   California
                                                               Costa
                                 Marin




                                                                                                   San
Housing Cost

The Needs Assessment section of the Consolidated Plan presents detailed information on
the housing needs experienced by many of the Consortium's residents. Much of that need
stems from inadequate incomes relative to housing costs. It is difficult for low- and
moderate-income households to rent or purchase affordable housing in the Consortium
area. The Urban County's Housing Element and Housing Elements from the four
Consortium cities provide evidence that increases in real housing prices have exceeded
growth in real incomes over the last 10 to 15 years.

Rental Housing

Median rent for Contra Costa County in 1990 was $615.23 Rents in the Consortium area
vary with location and type of unit. Median rent in 1990 in Consortium area jurisdictions
ranged from a low of $503 per month in San Pablo to a high of $1,046 in Clayton, $999 in
Danville and $946 in Orinda. Within the unincorporated areas, North Richmond renters
had the lowest median rent at $257 per month, and Blackhawk had the highest at $1,001
per month. Among the entitlement cities, Pittsburg had the lowest median rent ($506),
followed by Antioch ($565), Concord ($618), and Walnut Creek ($675).

According to the Real Estate Research Council of Northern California, average rents for
apartments of all sizes have increased significantly since the third quarter of 1994.
Although this increase has not been as great as for the Bay Area as a whole, average rents
for Contra Costa County apartments increased more than 25% in just five years.

                                Average Apartment Rents, Contra Costa County and Bay
                                                   Area, 1994-1999

                $1,200

                $1,150

                $1,100

                $1,050

                $1,000

                  $950

                  $900

                  $850

                  $800

                  $750

                  $700
                         94-3


                                94-4


                                       95-1


                                              95-2


                                                     95-3


                                                            95-4


                                                                   96-1


                                                                           96-2


                                                                                  96-3


                                                                                         96-4


                                                                                                97-1


                                                                                                        97-2


                                                                                                               97-3


                                                                                                                      97-4


                                                                                                                             98-1


                                                                                                                                    98-2


                                                                                                                                           98-3


                                                                                                                                                  98-4


                                                                                                                                                         99-1




                                                                          Bay Area                     Contra Costa


Note: Information on average rents derived from RealFact’s surveys of apartment buildings with more than 100 units. Total average
rents for the universe of apartments may vary.


Despite the variation in rents across the Consortium area, there continues to be an overall
shortage of rental units affordable to lower-income households. In 1990, less than 20% of
the rental stock was affordable to renter households earning no more than 50% of area


     23 Median rent for the Consortium area as a whole is not available.
median income. However, if households with incomes up to 80% of the median were
considered, approximately 60% of the occupied rental stock would have been affordable.

There is some variation in affordable rental units across the entitlement cities. In 1990, a
significantly higher percentage of rental units were affordable to households at 80% of
median income and below in both Pittsburg (79%) and Antioch (75%), compared to 60% in
the Consortium area. Concord had a slightly higher percentage of rental units affordable to
lower-income households (65%), as well as the greatest number of affordable rental units
(10,600). A lower percentage of Walnut Creek rental units were affordable (48%).

Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are estimates of the rent plus utilities that would be required to
rent privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest nature with
suitable amenities. The calculation of FMRs is based on information from the 1990
Census, housing surveys, and the CPI for housing. The rent figures do not necessarily
reflect current asking rents, but rather the upper limits of rents that can be used in the
negotiations for Section 8 contracts.

The table below presents data on the rents that would be affordable for extremely low-
income households (earning 30% or less of the area median income) if they were to pay
30% or less of gross income for gross housing costs. This information suggests that the
discrepancy between FMRs and affordable rents increases with bedroom size, indicating
that while affordability for all extremely low-income renters is a problem, it is especially
problematic for larger households.

                  FAIR MARKET RENTS AND AFFORDABLE RENTS

                                            Rent Affordable
                             Applicable         to ELI
                               FMR            Household        Rent Gap
                   0BR           $607             $355           -$252
                   1BR           $734             $405           -$329
                   2BR           $921             $508           -$414
                   3BR         $1,263             $588           -$676
                   4BR         $1,509             $669           -$840

Owner-Occupied Housing

Median value of owner-occupied single-family housing (excluding condos and townhomes)
was $254,100 in 1990. Median value was the lowest in East County at $165,164, followed
by West County at $191,796 and Central County at $308,763. According to the California
Association of Realtors, median house prices rose almost 12% between 1998 and 1999.
The following table, which includes all housing types (condos and townhomes as well as
single-family), shows the change in price between October of 1998 and 1999.
                   MEDIAN HOME PRICES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 1999

                                                                                            % Change
                                                                                            From Prior
                                 Jurisdiction              Oct. 1999  Oct. 1998                Year
                           Contra Costa County               $220,000   $197,000              11.70%
                           Antioch                           $178,000   $155,000              14.80%
                           Concord                           $190,000   $167,250              13.60%
                           Pittsburg                         $160,000   $129,500              23.60%
                           Walnut Creek                      $325,500   $250,000              30.20%

This table shows the recent dramatic increase in housing prices, especially in Central
County.

As of 1990, less than 4% of owner-occupied housing units were affordable to households
earning less than 50% of median income. This figure did not rise substantially if other low-
income households were included. In fact, only 7% of owner-occupied units were
affordable to households earning up to 80% of median income. Further information
provided by HUD from the 1990 Census highlights the particular needs of first time
homebuyers in the Consortium area.24

There is also variation in ownership affordability across the entitlement cities. For
example, although the City of Pittsburg contained only 5% of the Consortium area's owner-
occupied housing stock in 1990, it provided 12% of the area's affordable owner-occupied
housing units. Finally, although there was a similar percentage of owner-occupied units
affordable to lower-income households in Walnut Creek and in the Consortium area, a
much lower fraction of these units was affordable to households earning 50% or less of the
median income (1% compared to 4%). Although there is some variation across the
entitlement cities in the degree of need, the need for more affordable rental and owner-
occupied housing exists through the Consortium area.




     24 The affordability measures used by HUD in the 1990 Census tables were created for the purpose of estimating the number of
housing units that would be affordable to lower-income households (up to 80% AMI). For renters, a unit is affordable if the gross
rental costs, including utilities, does not exceed 30% of the house hold's gross income. For owners, a unit is affordable if the value
does not exceed two and a half times a household's income, adjusted for unit size.
      This affordability measure is an accurate measure for renters, because the data reported in the 1990 Census reflected rent paid
at that time. However, the ownership affordability measure is less accurate for current owners, since it is based on reported value of
owner-occupied units. In fact, given that house prices appreciated during the 1980's and that many owners have lived in their units
for a period of time, the measure will understate actual affordability, since it is likely that owners will report a higher value in 1990
than the actual sales price upon which their financing and house payments are based. Consequently, for existing owners, many more
units may be affordable than the HUD data indicate.
     However, the ownership affordability measure is a very good estimate of the situation facing first -time homebuyers. In other
words, it provides data on the relationship between reported house values in 1990 (which is a good proxy measure for prices that
potential buyers would need to pay) and 1990 incomes.
Identification of Areas of Racial/Ethnic Low-Income Concentrations

Data on income and housing characteristics from the 1990 Census are the most current
data available to identify geographic areas of need for assisted housing. Areas of need
were designated by Census tracts using the following criteria:
•         Incidence of Poverty - The federal government defines a poverty threshold level that is adjusted for
          family size. This measure is defined on a national basis and is a frequently used measure. It can
          be estimated from information supplied by the Census. For the purposes of defining poverty
          concentration, the average poverty rate for Contra Costa County of 5.6% was utilized. Census
          tracts in the County that exceeded more than twice this rate (or 11.26%), were designated as areas
          with relatively high concentrations of poverty. (The percentage of households living at or below the
          poverty threshold are listed by census tract in Exhibit B-1 in Appendix B.)

•         Incidence of Racial Concentration - The 1990 Census provides information on race and ethnicity.
           To define minority, this analysis combined all persons who reported on the Census that they
          belong to any one of the following categories: Black, Hispanic, Asian & Pacific Islander, Native
          American, and other race. The percentage of minority population within the Consortium area was
          calculated. The average percentage of the Consortium area population classified as minority was
          26.2%. Then census tract data were examined. If the population in any one census tract exceeded
          twice the Consortium area rate (52.3%), the tracts were classified as concentrated. (The average
          percentages for the separate racial/ethnic groups studied are listed in Exhibit B-2 in Appendix B.)

Using these criteria, the following tracts have applicable concentrations (see map on the
following page).
1.        All of San Pablo's census tracts (3660, 3680, 3672, and 3690)
2.        North Richmond (3650.02)
3.        Rodeo (3580)
4.        Pittsburg (3090, 310025 , 3120)
5.        Bay Point (3141.01 and 3141.02. In addition 3552, a small tract partly in Bay Point)
6.        Antioch (3050)
7.        Martinez (3160)
8.        Brentwood (3031)




     25 In fact, census tract #3100 is targeted as a neighborhood preservation area by the City of Pittsburg.
Public and Assisted Housing

Housing Authority Units and Assistance Programs

Families participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program are required to pay 30% of
household income and not more than 40% of income towards rent. In the Consortium area,
there are two PHAs: the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, and the [City of]
Pittsburg Housing Authority. There are a total of 1,272 households assisted through public
housing units; and about 4,600 households assisted through the Section 8 Certificate and
Vouchers Programs. Note that all certificates will soon be transformed into vouchers
(nationwide) and certificate programs will be eliminated.
CONCENTRATIONS MAP
Public Housing Units

Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) – The Housing Authority of
Contra Costa County (HACCC) is the largest Public Housing Authority (PHA) in the
Consortium and operates 14 conventional public housing developments, totaling 1,272
units throughout the County. Very low vacancies exist in all programs, usually under 3%.
Over the last ten years, HACCC has been comprehensively modernizing each of its family
developments, including Los Nogales in Brentwood (44 units), Bridgemont in Antioch (36
units), and Los Arboles in Oakley (30 units). In addition, HACCC has conducted an
extensive program of testing, abatement, and education regarding lead-based paint
hazards. All family developments that have been tested for lead have been abated.

Of the HACCC’s original 1,284 units, a total of 11 units have been “lost”. These units are
no longer housing units, but have been modified to temporarily serve other community
needs as such as:

q      Resident Council Offices
q      Police Sub-stations
q      Recreation Offices
q      Computer Learning Centers
q      Other community based organization office space


All units are in good (above average) physical condition. High scores for physical
conditions are received from HUD. Many resident empowerment programs are in place
and resident councils are active.

Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers

Housing Authority of Contra Costa County – The Housing Authority of Contra Costa
County (HACCC) administers the County’s Section 8 [Existing] Housing Program, a
tenant-based rent subsidy program that expands housing opportunities for low-income
families. The program helps families pay the rent on existing, privately owned housing
units. Under the program, families receive the benefit of a rental subsidy, known as a
housing assistance payment, equal to the difference between their share of the rent (usually
30%-40 % of income) and the rent charged by the owner, or the Fair Market Rent for the
area, whichever is lower. Owners receive these payments directly from the Housing
Authority under a Housing Assistance Payment Contract.

HACCC currently provides rental assistance to about 5,100 voucher and certificate holders
throughout the County. This includes incoming portability certificates from other
jurisdictions. HACCC pays administrative fees to other jurisdictions for approximately 80
outgoing vouchers and 228 outgoing certificates. The Section 8 Programs include the
following subprograms discussed in the inventory of permanent supportive housing and in
the Strategic Plan:

v      Family Self Sufficiency
v      Family Unification
v      Homeless
v     Moderate Rehabilitation.


Pittsburg Housing Authority -- The Pittsburg Housing Authority does not directly provide
public housing, but operates a Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Authority
administers 747 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.

Other Publicly Assisted Housing

In addition to households assisted through the Public Housing and Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program, there are thousands of other assisted rental and
homeownership units in the Consortium area. These units are subsidized through a variety
of programs including the County's Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, the County's density
bonus program, HOME, and CDBG funding, California Housing Finance Agency
assistance, redevelopment agency housing set-aside funds, Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit assistance, and other federal assistance programs, such as Section 202, Section
236, and Section 221(d)(3), as well as the residential rehabilitation programs.

Rehabilitation programs within the County designed to maintain the affordable housing
stock (both rental and homeownership units) have assisted over 3,400 units to date. One
long active program, the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, is a federal program to
upgrade substandard rental property. Following rehabilitation, the property owner must
rent the unit to low-income households for a minimum of 15 years. Under this unit-based
Section 8 program, HACCC refers eligible applicants near the top of the waiting list to
owners with available units. Tenant selection is left to the property owner.

Homeownership programs to assist lower-income households to acquire homes in Contra
Costa County have assisted 2,300 households since 1990, including 2,340 assisted
through County Mortgage Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate Programs, 19
assisted through the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency First-time Homebuyer
Program, and 60 assisted with County CDBG and HOME funds.
Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate

Information on units that could be lost from the assisted inventory as a result of voluntary
termination of a federally assisted mortgage is available from the California Housing
Partnership Corporation (CHPC). According to this organization, there are several
housing projects in Contra Costa County that are at-risk of conversion to market rate, either
because their project-based Section 8 subsidies are about to expire, or because the
owner has decided to prepay the federally-insured mortgage.
Based on available information, the County has a medium to high risk of losing an
estimated 766 units of affordable housing over the next decade. About half of these units
are currently occupied by lower-income senior and disabled populations. At-risk projects
include developments financed through Section 8 and tax-exempt bond programs. The
following table shows at-risk developments with a medium to high probability of conversion
in Contra Costa County:
                                                                       AFFORDABLE      TARGET
         PROJECT                 LOCATION              RISK LEVEL         UNITS      POPULATION
 Lakeshore Apts.                   Antioch              Medium/Low         54          Families
 Clayton Gardens                   Concord               Medium            130      Seniors/disabled
 Clayton Villa                     Concord               Medium            79
 Martinez Senior Apts.             Martinez                High            100      Seniors/disabled
 East Santa Fe                    Pittsburg              Medium            19       Seniors/disabled
 Woods Manor                      Pittsburg                High            77          Families
 Pleasant Hill Village           Pleasant Hill           Medium            101          Seniors
 St. Johns Apts.                  Richmond               Medium            156         Families
 Cedar Point                     San Ramon               Medium            50           Seniors
                                                               TOTAL       766

Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, November 1999.


A complete list of the federally financed at-risk projects is included in Appendix D.
Homeless Facilities and Services

The Contra Costa County HOME Program Consortium area contains a wide range of
facilities and services for homeless populations. Facilities include emergency shelters, as
well as transitional and permanent housing. The chart on the following page illustrates the
facilities and services available to the homeless as part of the Continuum of Care.

Emergency shelters provide immediate assistance and services to those in need, and are
intended to stabilize the individual and/or family and their living environment. The
Consortium area includes public and non-profit emergency homeless shelters for those
who are currently homeless and require immediate assistance and services. Services are
provided on-site and through referrals to other public and private agencies and programs,
including drug and alcohol abuse counseling, basic health services, mental health
counseling, family counseling, childcare, basic education and job training, budgeting and
benefits counseling, housing counseling, and assistance in obtaining permanent
counseling. Individuals may stay in County-operated emergency shelters for periods up to
three or six months.

For a portion of the homeless, a brief stay in the emergency shelter is adequate to permit
them to move into an independent living situation. Other homeless populations require
longer term housing assistance and services before this can be accomplished.
Transitional programs provide housing assistance and services to individuals and families
for periods of up to two years. Again, a wide variety of services are provided on-site and
through referrals to other agencies and are intended to assist the individual in ultimately
achieving economic independence and a stable living environment.
CCC Continuum of Care Chart
The supportive services provided to homeless persons in the Consortium area are funded
and operated by both public and private agencies and organizations and include the
following:
1.     Information and referral services;
2.     Drug and alcohol abuse, detox treatment and aftercare programs;
3.     Longer-term medical and mental health care;
4.     Family counseling;
5.     Childcare;
6.     Education and job training;
7.     Employment services;
8.     Transportation;
9.     Budget and housing counseling;
10.    Assistance in obtaining permanent housing, and
11.    Legal counseling and assistance.

The Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers publishes and distributes
information on emergency shelters, housing and other services available to the homeless.
The information is tailored to the eastern, central, and western parts of Contra Costa
County and is designed for use both by service providers and persons in need of
assistance. Copies of the informational January 2000 "Street Sheets" are included in
Appendix E.

Although the County does not currently maintain a complete inventory of all resources
available to assist the homeless and special needs populations in Contra Costa, United
Way produced a comprehensive listing that was published as the "1994 Human Service
Directory for Contra Costa County." United Way's directory includes the proper name and
common name, if any, of the service, its location, hours, description of services, name of
contact person, service area, eligibility requirements, application fees if any, transportation
to the service, and accessibility. The directory is designed as a resource for use by
service providers.

Additionally, the Contra Costa County/United Way Hospital Council Collaborative
Community Assessment: Volume 2 provides an inventory of community institutions and
associations, from community centers, to clinics, to hospitals and libraries.

The foregoing discussion indicates the range of facilities and services currently available in
the Consortium area for homeless persons and those at risk of becoming homeless. All
facilities in Contra Costa County, including those located in Richmond, are potentially
available to serve the homeless population in the Consortium area.
Emergency Shelter

There are approximately 490 emergency shelter beds in Contra Costa County, including
those reserved for persons with special needs such as the mentally disabled, recovering
substance abusers, battered women and their children, and persons with HIV/AIDS.
Facilities including the Brookside and Central County Shelters, Antioch Shelter, Battered
Women's Alternative, Richmond Rescue Mission, Greater Richmond Interfaith Program
(GRIP) (provides shelter to families during a 12-week period each winter); and Love-A-
Child, among others, reports they regularly receive requests for shelter and housing
assistance beyond their capacity or resources.

Transitional Housing

There are approximately 400 transitional housing units in Contra Costa County, including
those reserved for persons with special needs such as the mentally disabled, recovering
substance abusers, battered women and their children, and persons with HIV/AIDS. In
addition to the facility-based transitional housing, an additional 274 households per year
are assisted through the provision of transitional housing vouchers provided through Reach
Plus (80), Project Independence (22), and Shelter+ Care (172).

Permanent Supportive Housing and Related Services

There are approximately 160 permanent supportive housing units in Contra Costa County,
including those reserved for persons with special needs such as the mentally disabled; the
mentally ill who are returning to their community following hospitalization or
institutionalization26; dually diagnosed adults; developmentally disabled adults; persons
with HIV/AIDS; the homeless and/or those at risk of homelessness and who have special
needs. Several organizations provide housing-related programs to assist persons with
mental health problems with the adjustment to community living. These assisted housing
projects and programs are listed in Appendix F. In addition to the supportive housing units
referenced in these exhibits, a number of permanent affordable units reserved for disabled
and/or senior persons are provided by public (280) and non-profit (1,974) sponsors.

Supportive Housing Programs Provided by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County

The HACCC runs two supportive housing programs for non-homeless persons with special
needs under the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program:
•         Shared Housing - The Shared Housing Program enables recipients of rental assistance to share an
          apartment or house with another recipient or a housemate not receiving assistance. The program
          was designed to assist developmentally disabled adults, from Las Trampas in Lafayette, who were
          ready to live in a more independent setting but needed to share housing for support. The Shared
          Housing Program is available to any Section 8 recipient, but mainly appeals to seniors and
          physically or developmentally challenged clients. Twenty-five households are currently assisted
          through this program.

•         After Care - The After Care Program awards rental assistance vouchers or certificates to very low-
          income families whose head of household is physically or mentally disabled and participating in a
          rehabilitation program. This program is funded by federal Section 8 rental assistance funds



     26 Phoenix Programs provides 24-hour residential treatment programs for those who have greater supervision needs; Nierika
House provides short -term housing with support services; and Nevin House and Board and Care Homes provide transitional housing.
Contra Costa County provides semi-supervised and independent living support programs for those with minimal support needs.
       obtained through the State of California. The After Care Program currently provides assistance to
       183 families.

HACCC runs two other programs under the Section 8 program, which are designed to
strengthen families and support self-sufficiency. HACCC considers these programs to be
“supportive housing,” although they may not fit the traditional definition. These units were
also included in the Section 8 Program inventory tables presented above.
v      Family Self-Sufficiency – The Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) is designed to integrate
       education, job training, day care and other social services for 160 Section 8 certificate holders. The
       goal of FSS is to enable families to become free of public assistance after five years. A Family
       Self-Sufficiency Coordinator completes a needs assessment and develops a self-sufficiency plan for
       each family. HACCC works closely with the County Social Services Department to provide the
       services needed to attain self-sufficiency. This program currently provides assistance to 58
       families.

v      Family Unification – The Family Unification Program helps families whose children are in danger of
       being removed from the home because their parents lack stable housing. Forty certificates and
       vouchers have been set aside for this program. HACCC works closely with the County Social
       Services Department to provide services to these families, including counseling.
Inventory of Other Supportive Services

Coordination of service programs in the Consortium area addressing the needs of
populations in supportive and transitional housing for homeless and other persons, is
provided in several ways. The County Homeless Referral Line, which provides information
to persons needing emergency housing, began a computerized intake process in 1993 to
collect demographic information on persons referred to County-operated homeless
shelters and transitional housing facilities. Several service providers are currently in the
initial stages of developing a system for coordination of services.

In addition to services designed to meet immediate needs for food, clothing and medical
care, a variety of services intended to address longer term needs and facilitate the
eventual movement of the County's homeless into independent living situations are
provided in conjunction with shelter and housing programs. These services are funded and
operated by both public and private agencies and organizations and include: drug and
alcohol abuse treatment programs; longer-term medical and mental health care; family
counseling; childcare; education and job training; employment services; transportation;
budget and housing counseling; assistance in obtaining permanent housing and legal
counseling and assistance.

In addition to these services, the Association of Housing and Homeless Services
Providers publishes and distributes information on emergency shelters, housing and other
services available to the homeless in East, Central and West Contra Costa County. A
partial listing of these services is located in Appendix G.
Barriers to Affordable Housing

Overall Barriers

Market factors, such as the high cost of land suitable for residential development and high
construction costs, tend to be the most significant constraints on the development of
affordable housing in the Consortium area. In addition to market factors, a variety of local
government constraints can contribute to the high cost of housing construction. These
potential constraints include the countywide growth management program, local growth
control initiatives, land use policies and controls, building codes and enforcement, fees and
exactions, and processing and permit procedures.

Further, State laws as well as federal mandates – such as one for one replacement,
relocation, and environmental reviews – add to the community's cost of producing
affordable housing. The following table highlights areas at both the State and federal levels
that contribute to the complexity of affordable housing development in Contra Costa
County. Specific barriers at the local level are discussed in the following section.

                                     FEDERAL Barriers to Affordable Housing
Mandatory cost containment policies necessitate local subsidies in high construction cost areas such as the San
  Francisco Bay Area.
Inconsistencies between federal, State and local regulations and requirements (e.g., affordability restrictions and
   foreclosure rules) increase the cost and complexity of project development.
Federal requirements for environmental mitigation (such as lead-based paint and asbestos) in affordable
  housing may prohibitively increase cost of development and/or rehabilitation.
Requirements for relocation benefits discourage funding for rehabilitation of rental housing or housing on under-
  utilized lots.
Davis Bacon wage requirements increase cost of providing affordable housing.

                                      STATE Barriers to Affordable Housing
There are virtually no affordable housing resources available at the State level to assist local jurisdictions in
  urban areas.
State requirements often overlap with federal and local strategies, adding extra burden to implementation
   process; although incentives exist, few developers will take advantage of the incentives without additional
   subsidies.
The State has implemented changes in both in MCC and LIHTC Programs that have shifted scarce housing
  resources away from high-cost urban areas like Contra Costa County to rural, low-cost areas like the Central
  Valley.
Federal requirements for Consolidated Plan d uplicate local efforts to produce Housing Element, increasing
  administrative costs.
Relocation laws discourage local jurisdictions and property owner from participating in acquisition/rehabilitation
  of currently occupied projects.


Local Barriers
Growth Management Program (Measure C) - In 1988, Contra Costa County voters passed
Measure C, a ½-cent sales tax increase to help fund a transportation improvement and
growth management program. The goals of the program are to relieve congestion created
by past development through road and transit improvements that will be funded by the
sales tax increase and to prevent future development decisions from resulting in
deterioration of services in the County. To be eligible for sales tax funds, the Growth
Management Program requires each participating city, town and the County to take certain
actions including the following:
1.     Adopt a separate growth management element of the general plan to address the impacts of
       growth;

2.     Satisfy state housing element requirements;

3.     Establish a commitment to manage congestion by adopting and applying traffic service standards
       that will ensure that new development will not significantly worsen traffic on streets, roads, and
       regional routes; and

4.     Ensure that new development pays its own way through mitigation and fee programs.

Local Growth Control Initiatives -- Local growth control initiatives can also constrain
affordable housing development by limiting the number of residential units that may be built.
Measure A, the Building Height Freeze Initiative, was passed on March 12, 1985 for the
City of Walnut Creek. Specifically, the voters adopted the following limitations:
1.     The building height limitation in the Zoning Ordinance shall not be raised without the approval of the
       electorate.
2.     No use permits to exceed the basic building height limitations of a land use district shall be
       granted.
3.     No permit shall be issued to construct a building over six stories in height without the approval of
       the electorate.

This initiative freezes the maximum height permitted on each parcel at the time of election.
 Single-family housing is generally permitted to be constructed up to 25 feet, with a height
limit of 30feet imposed in Multifamily zoning districts. In the highest density districts, a
height of 50 feet is permitted. If the zoning on a parcel is changed from single-family to
multifamily, the higher density project must be consistent with the single-family height
limitation that was in place at the time of adoption.
The height freeze could affect the density yield on parcels that are currently zoned a lower-
density multifamily if they are to be rezoned to M-H (Multifamily High) since the difference
between the height limits allowed is 20 feet (30 feet to 50 feet).

Land Use Policies and Controls - High per acre land costs in combination with zoning at
relatively low densities can inhibit the construction of housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households. For example, the City of Pleasant Hill's 1986 Measure B
Initiative imposed a number of restrictions on rezoning residentially-zoned land to higher
densities and mandated the inclusion of such restrictions in the City's revised General
Plan.

Building Codes and Enforcement - For most jurisdictions building codes and their
enforcement do not appear to be a constraint on development of affordable housing. New
residential development is required to meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform
Building Code to ensure safety.
Design Guidelines/Development Standards - Applicable design guidelines and
development standards (setbacks, maximum building height) affect the cost of
development. Although it is important to ensure that new development is compatible with
surrounding development and complies with the local zoning ordinance, such requirements
can be costly.

Fees and Exactions -- Local jurisdictions collect fees that help to cover the costs of permit
processing, inspections, and environmental review. State legislation passed in 1988
mandates that local jurisdictions not assess fees that are higher than the actual costs
incurred in providing services to the public. Some local jurisdictions are on a full-cost fee
recovery basis, while others are not. Development fees, or exactions, are collected by
cities/counties and applicable districts for the provision of services such as water, sewers,
storm drains, schools, parks, and recreation facilities. These fees are usually based on the
number of units in a residential development or dwelling unit square footage. Often a
significant portion of the total development impact fees imposed on a project is due to the
charges of other local districts over which the city/county has no control, such as a school
district, sewer district, or water district.

Processing and Permit Procedures - New residential development must generally go
through an approval process that may include environmental review, zoning, subdivision
review, site plan review, design review, and building permit approval. In addition to the
approvals required by the jurisdiction, it is usually necessary to obtain approvals from the
applicable water and sewer districts. A prolonged amount of time spent on processing
and permit procedures can increase development costs.

NIMBYism - An additional constraint on the development of affordable housing is
NIMBYism (“Not in My Backyard”), in which residents oppose affordable housing to be
located in their neighborhood. Often times, NIMBYism is the result of unfounded fears that
property values will decrease if affordable housing is allow to be constructed. Opposition
to affordable housing can cause delays in the development of projects, thereby increasing
costs.
VI. FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
PRIORITY HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES

The Contra Costa Consortium Five-Year Strategy for 2000-2005 establishes the following
priorities for affordable housing programs and projects:
H-1   Expand housing opportunities for lower-income households through an increase in the supply of
      decent, safe and affordable rental housing and rental assistance.

H-2   Increase homeownership opportunities for lower-income households.

H-3   Maintain and preserve the affordable housing stock.

H-4   Improve the public housing stock.

H-5   Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the overall approach to addressing homelessness in the
      Consortium.

H-6   Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency, transitional,
      and permanent affordable housing with appropriate supportive services.

H-7   Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations.

H-8   Alleviate problems of housing discrimination.

H-9   Remove constraints to affordable housing development
Priority Analysis and Strategy Development

The Consortium jurisdictions are committed to allocating funds that serve the needs of the
lowest income and most disadvantaged residents. Research on the current non-housing
community development needs highlights the interrelated nature of housing and non-
housing community development. For example, in order to afford the escalating cost of
housing in the County, it is critical for lower-income families to earn a living wage. In order
for them to earn a living wage, it is critical that people are functionally literate, adequately
trained to compete in today’s job market. And in order for people to receive appropriate
training or become an employee, they must be able to access affordable and reliable
transportation. Childcare and other services also figure critically into this matrix, as do the
other program and facility needs identified in Table 2B.

Although no new Census data exist to help identify new or emerging trends in non-housing
community development needs, the statistics provided above, in conjunction with the
findings of the various community meetings and focus groups, confirm the ongoing need to
provide CDBG funds to a host of non-housing community development activities.

Local, State and private funds all play an important role in the furtherance of the
Consolidated Plan objectives. For example, most jurisdictions have Redevelopment
Agencies that provide funding to further the overall economic development goals of the
community. In Concord, the Redevelopment Agency’s focus on revitalizing the Downtown
is intended to support business growth and development that will result in increased
employment, expansion of Downtown office users, and a growing mix of retail and
shopping opportunities. While the focus is not on creating jobs, per se, the efforts of the
Redevelopment Agency to create the physical environment for jobs and businesses in
essence creates the opportunities for lower-income residents served by the CDBG
programs.

Each jurisdiction has individual needs that should be addressed at the local level, rather
than at a broader County level; however, all jurisdictions have embraced the following
priorities in the completion of their individual Action Plans during the upcoming five-year
period. Where available, examples of existing programs and activities to address the
identified needs are provided.
Affordable Housing Priorities

Priority H-1 – Expand Affordable Rental Housing Opportunities for Lower-Income
Households

Analysis: As described in the Housing Needs Analysis in Section I, housing needs of VLI
renters are significant and relate primarily to cost-burden. Over 80% or 20,650 households
in this group pay more than 30% of their gross monthly income for rent and utilities, and
54% (13,650 households) pay more than half of their income for this purpose. Large renter
households experience the highest incidence of housing problems (94% or 2,600
households), primarily due to overcrowding. However, larger numbers of small-related
households experience one or more housing problems (8,550 households). An estimated
3,700 VLI senior households are severely cost-burdened, paying more than half of their
income for housing costs. It is not surprising that the most severe housing problems are
experienced by extremely-low income households: just under 80% (11,150 households) of
all households in this category pay more than 30% of their income on housing, and 65%
(9,200 households) pay more than 50%.

A comparison of market rents with renter household income in the Consortium Area
provides a further indicator of affordability problems. According to 1990 Census data,
while there were 25,300 VLI renter households in the Consortium area with incomes at or
below 50% of the area median income, only 14,150 rental units were affordable to this
target population. This represents a difference of 11,150 units. The situation is worse for
extremely low-income renters (incomes at or below 30% of the area median income): in
1990, there were a total of 14,100 extremely low-income renter households, with only 6,600
units affordable at this income level. The difference of 7,500 units implies a substantial
need for additional rental units affordable to this population.

Finally, the number of households on the waiting list for combined Public Housing units and
Section 8 Rental Assistance (over 7,300 households) is a further indication of the need for
more affordable rental housing.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: As previously indicated, the Consortium
has established as a priority activities to increase the supply of affordable rental housing
opportunities for lower-income households. Additional priority will be assigned to projects
that address the needs of ELI and VLI households, large families, and the elderly.
Consideration will also be given to projects that improve the jobs/housing balance in the
Consortium area by providing additional affordable housing in close proximity to
employment and transportation centers. Consistent with these priorities, the Consortium
will support activities and projects that increase the supply of affordable rental housing and
rental assistance for lower-income households. These strategies are discussed in more
detail in the following section.

Affordable Rental Housing Supply. The Consortium will support projects that increase the
supply of affordable rental housing through acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or construction of
additional rental units. Consortium resources that may be used for this purpose include
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Housing Set-Aside funds, tax-exempt bond financing, and
funds provided through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnership Act (HOME) programs.
The Consortium will also work with nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers
and interest groups to obtain additional federal, State and local resources for projects to
increase the supply of affordable rental housing. In addition to financial resources,
jurisdictions in the Consortium have also adopted a number of developer incentives
designed to encourage the construction of additional affordable housing, including: density
bonus programs to permit increases in density for developers providing housing for VLI
and LI households; partial fee waivers and deferrals for affordable housing projects; and
modification of development standards where justified to lower the cost of housing without
undermining the overall quality of the proposed development.

Rental Assistance. A second effective means of increasing affordable housing
opportunities for lower-income households is the provision of project and tenant-based rent
subsidies. Therefore, in addition to projects designed to expand the supply of affordable
housing, the Consortium will support efforts by City and County Housing Authorities to
obtain additional rent subsidies through federally funded programs, including the Section 8
Program and Shelter + Care.
Priority H-2 – Increase Homeownership Opportunities for Lower-Income Households

Analysis: As noted in the Housing Market Analysis, the median value of owner-occupied
single-family housing (excluding condos and townhomes) was $254,100 in 1990. At that
time, less than 4% of owner-occupied housing units were affordable to households earning
less than 50% of median income. This figure did not rise substantially if other low-income
households were included. In fact, only 7% of owner-occupied units were affordable to
households earning up to 80% of median income.

Since that time, housing prices have risen dramatically, increasing by more than 12%
between 1998 and 1999 alone. There is no question that it is difficult for lower income
households to purchase housing in the Consortium area. The Urban County's Housing
Element and Housing Elements from the four Consortium cities provide evidence that
increases in home prices have exceeded growth in incomes over the last 10 to 15 years.
In addition, information provided by HUD from the 1990 Census provides additional
confirmation of first-time homebuyer needs in the Consortium area.

The affordability measures used by HUD in the 1990 Census tables were created for the
purpose of estimating the number of housing units that would be affordable to lower-
income households (up to 80% of median income). For owners, a unit is affordable if the
value does not exceed two and a half times a household's income, adjusted for unit size.
This affordability measure can be used to describe the situation facing homebuyers.
According to this measure, less than 4% of housing units would be affordable to
households earning less than 50% of median income. This figure does not rise
substantially if other low-income households are included. In fact, only 7% of owner-
occupied units would be affordable to households earning up to 80% of median income.

There is some variation across the entitlement cities. For example, within the City of
Pittsburg, a much higher percentage of Pittsburg's owner-occupied housing is affordable to
lower-income households. In fact, although Pittsburg contains only 5% of the Consortium
area's owner-occupied housing stock, it provides 12% of the area's affordable owner-
occupied housing units. On the other hand, Walnut Creek's housing stock is less
affordable to VLI households.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium will work with non-profit
and for-profit affordable housing developers to increase homeownership opportunities for
lower-income households. Consortium strategies to accomplish this objective include
activities and projects that:
v      Reduce housing acquisition prices to below market levels by lowering site acquisition and unit
       construction costs;
v      Increase affordability through downpayment assistance and subsidized mortgage programs; and
v      Increase credit availability through homebuyer counseling and credit assistance programs for lower-
       income households.


These strategies are discussed in more detail in the following.

Reduce Housing Acquisition Price. The Consortium will assist in the development of
affordable homeownership opportunities through the provision of public subsidies for site
acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction. By lowering per unit development costs,
housing prices can be set at below-market levels that are affordable to lower income
households. Additionally, the public funds may be rolled over into second mortgages (e.g.,
equity share or low-interest deferred/amortized mortgages) to permit acquisition of
affordable units at market prices by lower income households. Local resources available
for this purpose include HOME, CDBG, and RDA Housing Set-Aside funds. Housing
developments may be mixed-income, however, the proportion of total development costs
subsidized by public funds may not exceed the proportion of affordable units in the
development.

In addition to subsidies, the Consortium will consider the use of approved density bonus
programs, partial fee waivers, and flexible design standards to facilitate the development
of affordable homeownership opportunities.

Increase Housing Affordability through Downpayment Assistance and Subsidized
Mortgages. Strategies to increase housing affordability for lower income households
include programs and projects to provide downpayment and mortgage assistance to
qualified homebuyers. Examples include the use of CDBG, HOME, and RDA Housing
Set-Aside funds to provide second mortgages with financial terms dependent on the needs
of the target population (e.g., loans may be equity-share, low or zero interest, amortized or
deferred). Funds may also be used for self-help or sweat-equity housing programs in
which participating households assist in the construction of their home as their
downpayment. Public funds used for site acquisition or construction are typically rolled
over into silent second mortgages to further increase housing affordability.

Additional strategies to assist in homeownership affordability include the use of mortgage
revenue bonds to provide low-interest rate mortgages and the Mortgage Credit Certificate
program, which provides a federal tax credit for a portion of mortgage interest paid by
qualified households. In each case, affordable housing opportunities are increased by
lowering monthly housing costs associated with homeownership.

Increase Credit Availability through Homebuyer Counseling and Credit Assistance
Programs. First-time homebuyer programs available through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and individual lenders improve affordable housing opportunities through special
homebuyer and credit counseling programs. Lower-income households that successfully
complete these programs are afforded increased access to mortgage credit through the
use of lower credit qualifying ratios.
Priority H-3 – Maintain and Preserve the Affordable Housing Stock

Maintain the Housing Stock -- Analysis: In addition to efforts to increase the supply and
affordability of owner-occupied and rental housing in the Consortium area, it is necessary
to maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock. As indicated in the needs
assessment, an estimated 25,350 housing units are likely to need rehabilitation or
replacement. In addition, just under 80,000 housing units were built at least 45 years ago,
indicating a potential need for replacement of major housing systems (e.g., heating and air
system, roof, plumbing and electrical). Older housing stock, if not adequately maintained,
may present health and safety problems that can affect both the occupants and the
immediate neighborhood. Structural problems and a higher incidence of lead-based paint
are also likely to be more prevalent in older housing. VLI households are more likely to live
in older housing: VLI renters represent 32% of the renter population, but occupy 37% of
rental housing units built more than 50 years ago; while 10% of all owner-occupants are
VLI, they occupy 19% of the older housing stock.

Responsibility for housing maintenance rests with the owner. Although lower-income
homeowners possess a significant asset in the form of their home, limited incomes and
low savings frequently restrict their ability to undertake the financial commitments needed
for major housing maintenance and improvements. Rehabilitation loans from private
lenders are often not an option due to the inability of the very-low or low-income household
to service additional debt.

Owners of rental property are financially responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of
rental property. However, they may encounter difficulties in maintaining properties located
in rental submarkets serving very-low or other low-income households, where rent levels
may not support the financing required for major maintenance and improvements.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium has assigned a high
priority to programs designed to maintain and rehabilitate existing affordable housing.
Current activities include County and City rehabilitation programs that provide low and
zero-interest, deferred and amortized loans to rehabilitate rental and owner-occupied units
affordable to lower-income households. In the case of rental housing, affordability
restrictions apply. Loans are typically due upon sale or transfer of the property. Current
sources of funds for these activities include the HOME and CDBG programs as well as
and RDA housing setaside funds. The Consortium will also support efforts by program and
project sponsors to obtain additional resources for this important activity from federal,
State and private sources.

Preserve the Existing Affordable Housing Stock – Analysis: In addition to the need
to maintain affordable housing through required maintenance and rehabilitation programs,
the Consortium faces the risk of a potential loss of assisted rental units through the
conversion of subsidized housing to market rate projects. Units with a significant risk of
conversion over the next five to ten years include an estimated 766 affordable rental
housing units.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The CDBG, HOME and Redevelopment
Agency affordable housing programs emphasize long-term affordability in the allocation of
funds (40 to 60 years). In addition, funds are often made available in the form of deferred
or residual receipts loans, providing the jurisdictions with substantial potential leverage to
negotiate for extended affordability at the end of the loan term. CDBG and HOME funds
may be used to assist affordable housing developers to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing
multifamily rental housing for purposes of preserving affordability.

Tax-exempt bond financing to acquire and rehabilitate affordable housing developments,
including those with expiring federal subsidies and affordability restrictions, can be used as
an effective approach to preservation. Additionally, the County Redevelopment Agency
has been active in efforts to extend the affordability of tax-exempt bond projects by working
with owners to refund bonds at favorable tax-exempt rates in exchange for extended
affordability. Over 400 units of affordable housing have been preserved through this
method.

The Consortium will work with cities, non-profits, and other agencies and organizations to
obtain resources required to maintain the affordability of assisted rental projects in danger
of conversion, including but not limited to Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act funds. Local funds that may be used to assist in this effort include
CDBG and RDA Housing Set-Aside Funds.
Priority H-4 – Improve the Public Housing Stock

The current capital improvement Action Plan for the Housing Authority of Contra Costa
County (HACCC) covers the period FY 1998 – 2002. HACCC has identified
approximately $14,300,000 in physical improvement and management improvement
needs throughout its 16 residential developments. Under HUD capital funding programs
HACCC anticipates receiving a total of $13,276,970 during the five year planning period
plus some additional funding earmarked for San Pablo properties. Of that amount, up to
20% may be spent for management improvements and 10% for administration.

In the area of service coordination the HACCC plans to conduct outreach to the residents
social service providers, the business community, educators and job training specialists to
develop and support programs that strengthen families and promote self-sufficiency and
economic independence.

To expand the its administrative abilities, HACCC will be upgrading its entire computer
information system. In addition, HACCC is undertaking a comprehensive review of its
policies and procedures for all program areas. The policies and procedures will be
updated and reformatted for easy use by housing managers and rental assistance
administrators. Following completion of the revamped policy and procedures manuals,
training will be held for appropriate staff and an improved system of internal controls will be
adopted and implemented.

Major future planning efforts were completed in 1999 and 2000 resulting in two adopted
documents; the Strategic Plan for the Housing Authority and the Agency Plan (as required
by HUD and Congress). Both of these documents contain short term and long term
strategies to provide high quality, affordable housing solutions and promote self-sufficiency
for lower-income households in Contra Costa County.
Priority H-5 – Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the Overall Approach to Addressing
Homelessness in the Consortium

Analysis: As homelessness continued to increase in the 1980s and 1990s, there was
broad consensus that a comprehensive, integrated plan for homeless services be
developed for the County. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors endorsed the Continuum
of Care model in 1994, establishing that the purpose of such a plan would be to:
ü     Increase the clarity about the scope of the homeless problem and the roles of the existing structure
      of services in the County

ü     Identify gaps in services and the priorities for addressing those gaps

ü     Provide an opportunity for elected officials and the community to examine what is already being
      done to address the problem and to build consensus

ü     Recommend the most appropriate structure to achieve an integrated and effective homeless delivery
      system

ü     Recommend how to strengthen individual components and how to bridge categorical funding and
      program barriers to maximize funding and effectiveness

ü     Position the County to meet the HUD Continuum of Care requirements for future McKinney funding

The Continuum of Care Plan developed for the County was created through a community-
based planning process and coordinated by an Ad Hoc Homeless Task Force. Adopted
by the Board of Supervisors, the plan sets forth the following guiding principals:
1.    preservation of the existing levels of service is a top priority;
2.    a comprehensive and integrated service system is essential to preventing and reducing
      homelessness;
3.    the Plan’s recommendations should be dictated by need and not by available funding;
4.    homelessness can only be effectively addressed through collaborative efforts involving all
      jurisdictions and all segments of the community;
5.    prevention is the most cost-effective and humane strategy for addressing homelessness;
6.    advocacy is needed to change the public policy and economic decisions that have helped to
      produce homelessness;
7.    public education is a key aspect of the effort to address homelessness;
8.    people who are homeless are full and equal members of the community; and
9.    planning should produce concrete results in the lives of those it aims to help.


Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Continuum of Care Plan sets forth a
broad range of recommendations intended to address the issue of homelessness at all
levels of the community. These recommendations are included in Appendix H. All
jurisdictions within the Consortium accept and endorse the Continuum of Care Plan and its
recommendations, incorporating them by reference into the Consolidated Plan.
Priority H-6 – Assist the Homeless and Those At-Risk of Becoming Homeless by
Providing Emergency, Transitional, and Permanent Affordable Housing with Appropriate
Supportive Services

Analysis: As noted in the discussion of homeless needs, there is a high demand for
emergency and transitional housing for homeless individuals and families, permanent
housing affordable to ELI households, and supportive services. Although many
organizations now provide assistance to the homeless, occupancy levels and waiting lists
for shelter beds and services remain high. This situation implies that the need for
assistance still exceeds availability. The majority of known homeless persons in Contra
Costa County are ELI one or two-parent families with children. Consequently, this group
has been assigned a high priority for emergency and transitional housing. Research
shows that fastest growing segment of the homeless population is women with children.

The population that is most at-risk of becoming homeless consists of the extremely low-
income population in the Consortium area. According to the 1990 Census, there are over
9,000 extremely low-income renter households and more than 4,000 owner-occupant
households who pay more than 50% of their gross monthly income for housing.
Households in this group typically have little in the way of economic reserves, placing them
at risk of becoming homeless in the event of illness, temporary job layoff, or unemployment.
 These risks are compounded for extremely low-income households with special needs,
including the frail elderly, disabled, single-parent households, and recovering substance
abusers.

The at-risk population requires assistance in two areas. The first is the provision of
housing that is affordable to people with less than 30% of area median income. Without a
significant increase in the supply of affordable housing and rent subsidy programs, many
extremely low-income people in the Consortium area will remain at-risk of becoming
homeless. The second area of assistance is to increase the ability of extremely low-
income households to maintain an independent living status through the provision of
appropriate support services, including education, job training, medical services, childcare,
counseling, and budgeting.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The single most important factor
contributing to the homeless problem is the lack of decent, safe housing affordable to
extremely-low and VLI households in Contra Costa. Therefore, the preceding strategies to
increase and maintain the supply of affordable housing in the Consortium area are equally
relevant as strategies to alleviate problems of homelessness. Specific strategies that may
be particularly relevant to the homeless populations include efforts to develop single-room
occupancy residential units and shared housing programs for appropriate populations
(e.g., the elderly, single adults, mentally and physically disabled).

Strategies to improve housing affordability through direct payment assistance are also
effective in preventing and alleviating homelessness among extremely low- and VLI
households. This may include loan funds or grants to assist at-risk and homeless
households with security deposits, required first and last month rent payments, initial move-
in costs, one-time rent or mortgage payments for households facing eviction or foreclosure,
and temporary assistance with utility payments.

For families and individuals that are already homeless, the immediate need is for shelter.
Emergency shelter beds are in short supply in the County. In the short-run, voucher
programs to provide the homeless with a motel or hotel room increase capacity. However,
this is a relatively costly, short-term solution. In the long run, the following strategies will be
pursued:

Provide more emergency shelter beds - In addition to shelter beds provided by area
nonprofits, the County operates two homeless shelters with case management and support
services, the Brookside Shelter in West County providing 56 beds, and the Central County
Shelter in the unincorporated area North of Concord providing 60 beds. Shelters are
consistently full, particularly in the cold winter months, indicating a need for additional beds.

Therefore, the Consortium will continue to work with local non-profit organizations and
relevant public agencies to obtain required funding and expand the number of shelter beds
and support services for families, single adults, and homeless populations with special
needs (e.g., disabled, substance abusers, battered women, runaway youths). Potential
resources include CDBG, McKinney Act funds, Shelter-Plus Care, Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) Program, Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds, State
resources, and local charitable organizations.

Provide transitional housing - In addition to emergency shelter, a portion of the homeless
population can benefit substantially from participation in transitional housing programs.
Depending on the nature of the program and needs of the client population, transitional
housing programs provide shelter and services for the homeless from three months to two
years. Although the range of support services is similar to those provided through
emergency shelter and related programs, the extended period of residency permits
participation in more intensive and in-depth treatment and services needed for a portion of
the homeless to achieve a stable, independent living status.

Homeless populations for whom transitional housing programs can be effective include:
recovering substance abusers; battered women and their children; the mentally and
physically disabled; single parents with children; and pregnant women. The County
currently operates Mountain View House, a transitional housing facility with appropriate
support services for homeless women and families in Martinez.

Additional facilities are operated by area nonprofits, including Shelter, Inc., Phoenix
Programs, Rubicon Programs, Inc., Battered Women's Alternatives, Ujima, and others.
The Consortium will continue to support transitional housing programs operated by the
County and area non-profits and will work with the cities and area nonprofits to expand the
availability of transitional housing programs for households in need. Potential funding
sources for transitional housing include CDBG, HOME, McKinney Act funds, ESG, State
resources (ESP), and private donations.

Provide permanent housing - Strategies to increase and maintain the affordable housing
supply, including housing affordable to extremely low-income households, will significantly
contribute to the alleviation of Contra Costa's homeless problem. See Priority 1 for
additional information.

Provide supportive services to the homeless - Supportive services are frequently
necessary to assist a homeless individual or family to move successfully from emergency
to transitional housing, and eventually into permanent housing. The type of services
needed are presented in the Needs Assessment and include assessment and outreach,
crisis intervention counseling, help with problems of substance abuse, family counseling,
child care, physical and mental health care, assistance with money management, job
training, and employment services. Again, many of the organizations presently providing
these services are non-profits. The Urban County and Consortium cities will continue their
current strategy of assisting these non-profits in endorsing projects proposed for funding
through competitive grant processes. Additionally, local CDBG funds, General Funds and
private donations are used to assist service providers. Other strategies include enhancing
the existing info and referral capacity as well as expanding the regional multi-service center
to assist in providing services that are accessible and upon demand.

Prevent homelessness - Households at-risk of becoming homeless are those with
extremely low-incomes. Strategies to prevent homelessness among the at-risk population
include the following: provision of emergency grants to extremely low-income households to
prevent eviction or foreclosure; implementation of federal preferences assigning priority for
Section 8 assistance to families with housing cost burdens in excess of 50% of gross
monthly income; requests for additional Section 8 certificates and vouchers to provide
rental assistance to at-risk households; and projects to increase and maintain the supply of
housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

Additionally, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County uses Section 8 Rental
Assistance to enable eligible homeless families and single homeless adults to move from
temporary and transitional shelters to permanent housing. The shelter provider and
HACCC set initial eligibility criteria for this program. Once a participant receives a
Certificate or Voucher, policies and procedures are the same as for Section 8 program.
The programmatic difference is that homeless participants do not have to come from the
waiting list and are referred to the HACCC by a shelter operator or other non-profit service
provider.
Priority H-7 – Increase the Supply of Appropriate and Supportive Housing for Special
Needs Populations

Seniors -- Analysis: According to the 1990 Census, 3,700 VLI elderly households are
extremely cost-burdened, paying more than half of their gross monthly income on housing
costs. An additional 900 VLI seniors pay more than 30% of their income on housing. In
addition to problems of affordability, the elderly, particularly those over 75 years of age, are
more likely to have mobility and self-care limitations that often necessitate a supportive
housing environment. If privately obtained, the cost of living in a senior housing
development with supportive services can significantly exceed the cost of other housing. If
an elderly person or couple needs to move into special housing, they may find that the
higher costs of that housing create excessive rent burdens that can exhaust their financial
resources in a short period of time. Therefore, some elderly households are in need of
subsidized, supportive housing.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan -- Consortium jurisdictions will continue to
work with affordable housing developers to obtain resources needed to increase the
supply of affordable and supportive housing to serve Contra Costa's lower-income senior
population. Potential local funding sources include CDBG, HOME and RDA Housing Set-
Aside funds. Consortium members will support efforts by private developers to obtain
additional federal, state, and private resources, such as Section 202 funds, Low-Income
Housing Tax-Credits, California Housing Finance Agency loans, Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program resources, and private lender financing.

In addition to financial support, Consortium jurisdictions employ a variety of strategies to
encourage private developers to increase the supply of supportive and long-term
affordable housing for seniors, including: the density bonus program; fee waivers; and
modifications in zoning and development standards to permit alternative housing (e.g.,
second units) and lower construction costs while maintaining quality housing for this
population.

Other Special Needs – Analysis: In addition to strategies to increase the supply of
affordable housing for lower-income and senior households, the Consortium has also
established a priority for programs and projects designed to assist households with
special needs in obtaining appropriate and affordable housing. As identified in the Needs
Assessment, these populations include: disabled populations, including physical, mental
and developmental disabilities; persons with alcohol and/or drug addictions; persons with
HIV/AIDS; female-headed households; and farmworker households. A portion of the
special needs population requires both housing and supportive services. Persons with
AIDS face additional problems of declining health, inability to work, and the need for
medical assistance.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan – To assist persons with special needs,
the Consortium will work with appropriate public agencies and non-profit organizations to
create more permanent housing and supportive services addressing the problems and/or
limitations of these special groups. Priorities and strategies to address this need include
the following:
ü      Priorities for meeting the needs of the Consortium's mentally and physically disabled populations
       include the development of affordable permanent housing which is disabled accessible and offers
       appropriate supportive facilities and services. New construction and rehabilitation of group homes,
         apartment complexes and SROs may all be used to provide cost-effective housing for the mentally
         and physically disabled, including those who suffer from substance abuse. In addition to permanent
         supportive and semi-independent housing, transitional housing and services are encouraged in order
         to facilitate the move to independent living for those who are able to achieve this objective. Funding
         sources available for housing for disabled populations include but are not limited to Section 811,
         McKinney Act funds (disabled homeless), CDBG, HOME, and RDA Housing Set-Aside funds.

ü        Low-income individuals with HIV/AIDS have a continuum of housing needs, including affordable
         housing for ambulatory individuals, supportive housing with onsite health care services, and hospice
         facilities. Funding to serve the housing needs of this population is provided through the Housing
         Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. Current priorities include the provision of
         additional affordable housing with appropriate support services for ambulatory individuals with
         HIV/AIDS. Additional potential funding sources include CDBG, HOME, and RDA Housing Set-
         Aside funds.

ü        The special needs of low-income female-headed households and farmworker families are most
         directly assisted through the Consortium's affordable housing programs. In addition, female-headed
         households may require childcare and family support services. Strategies and sources of funding
         include those identified for affordable housing development. Additional federal resources are
         available to assist in the development of single and multifamily housing affordable to low-income
         farmworker households in rural areas such as East Contra Costa County.27

ü        Additional Section 8 certificates will also be requested to provide ongoing assistance to the disabled
         and other low-income households in the special needs populations.




    27 Currently, the vast majority of State housing funds have been expended.
Priority H-8 – Alleviate Problems of Housing Discrimination

All Consortium housing programs and projects are required to undertake affirmative
marketing activities and to provide access to housing on an equal opportunity basis without
regard to race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin.
In addition, CDBG funds may be used to promote fair housing through the provision of
housing counseling programs and legal assistance to households experiencing problems
of discrimination.

Finally, in accordance with federal regulations, Consortium members will undertake a
combined Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI). The AI is designed to identify
problems and strategies to alleviate discriminatory practices in the Consortium area.
Currently, the Consortium members each has an Analysis of Impediments. In this planning
period, the Consortium members will work together to update the individual AIs into a
single AI for the Consortium. See also the discussion in Non-Housing Community
Development Needs.

Geographic Distribution: The Consortium will continue to encourage and use available
resources to accomplish the following:
v      Provide decent, safe, and affordable housing opportunities for lower income households and special
       needs populations throughout the County.

v      Improve the jobs/housing balance by developing affordable housing in close proximity to existing
       employment centers and transportation facilities.

v      Revitalize and improve conditions in declining neighborhoods, including City and County
       redevelopment areas.

v      Maintain the existing affordable housing stock.
Priority H-9 – Remove Constraints to Affordable Housing Development

As noted in the needs section, market factors – such as the high cost of land suitable for
residential development and high construction costs – tend to be the most significant
constraints on the development of affordable housing in the Consortium area. In addition to
market factors, a variety of local government constraints can contribute to the high cost of
housing construction. These potential constraints include the countywide growth
management program, local growth control initiatives, land use policies and controls,
building codes and enforcement, fees and exactions, and processing and permit
procedures. Finally, efficient affordable housing production is dependent on an adequate
number of qualified housing developers serving the Consortium area.

Members of the Consortium and the jurisdictions included in the Urban County attempt to
counter these factors with strategies and subsidy programs to develop affordable rental
housing and homeownership opportunities. Specific efforts to address barriers include the
following.

Housing Developers – The Consortium provides technical assistance to profit-motivated
and nonprofit developers as well as operating support to qualified Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDOs). This assistance increases developer capacity for
production of affordable housing using federal, State, and local funds.

Local Growth Control Initiatives - The City of Walnut Creek’s Growth Limitation Plan
effective September 1, 1993, which sets a limit on residential development (2,550 dwelling
units from 1993 to 2003), exempts affordable housing from certain of its provisions.
Although included in the overall cap on the number of new units, affordable housing is
exempt from the roadway level of service standards and the traffic weighted point system.
To qualify as an affordable project, a development must satisfy at least one of the following
conditions:
1.     Ten percent of the units must be restricted to very low income persons, or

2.     Twenty-five percent of the units must be restricted to low income persons, or

3.     Fifty-one percent of the units must be restricted to moderate income persons, or

4.     Twenty-five percent of the units must be affordable to the following combinations of income levels:

           Moderate:            Maximum 50 percent
           Low:                 Minimum 30 percent
           Very Low:            Minimum 20 percent

Land Use Policies and Controls – As noted earlier, high per acre land costs in
combination with zoning at relatively low densities can inhibit the construction of housing
affordable to low and moderate income households. Density bonus programs are one way
of achieving higher densities. The County, other Consortium members, and the Urban
County cities are implementing density bonus programs in accordance with State density
bonus law. Density bonus programs permit an increase in density in exchange for the
inclusion of very low- and low-income units in a development. Under this program, density
bonuses of at least 25% are offered for projects that meet the following standards:
1.     Twenty percent of the units are designated for lower-income households, or
2.     Ten percent of the units are designated for very low- income households, or

3.     Fifty percent of the units are designated for senior citizens.

Furthermore, six of the Urban County cities (Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, Hercules,
Lafayette and Pinole) have adopted inclusionary housing ordinances or policies for
developments of ten or more units. Such developments must include at least 5% of the
units affordable to VLI households and 5% affordable to low-income households. If
developers do not elect to provide affordable units, they have the option of making an in-
lieu payment.

The City of Pleasant Hill's Measure B Initiative is not expected to have a significant impact
on affordable housing development because the majority of remaining residentially zoned
land occurs in the City's two redevelopment areas, which permit a higher density
multifamily residential zoning density. Furthermore, redevelopment areas are subject to
housing-related redevelopment law requirements that specify the amount of new housing
developed that must be affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Design Guidelines/Development Standards – As mentioned earlier, design guidelines
and development standards (setbacks, maximum building height) affect the cost of
development. Several of the cities have adopted policies to consider reducing design
standards or applying flexible standards for affordable housing developments (Antioch,
Clayton, Danville, Martinez, San Ramon and Orinda). The City of Martinez also has such a
policy for affordable housing for seniors. In addition, the County employs Planned Unit
Development zoning to permit the use of flexible design standards for projects with an
affordable and/or special needs housing component (e.g., housing for seniors or disabled).
 These flexible design guidelines and development standards are implemented with the
goal of promoting affordable housing development.

Fees and Exactions - Most local jurisdictions included within the Consortium have
recognized the adverse financial impact development fees and exactions can have on the
development of affordable housing and have tried to ameliorate the impacts by adopting
policies regarding the potential waiver of fees for such projects (Contra Costa County,
Antioch, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Martinez, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, San Ramon, and
Walnut Creek). However, it is important to remember that, in waiving or reducing these
fees, the jurisdictions forego revenues needed to cover the cost of related infrastructure
improvements and processing costs.

Additionally, the County works to encourage applicable special districts to waive
development fees whenever feasible to facilitate the development of housing affordable to
very low- and low-income households.

Processing and Permit Procedures - Because a prolonged amount of time spent on
processing and permit procedures can increase development costs, a number of the
jurisdictions included within the Consortium have adopted policies or procedures for "fast-
tracking" development projects which include affordable housing (Antioch, Brentwood,
Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Martinez, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek). Currently,
the County has a fast-track process for affordable housing projects in the redevelopment
areas. The County is exploring the feasibility of implementing this process for additional
affordable and special needs housing projects throughout the unincorporated area.
The County has implemented the North Richmond Redevelopment Area P-1 process, a
model program designed to expedite development in this unincorporated section of West
County. The P-1 process lessens the time and costs required under the standard
application process by prescribing specific types of uses permitted and stipulating
additional development standards, such as exterior building color. Applicants make an
appointment and submit applications directly to the Redevelopment (P-1) Planner. At the
time of submission, applicants are notified of the required conditions for approval,
including costs of compliance under all relevant plans and ordinances.
Strategy to Address Negative Effects of Identified Barriers

The above discussion on governmental constraints included steps that have been, or are
being, taken to address the specific constraints cited. These include the following:
1.     Waiver, reduction or deferral of permit and impact fees for developments that include affordable
       units;

2.     "Fast-track" processing for affordable developments;

3.     Use of flexible design/building standards for affordable developments, and

4.     Exemption of affordable housing developments from development cap.

As noted, the fee waivers/reductions are limited to those charges levied by and under the
control of the particular city or the County in which a project is located. The County will
continue its efforts to work with special districts to consider waivers for affordable housing
developments and will work with other Consortium members to justify such waivers.

Court Orders and HUD Sanctions

Neither the County nor the four other Consortium members is subject to any court orders or
HUD imposed sanctions affecting the provision of affordable housing. This also holds true
for the cities that are part of the Urban County.
Lead-Based Paint Hazards

The Consortium is in the process of more clearly defining the nature and magnitude of
health and safety problems associated with the presence of lead-based paint in the older
housing stock. The Consortium members are also working towards full compliance with
the new HUD regulations on lead-based paint hazards in federally assisted housing.
Some of the strategies under consideration by the Consortium are presented below.

Organize a Lead-Based Paint Task Force
As currently proposed, the Task Force will be composed of representatives of the
Consortium members, public housing authorities, housing rehabilitation programs, and the
Public Health Department. The purpose of the Task Force will be to define the problem
and develop cost-effective lead-based paint abatement strategies. Potential Task Force
activities include the following:
1.     Identification of the nature, location, and approximate magnitude of lead-based paint problems in the
       Consortium area.

2.     Assessment of existing lead-based paint abatement programs, activi ties, and policies (e.g., housing
       rehabilitation programs, health screening and education).

3.     Develop a countywide strategy for the abatement of identified lead-based paint problems.

Additionally, some of the Consortium cities are considering specific lead-based paint
abatement programs within their own jurisdictions. Although no specific program is in
place, the City of Concord continues to investigate cost efficient ways to implement a paint
removal program. Clients in the rehabilitation program are provided with information
regarding lead-based paint. On inspection of these properties, rehabilitation specialists
evaluate interior and exterior paint especially in the areas reachable by small children.

Compile Information

The Consortium will also gather information and assess the impact of relevant State and
federal laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint on Consortium members'
activities. For example, State law includes a certification program for those trained in lead
abatement techniques. Title X, The Residential Lead-Based paint Hazard Reduction Act
of 1992, is the federal act that contains a number of provisions affecting housing. New
federal regulations regarding HUD programs also address this issue, which go into effect
September 15, 2000. The Task Force may also obtain information on funding sources
available for lead-based paint mitigation and related activities.

Analyze Approaches and Programs Undertaken in Other Areas

The Task Force will contact other jurisdictions to identify successful and cost-effective lead-
based paint programs, including potential funding sources. For example, Alameda County
has been working on the problem for some time and was able to arrange a dedicated
funding source by creating a tax assessment district. Also, San Francisco adopted a
Comprehensive Lead Ordinance in December 1992 that created a special Agency Task
Force.

Undertake Education and Outreach to Property Owners
It is important to provide information to property owners regarding the possible hazards of
lead-based paint and the methods and resources for abatement. The Health Department
program includes limited outreach. The Contra Costa County Building Inspection
Department provides loans for the rehabilitation of owner-occupied residential units. The
HACCC’s Rental Rehabilitation Program provides loans for rehabilitating rental units. Both
of these programs assist property owners in correcting health and safety problems,
including funds for the mitigation of lead-based paint hazards. These programs target
older neighborhoods and housing occupied by lower-income residents with informational
mailings and provide telephone consultation to prospective program participants.

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction for Public Housing

The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County is in the process of completing lead-based
paint abatement for all public housing developments. This work is expected to be
completed in 2001.

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Management Plan

The Consortium members will prepare a lead-based paint management plan in order to
implement the final new HUD regulation on lead-based paint hazards in federally owned
housing and housing receiving federal funds (24 CFR Part 35). This regulation is designed
to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing that is financially
assisted by the federal government. This will affect many rehabilitation projects funded with
CDBG and HOME funds28. The County has discussed the new regulation with all project
sponsors developing projects affected by the new regulation. All project agreements
entered into with subrecipients receiving CDBG and HOME funds will incorporate
requirements to comply with the new regulations, and Consortium members will host a
technical assistance meeting to brief subrecipients and other interested agencies on the
new regulations. The County currently has staff with appropriate lead-based paint
inspection certification and will purchase equipment necessary to inspect for lead-based
paint in FY 2000/2001.




       28 The following types of housing are exempt from the new regulation: housing built since 1978, housing exclusively for the
elderly or people with disabilities (unless children under six are expected to live there), zero -bedroom dwellings, property that has
been found to be free of lead-based paint by a certified lead-based paint inspector, unoccupied housing that will remain vacant until
it is demolished, any rehabilitation or housing improvement that does not disturbed a painted surface.
NONHOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Introduction

Non-housing community development needs are those public service, infrastructure,
economic development and other development needs in the community that have an
important impact on the living conditions of County residents. For example, although job
training may not directly relate to housing per se, job training could allow an individual
currently living below the poverty level the opportunity to find employment that will help him
or her afford a market rate apartment in today’s expensive housing market. As HUD
guidance states, the purpose of addressing a community’s non-housing needs, in addition
to its housing needs, is to help create more livable, better functioning, and more attractive
communities by integrating economic, physical, environmental, community, and human
development programs in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion so that families and
communities can work together and thrive.

By providing access to services and projects to address these non-housing needs, a
community can provide opportunities for self-sufficiency and empower those most in need.
The types of issues discussed in this section include job training, business development,
transportation, fair housing, youth, seniors, and other special needs issues.
Methodology

Assessing the non-housing needs in the community can be difficult, given the wide range of
issues involved and the paucity of current statistics. To address this issue – and to create
a framework for establishing priorities for the next five years – the County of Contra Costa
and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek jointly convened five
targeted focus groups to allow experts in the community to articulate what they see are the
trends in the areas of economic development, affordable housing, special needs, seniors
and youth. These focus groups were convened in addition to three public hearings on
community needs held in late 1999.

By combining the information gleaned from the focus groups and community needs
hearings with available relevant statistical information, a broader image of the County
emerges. The following discussion highlights the outcomes from these various meetings.

As noted in the Housing and Homeless Needs section, nearly all focus groups felt that
there are a wide variety of critical non-housing needs, but the overwhelming need identified
was the lack of affordable housing – for both clients and service providers – which makes it
increasingly difficult for these organizations to carry out their work. Most participants of the
focus groups stated that all other issues facing a client – whether it be childcare or a drug
addiction – become secondary when the client loses his or her housing. Although these
housing–related comments are discussed in more detail in the section on housing needs, it
is important background information as the Five-Year Strategy and One-Year Action Plans
are developed.

It should be noted that basic background information on demographics relevant to this
section can be found in the section on housing and homeless needs.
Economic Development: Jobs and Businesses

The California Employment Development Department’s Labor Market Information Division
(LMID) develops projections for a variety of job classes over several years and provides
information on job growth by classification for individual counties. In its September 1998
report (the most recent year for which data are available), the LMID shows an anticipated
growth of 62,400 jobs countywide between 1995 and 2002. Much of that job growth is
expected to occur in highly skilled jobs, including executives, professional and technical
positions, and computer programmers. “High technology” jobs are just now beginning to
rebound from their lowest point of 5,700 jobs in 1995, and are not likely to climb
significantly until about 2010, when they are expected to surpass 9,000.29

Within the top 20 growing job classes expected in Contra Costa are a large number of
unskilled or low skilled, very low paying jobs, including laborers, light truck drivers, janitors
and packagers. Relatively low paying retail positions will also increase. In contrast, mid-
range salary jobs – those associated traditionally with the middle class – are not expected
to see significant growth. Consequently, while there will be large numbers of people
earning $60,000 and more (indicating a high-income community), there will also be
significant growth in workers earning less than $25,000 – and significantly less job growth
for those earning between $25,000 and $60,000.30

The issue of earning a living wage is now hitting all sectors of northern California, including
Contra Costa County. A report by the California Budget Project (1999) showed that in
order to support a modest standard of living, the yearly income for a Bay Area family of four
needs to be at least $53,736 – and that was assuming the family could find an
appropriately sized affordable apartment for less than $1,100. Translated into an hourly
wage, the parents would need to earn a total of about $26 per hour. For a single parent,
the amount is about $17.50 per hour.

On the positive side, unemployment in Contra Costa County has steadily dropped over the
past five years, and in fact is significantly lower than the unemployment rate for California
as a whole. In 1995, the unemployment rate in Contra Costa was 6.5% and by 1997 it had
dropped to 4.1%. By contrast, the unemployment rate for California as a whole was 9.4%
and 6.3%, respectively. The unemployment rates in January 2000 for the jurisdictions
under this Consolidated Plan were as follows:

                               UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, JANUARY 200031

                                                 Jurisdiction                   Rate
                                         Contra Costa County                   2.4%
                                         Antioch                               3.2%
                                         Concord                               2.2%
                                         Pittsburg                             3.4%
                                         Walnut Creek                          1.6%

Source: EDD Labor Market Information Division, January 2000




    29 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2000 (December 1999).
    30 EDD Labor Market Information Division, Labor Market Information Division, Projections September 1998.
    31 Unless otherwise noted, data for Contra Costa County includes the entire County, rather than just the Urban County.
The focus group on economic development discussed a variety of issues related to job
growth and employment in Contra Costa County over the next five years. Their concerns
can be generalized as follows:
Ø     There was agreement that while there are problems related to a lack of adequate resources and
      programs (job training, business training, etc.), getting people connected with those services that are
      available is a considerable challenge.
Ø     Participants noted a pervasive problem with coordination/collaboration/planning that made it difficult for
      both clients and providers to know where to get the help they need. Additionally, participants felt that
      better, more local needs assessments would be useful in targeting resources.
Ø     There were concerns with the fragmented service delivery system, and the fact that many programs are
      difficult to access, either because of transportation issues or because of language barriers.
Ø     Lack of adequate training -- youth entrepreneurial development, entrepreneurial training of small
      businesses in personnel management, and leadership skills for youth are critically needed.
Ø     Attracting and retaining qualified employees is an increasingly difficult challenge. Because of the overall
      low unemployment rate, businesses are having a difficult time finding workers.
Ø     Small businesses need more revolving working capital in order to survive.
Ø     There is a concern that jobs are not located close to where the workers are, creating other challenges
      including longer commute times and transportation problems.
Ø     Support programs are needed to address the problems of high-risk employees – those entering the
      workforce for the first time, for example – including “life skills” counseling and post-employment support
      for both employers and employees.

Similar comments were expressed at the community hearings and workshops on needs,
held for the general public in several locations at the end of 1999. Generalized issues
include:
Ø     Need more living wage jobs, as well as training for people in job growth areas.
Ø     Need worker support programs such as affordable, accessible childcare. Workers who don’t have
      childcare cannot keep a stable job.
Ø     Need more training for lower-income people, including literacy instruction.
Ø     Need a less fragmented system in order for people to get to training, interviews and jobs.
Transportation

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Study (1999), commuters
in the San Francisco-Oakland MSA (which includes Contra Costa County) now experience
the third worst mobility conditions in the country, following Seattle-Everett and Los Angeles
in the length of additional time it takes to travel between two points during rush hour
conditions as opposed to non-commute times. This translates into an annual time delay of
58 person-hours per driver.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) provides projections on the amount of
commuting between and among various Counties in the Bay Area. The following table
shows the statistics for Contra Costa County through 2010:

 PROJECTED NUMBER OF COMMUTERS BETWEEN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS,
                         1990 – 2010
                   County of                              1990      2000      2010
                   Residence        County of Work      Commuters Commuters Commuters
                Contra Costa       Contra Costa            237,511   260,127   310,309
                Contra Costa       Elsewhere                 2,448     1,646     2,113
                Contra Costa       Marin                     3,280     4,404     4,493
                Contra Costa       Napa                        453       613       921
                Contra Costa       San Francisco            47,678    55,883    57,031
                Contra Costa       San Mateo                 7,867    11,087    11,569
                Contra Costa       Santa Clara               6,010     8,813    10,518
                Contra Costa       Solano                    6,060     5,952     7,141
                Contra Costa       Sonoma                      428       674       737
                Contra Costa       TOTAL                   395,181   443,833   511,759
                Alameda            Contra Costa             34,613    33,038    41,335
                Bay Area           Contra Costa            311,444   332,280   400,244
                Elsewhere          Contra Costa              5,727    12,940    15,577
                Marin              Contra Costa              3,428     2,804     3,470
                Napa               Contra Costa              1,807     1,742     1,710
                San Francisco      Contra Costa              5,747     5,187     6,639
                San Mateo          Contra Costa              3,715     3,267     4,042
                Santa Clara        Contra Costa              2,299     1,925     2,174
                Solano             Contra Costa             20,899    22,998    28,994
                Sonoma             Contra Costa              1,425     1,192     1,571
                TOTAL              Contra Costa            317,171   345,220   415,821

This shows that in addition to the 500,000+ commuters who will be living in Contra Costa
commuting to locations within and outside the County, an additional 400,000+ commuters
will be coming into the County. This movement in and through the County represents an
expected increase of more than 30% since 1990.32

For those at the lower incomes, efficient and affordable mass transit is critical to one’s
ability to travel between work and home, and to access services. A study prepared for the
Contra Costa Transportation Alliance entitled Contra Costa County Welfare-to-Work
Transportation Action Plan found that there are serious deficiencies in transportation
services, which constitute a significant barrier to the ability of CalWORKS clients in


   32 Chuck Purvis, MTC Planning, October 1999.

                                              Contra Costa Consortium
                                            2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                      Page 83
accessing pre-employment and placement services. In addition, the study found that these
deficiencies significantly limited access to job sites.33 The following list highlights the most
urgent needs identified in this report, with the first four rated by the Transportation Alliance
as the top priorities to be addressed in its planning process:
1.       transportation on nights and weekends;
2.       reduced travel time for bus trips, especially those combining childcare drop-offs and work;
3.       penetration by public transportation into low-income neighborhoods and job sites;
4.       centralized information about and assistance with all types of trip needs and all modes;
5.       seamless system among operators in connections and fares;
6.       frequent public transportation during the day;
7.       transportation before and after school;
8.       lower transportation costs for low-income workers;
9.       reliable private cars and the means to maintain them;
10.      better matches of land uses with jobs and housing;
11.      improved safety in accessing bus stops; and
12.      elimination of (or assistance with) policies that limit mobility, including DMV fines and insurance,
         funding priorities and flexibility, use of pool vehicles, and performance standards for transit.

Although there were no specific focus groups to address the issue of transportation, every
group cited the issue of transportation and access as critical components of the delivery
system. The comments relating to transportation from the five focus groups can be
characterized as follows:
Ø        When asked to rank the relative importance of the needs, several groups identified transportation as
         one of the top two concerns (typically following affordable housing in importance).
Ø        Access to services –in terms of transportation as well as information – was seen as a critical
         problem to developing an appropriate network of care.
Ø        There is not a uniform system of transit; infrequent service and poor connections are a problem
         everywhere, especially because three separate bus systems are involved. None of them coordinate
         with the others.
Ø        Barriers include cost and coordination – this is a countywide and regional issue.
Ø        It is possible to address organizational issues as they affect each person or organization
         individually, but no one is looking at the big picture.
Ø        Physical access for persons with disabilities is also a problem, especially when people must
         change several buses to get to a job or to services.

The comments received at the community workshops and hearings also echo many of
these concerns:
Ø        Need low cost/free coordinated transit systems, especially for seniors, youth, those without cars,
         and people with disabilities.
Ø        Need to address transit issues as part of the planning and design of new development.
Ø        Need more parking at transit hubs.

    33 Contra Costa Transportation Alliance, Contra Costa County Welfare -to-Work Transportation Action Plan, adopted May 4,
1999 (page i).

                                                 Contra Costa Consortium
                                               2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                                         Page 84
Ø   Need additional paratransit services.
Ø   Need to locate new housing close to public transportation.




                                      Contra Costa Consortium
                                    2000-2005 Consolidated Plan
                                              Page 85
Fair Housing

As defined by HUD, impediments to fair housing choice include:
v      Any actions, omissions or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
       status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or
v      Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the
       availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or
       national origin.

Impediments can include a broad range of issues, from outright discrimination by private
landlords, to well-intentioned land use policies that have the effect of limiting housing
choice. To address these impediments, the County of Contra Costa and the Consortium
member cities have completed and adopted their Analyses of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice as required by federal law. Excerpts from the various reports – and the
jurisdictions’ fair housing audits – highlight the problem of fair housing in the County.

According to the County’s fair housing agencies (Shelter, Inc. and Bay Area Legal Aid),
discrimination by landlords against families with children appears to be the most common
complaint, followed by discrimination based on disability, racial/ethnic status, and source
of income. For example, during the period 1998 to 1999, one fair housing service provider
found that of the total households served, 28% indicated discrimination related to familial
status, 25% involved discrimination based on ethnicity, 17% on disability, and 17% on
source of income.

Although the number of reported cases does not represent a large percentage of the
County’s households, it is likely that many cases go unreported. Fair housing testing audits
– in which testers of various protected classes attempt to rent housing – have shown that
the likelihood of pervasive, yet subtle discrimination continues to occur throughout all
sectors of the community. Results from the County’s 1998 audit showed that families with
children, African-American persons, disabled people, and people with HIV/AIDS were
frequently given differential treatment by landlords or managers, who often told the
applicant that no units were available when in fact they were.

Interestingly, people with physical disabilities were most often given differential treatment,
which is likely the result of the landlord or agent stating there were no accessible units
available. In an audit of fair housing for Walnut Creek, it appeared that landlords believed
that disabled applicants would make less desirable tenants, and effectively discouraged
them from applying for a unit.

Anecdotal information suggests that the problem of fair housing is increasing, especially as
housing prices rise. Landlords can now ask for – and usually get – whatever rents they
want, and so they are likely to become increasingly selective in their rental practices, even
if that means discriminating against selected groups.

Local jurisdictions are also required to assess their own practices, laws and operations to
determine if such activities have the effect of limiting housing choices. All jurisdictions in
this Consortium have reviewed their operations in the area of land use and zoning to
comply with this requirement. Additionally, outside organizations such as Housing Rights,
Inc., have conducted assessments in these areas. While specific problems throughout the
various jurisdictions tended to be minor, the overall results of the Housing Rights, Inc. study
suggest that some jurisdictions are not fully aware of recent developments in fair housing
law.

Among the findings of the various jurisdictions’ self-assessments were the following, over
which the jurisdictions have varying degrees of control:
Ø     High land costs in combination with zoning requirements at relatively low densities can inhibit the
      construction of housing affordable to lower- and moderate income families.
Ø     Local fees do not appear to be unequally imposed on affordable housing projects, yet they do have
      the effect of raising the cost of development, which can inhibit the development of affordable
      housing.
Ø     For most jurisdictions in the Consortium jurisdictions, building codes and their enforcement do not
      appear to negatively affect fair housing or act as a constraint on the provision of housing
      opportunities.
Ø     According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Office
      of Thrift Supervision, and other institutions charged with examining the fair housing lending practices
      of financial institutions, there are no areas in the County that are underserved by financial
      institutions.
Ø     Access to available fair housing programs to assist protected classes of individuals can be difficult if
      language barriers are present. This has the effect of limiting housing choices for certain people.

Since the various Analyses of Impediments and fair housing audits were completed, the
economy has heated up dramatically and housing prices have begun to skyrocket in
Contra Costa County. Service providers participating in the focus groups pointed to the
issue of fair housing – as well as NIMBYism, or community opposition to affordable
housing – as an increasing concern. The focus group comments can be generalized
below:
Ø     Participants saw the primary issue as one of an inadequate supply of affordable housing. In
      addition, NIMBYism was identified as a concern in certain areas of the County – some participants
      are seeing increased resident opposition and a lack of political will to develop housing. Some
      service providers continue to counsel clients who face housing discrimination.
Ø      Monolingual people (especially Spanish-speaking) have difficulty finding affordable rental housing.
Ø      There appears to be some discrimination based on real or perceived residency status.
Ø     There is a perception that some communities provide their “fair share” of affordable housing while
      others do not – need to disperse housing more equally throughout the County.
Ø     Local preferences for a jurisdiction’s residents in affordable housing can have the effect of
      discrimination against other eligible people who are not current residents.
Ø     Federal regulations require cities to ensure that housing for certain protected classes of people is
      available, yet cities are precluded from targeting housing to any specific group because of fair
      housing concerns. This sets up a Catch-22 situation for cities.
Ø     There is a perceived lack of current education on the part of owners, service providers, and
      communities with respect to fair housing requirements – the regulations change often.
Ø     Fair housing issues are likely to get worse – the tighter the housing market, the more discrimination
      we are likely to face.
Ø     In order to significantly expand the supply of housing, local jurisdictions will need to look at
      alternative approaches, such as increased densities and infill development.
Ø     Addressing affordable housing needs is really about finding the resources and the political will to
      build the housing.
Persons with Special Needs

Although many of the issues facing persons with special needs are discussed in the
section on housing, there are a variety of non-housing needs that can be addressed
through public service programs and public facilities. Three focus groups were convened
to address a variety of such needs, from the more general focus group on “Special Needs,”
to focus groups on seniors and youth. This section will first address the areas of youth and
seniors, followed by a general discussion on a variety of needs, from childcare to
substance abuse. Relevant statistics, where available, will be used to help gain further
insight into these non-housing needs.
Youth

Youth in Contra Costa County are increasingly at risk for a variety of social concerns:
substance abuse, poverty, and unemployment to name but a few. Anecdotal information
suggests that positive alternatives to “hanging out” for at-risk youth are practically non-
existent, and particularly needed.

Statistics on youth address some of these issues. For example, the Contra Costa County
Office of Education provides statistics on dropout rates in the various school districts in the
County. Only 1.5% of Contra Costa County’s high school students dropped out during the
1996-97 school year, less than half the State’s average of 3.3%.

While this figure is quite low, information gathered from key informants at the focus groups
suggest that programs for at-risk, particularly low-income or monolingual students, are in
critically short supply. A study by the State Department of Education entitled Dropouts as a
Percentage of Enrollment (Grades 9-12) in California Public Schools by County and
Ethnic Group (1996-97), showed that African American and Latino students had higher
dropout rates (3.1% and 2.7%) than the average of 1.5% for all students. The following
table shows the average Statewide graduation rates of various ethnic groups for the study
year:

                        CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRADUATION RATES
                               BY RACE/ETHNICITY, 1996-7


                                 Category                  Number                Percentage
                          Asian                                 824                 93.2%
                          Filipino                              342                 87.9%
                          Pacific Islander                       38                 84.4%
                          Native American                        32                 82.1%
                          White                               4,990                 81.0%
                          Latino                              1,052                 64.0%
                          African American                      835                 52.7%
                          TOTAL                               8,113                 75.5%


Other at-risk youth include those in foster care because of parental neglect or abuse or
other family difficulty. Although the number of children entering foster care decreased
between 1991 and 1996,34 key information from the focus groups suggests that there
continues to be an ongoing need for services targeting these youth, many of whom are
from lower-income families.

Drug and alcohol abuse among children under the age of 18 is growing significantly,
according to a study entitled Contra Costa County Children’s Report Card (1998). This
study found that Contra Costa high school students reported that 80% of their friends used
alcohol and 76% used marijuana. Heavy substance abusers were found to have started
using at an earlier age, had poorer grades, and cut classes more often than youth who
reported less frequent use.35



   34 Children and Families Policy Forum, Contra Costa County Children’s Report Card (1998), page 38.
   35 Ibid., page 18.
Much discussion was generated at both the focus group on youth (and at the focus group
on special needs) and at the community hearings. Comments at the focus groups can be
characterized as follows:
Ø      Training/job skills are desperately needed -- kids aren’t going to college and can’t get a job because
       they have no skills – need training/skills to become independent.
Ø      There is a lack of access to computers/technology – this requires educational support; additional
       workforce training is needed for high tech jobs.
Ø      Family support is in short supply – we need better ways to engage parents in helping their children,
       especially earlier in the child’s life. Sometimes the barrier to getting treatment for children is the
       parents’ own drug or alcohol addiction.
Ø      Treatment is often not accessible for non-English-speaking families due to a lack of trust in the
       system and an absence of strong ethnic organizations.
Ø      There are few free or low cost community counseling centers.
Ø      There are few programs to address the needs of moderate-income families, who often times earn
       too high of an income to qualify for government assistance but who have insufficient resources to
       access services on their own.
Ø      There are some services in Central County, but fewer in the east and west.
Ø      There is limited recreation space for teens (e.g., a gym or community center). This is a problem
       throughout the county. For some youth, there are few alternatives to hanging out, especially in
       East County areas. Gang youth, for example, who want to leave their gangs and get involved in
       other activities have a difficult time finding them.
Ø      Need more activities/alternatives to serve the truly at risk, for example youth who are too young for
       work and too old for childcare.
Ø      We need services that are neighborhood focused in approach -- global teen centers do not work
       because of access problems (too far away); system needs to be decentralized.
Ø      “Cultural competency”: children need services geared to address cultural and language issues;
       examples include the need for training on gay/lesbian/bisexual and transgendered youth, youth with
       multiple health concerns living in group homes, and youth with significant family language barriers.
Ø      Drug and alcohol abuse is a significant problem among youth in the County. Treatment beds are
       available but youth are not coming in for treatment. There seems to be youth acceptance of drug
       culture, which makes it difficult to get their participation.

The community hearings also addressed similar issues:
Ø      Need to establish more service providers.
Ø      Need to provide more mentoring programs, as well as youth scholarships.
Ø      Need to develop more after school programs.
Ø      Need to provide alternatives for youth such as skateboarding areas and music programs to attract
       kids.
Seniors

Throughout the country, communities are beginning to address the issue of an increasingly
aging population. People are living longer, and the first wave of “baby boom” population is
just now surpassing age 55.

In Contra Costa, the growth in seniors is expected to reach dramatic proportions. A report
entitled Coming of Age in the Bay Area: A Demographic Profile of the Older Population
(1997) projects that by 2010, the population of seniors over 55 years of age will have
increased more than 100%, while those over 85 years of age will have increased more
than 200%. The following table shows these figures compared with the Bay Area as a
whole.

     PROJECTED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SENIOR POPULATION, 1990-2010

                                                                        Contra Costa           % Bay Area
               Age Group           1990         2000         2010        % Change               Change
                    55+          153,388      219,830      312,556             103.8%               77.2%
                    85+            7,249       15,759       24,446             237.2%              146.5%

While many Contra Costa County seniors generally enjoy relatively comfortable incomes
compared with the Bay Area as a whole, there is a significant segment of the population
that earns less than $25,000 per year. Approximately 108,000 Contra Costa seniors over
55 years of age – about 44% of all seniors – are estimated to be VLI. 36 What’s more,
because many seniors are on a fixed income, these numbers are not likely to improve over
time.

A key informant survey conducted by the Contra Costa County Agency on Aging in 1996
found that the greatest unmet needs or concerns of County seniors included the following:
Ø        loneliness and isolation;
Ø        lack of information and communication – need seamless access to services, such as a central
         information hotline;
Ø        concerns regarding health – better physician referral system, overseeing hospital care and care for
         dementia, and in-home health care;
Ø        housing and transportation issues – affordability and access, congregate living facilities; general
         transportation needs; and
Ø        in-home support services and adult protection, including services related to elder abuse; need better
         resources to help seniors with managing daily care, as well as improved overall case management.

Two other surveys of the elderly population – one by the State Department of Aging, and
one by the Home Delivered Meal Program – found similar concerns in 1997. Of primary
concern was transportation, followed by “money to live on” and health care.37

The senior issues focus group found many of the same types of concerns. It is interesting
to note that service providers saw the lack of housing and the poor transportation network
as critical to the success of their programs. In fact, when asked to rank the relative


    36 Northern California Council for the Community, Contra Costa/United Way Hospital Council Collaborative Community
Assessment: Volume I, Health, Social and Economic Indicators Report (January 1999), page 50.
    37 Ibid., pp. 52-3.
importance of the needs they identified, affordable housing was at the top of the list, while
transportation was ranked a close second.

Aside from issues related to housing (including both availability and affordability) and
transportation, which are addressed other sections, the focus group discussed the
following needs:
Ø      Participants noted a pervasive problem with coordination/collaboration/planning that made it difficult
       for both clients and providers to know where to get the help they need.
Ø      Access to services – in terms of transportation as well as information – was seen as a critical
       problem to developing an appropriate network of care. Informing seniors of their options is critical,
       but there is no centralized list of information.
Ø      More respite/day care options are needed; while some areas have adequate services, there need to
       be more options for people with Alzheimer’s.
Ø      Options for dementia/Alzheimer’s are available if the client has sufficient income, but extremely low-
       income and VLI are not served.
Ø      Cultural diversity is a barrier to service delivery – programs often do not address needs of non-
       English-speaking people.
Ø      There is a lack of adequate integration between service providers; collaboration is difficult for many,
       and there is little long-range planning for the burgeoning senior population.
Ø      County and the cities need to be more involved to ensure adequate service delivery.
Ø      Loneliness and isolation is an ongoing problem; there needs to be more psychiatric care for seniors.
Ø      There is evidence of increasing elder abuse, especially emotional and financial abuse or neglect.
Ø      Seniors are frequently prematurely discharged from the hospital without the support network they
       need once they return home.
Ø      Not valuing our elders is seen as a significant barrier to providing care for seniors; this is also a
       social/spiritual issue, rather than a problem that government can fix.
Ø      Providers are seeing increasing prescription drug and alcohol abuse among seniors.

Community hearings addressed many of these same issues:
Ø      Seniors need help around the house to help them age in place as long as possible. People need
       more service in the home; need supportive living services as well.
Ø      Need eviction prevention and money management services.
Ø      Need a program to supply hearing aids, false teeth, and personal assistance – things the insurance
       won’t pay for but which are needed.
Ø      Seniors critically need transportation services. Subsidize transit service to make them accessible.
Ø      Need to educate landlords/employers/community to accept and welcome people with disabilities
       and seniors.
Other Needs

HIV/AIDS -- According to the January 2000 Contra Costa County HIV/AIDS
Epidemiology Report, 2,109 cases of AIDS have been reported since 1982, including 748
persons who are currently living with the disease. At the present time, an estimated 4,900
County residents are living with HIV infection. The majority of people living with AIDS
continue to be gay/bisexual men (55.2%), although increasing proportions include gay and
heterosexual injection drug users (almost 30%). According to the report, “if the spread of
HIV among injection drug users is not dramatically curtailed, this population could soon
reach the levels of infection found in some areas of the East Coast (60-70% of injection
drug users).”38

Although new advances in treatment have allowed individuals to live longer with HIV/AIDS, the
vast majority have incomes of less than $900 per month (84.0%). Even if asymptomatic,
people with AIDS often cannot work or cannot find work. Some are homeless (7.2%), while
others are living with friends or relatives (27.7%). A large percentage (48.0%) are currently in
rental housing, while just 3.3% own their home.

According to this study, during the period January to June 1999, community based
organizations in Contra Costa County have assisted with a variety of non-housing needs of
this community. A partial list follows:

       244     people received transportation and/or gasoline to attend health and support services
       110     people received transportation van services
        12     people received 1,242 home-delivered meals
       302     people received food vouchers
       329     people received 16,704 bags of groceries
       125     people received direct emergency assistance to pay for utilities and other bills
       552     people received case management services
       130     people received services at a day support center in Richmond
       144     people received counseling to assist them in applying for benefits
       105     people received housing advocacy assistance
        25     people received 7,877 hours of home care so they could remain in their homes
        51     people received HIV-related legal services

Alcohol and Drug Abuse – It is often difficult to know just exactly how much the general
population is abusing drugs and alcohol, since most statistics can only address those
persons who are accessing the public health system for treatment, or those who have died
from substance abuse. Other statistics report those who are jailed for abuse. However,
many more people never seek treatment, and in fact some may never be aware they have
a problem.

Based on available statistics and as noted above in the discussion on HIV/AIDS, a
growing percentage of that population has a critical need for drug and alcohol treatment.
Anecdotal information from service providers also suggests this is true for the general
population as well, especially those of lower income who often do not have access to
appropriate and affordable treatment. As tobacco use has declined since 1991, other
forms of substance abuse have continued to increase in Contra Costa County. For
example, drug-related deaths have increased from 6.2 per 100,000 population in 1991, to

    38 Contra Costa Health Services Public He alth Communicable Disease Programs, Contra Costa County HIV/AIDS Epidemiology
Report, August 1999, page 9.
8.8 per 100,000 in 1995, the most recent year for which statistics are available.39 Although
deaths from alcohol declined during the same period, the number of alcohol-related
discharges from hospitals increased from 100.2 per 100,000 in 1991 to 123 per 100,000
in 1995. In contrast, alcohol discharges for the State as a whole declined from 111.2 per
100,000 to 96.7 per 100,000 during the same time period.40

Childcare – The Children’s Report Card found that affordable and available childcare is
critical for all working parents. The demand is growing as more people are employed and
is greatest for single parents and lower-income families. According to the Children’s
Report Card, there is a wide gap between the need for childcare and its availability in
Contra Costa County:

                                                     Eligible            Population
                          Location                   Children             Served                Shortfall
                     East County                      10,485                1,765                -8,720
                     West County                      13,274                2,970               -10,304
                     North County                     10,046                1,128                -8,918
                     South County                      1,557                    1                -1,556
                           TOTAL County               35,362                5,864               -29,498

Source: Children and Families Policy Forum, Contra Costa County Children’s Report Card (1998)


Child Abuse and Domestic Violence – According to the Children’s Report Card the
number of reported incidents of child abuse and neglect in Contra Costa increased from
about 17,300 in 1993 to about 20,400 in 1996, representing an increase of about 5% to
7% each year. The growth in abuse is most likely the result of several factors, including
substance abuse, poverty status, and the parent’s inability to meet basic needs like
childcare, housing and medical care.41 More effective outreach and better reporting may
also be a factor in this increase.

Domestic violence, overwhelmingly violence against women, is also increasing. As noted
earlier, although Contra Costa County statistics showed a drop in number of reported
cases between 1995 and 1996, that figure has begun to rise again. It is not known how
many cases of domestic violence go unreported, but it is assumed that there are many.
Again, substance abuse figures significantly in domestic violence cases, as does child
abuse (and, increasingly, animal abuse). While high-income women are as likely to be
abused as lower-income women, they are not as likely to seek public assistance and are
therefore difficult to count.

Community Discussion of Other Needs – Both the focus groups and the community
hearings on needs addressed many of the areas described above. Substance abuse and
treatment issues, childcare for the working poor, and the non-housing needs of people with
HIV/AIDS were but a few of the specific needs discussed. Some of the issues – such as
substance abuse, housing and childcare – overlapped significantly. Many commenters
described ongoing problems with access to available services for their clients as well.
Participants acknowledged that, in general, there needs to be greater funding to address
all of the needs described above. Many focus group comments can be characterized as
follows:

    39 California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs website statistics, January 2000.
    40 Ibid.
    41 Ibid., page 37.
Ø     Need treatment beds for HIV/AIDS and substance abuse – true in general, but especially for
      multiple diagnoses. Need treatment beds for domestic violence survivors, abused children and
      farmworkers.
Ø     Substance abuse is a growing problem. It is sometimes difficult to get people to acknowledge this
      is a problem in the community.
Ø     Need to supply quality childcare for lower-income families that can’t afford it.
Ø     There is a general difficulty in coordinating with other service providers – some categorical programs
      have very strict limitations on how resources may be blended to address a particular concern.
Ø     Many different programs exist but they are cobbled together – no overall approach to addressing
      special needs.
Ø     Clients need better access to information and referral. There need to be more locations for services
      to be delivered throughout the County.
Ø     Language and culture are a real issue – multilingual and cultural organizations are needed to
      address this diversity.
Ø     Current programs provide primarily a crisis response. More prevention programs – like domestic
      violence and substance abuse – should be offered at an early age, especially in schools.
Ø     Special needs clients in general need expanded legal services that are affordable, including
      immigration services.
Ø     Free or low cost community counseling would be useful in addressing many of these concerns, but
      very little exists anymore.

Comments from the community hearings echoed many of these concerns:
Ø     Need to supply quality childcare for lower-income families that can’t afford it.
Ø     Need more support services for people with HIV/AIDS, including youth.
Ø     Need to establish and maintain more after school programs and childcare.
Ø     Need more battered women services, services for persons with HIV/AIDS.
Ø     Need better coordination of service providers – service is haphazard.

Service providers participating in the focus groups and hearings also raised programmatic
issues that are relevant to barriers in the delivery of services:
Ø     Service providers need consistent, multi-year funding, especially for operations, but federal
      programs do not allow it.
Ø     Length of CDBG grants too short, cannot plan strategically because providers are never sure
      whether the funding will be there from year to year.
Ø     There is a Catch-22 of government requirements regarding working and increasing incomes, which
      often results in a loss of public benefits like SSI – often times the rules make it impossible for a
      person to get out of poverty.
Ø     Funding sources are often categorical and difficult to use in combination – limited flexibility in use of
      funds.
Ø     Communities should discard the notion that there should be no duplication of services – we need to
      offer choices, especially for adolescents – not everyone will resonate with the same choices.
Ø     The cost of self-evaluation is mostly borne out of pocket by the service providers. Evaluation is
      important, but service providers often cannot afford it without financial assistance.
Historic Preservation

Contra Costa County was formed in 1850. At that time, much of Contra Costa was held in
land grants. Native Americans lived in the area south of Mt Diablo, in sites in Lafayette and
Walnut Creek, and along the shoreline. By the 1900 industrial development had occurred
along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Straits and included canneries,
factories, refineries, and shipping industries.

Today, a number of structures, public places and archeological artifacts are being
preserved to maintain the historical record of the County. Buildings such as the Old Port
Costa School, which is listed on the National Register, and was severely damaged due to
heavy rains and flooding has been reconstructed. Fund provided through FEMA and the
CDBG program were used to reconstruct a wall and the building roof in order to avoid its
collapse.

Many historic structures that have been converted to museums, community centers, and
recreational facilities, including schools, adobes, ranch houses, and public squares are still
in need of renovation or rehabilitation. Many of these facilities are located in older
communities within the County that also have housing stock over 50 years of age which is
also in need of rehabilitation. Several of the cities within the Consortium area have
facilities which are in need of renovation to make them accessible to the mobility impaired,
or to eliminate slum and blight through reconstruction with the objective of revitalization.

Infrastructure Improvements

The Urban County has identified a number of improvements that are needed for
compliance with the American With Disabilities Act. The large number of public facilities -
- especially those facilities and their surroundings that serve the disabled -- represent
millions of dollars worth of improvements. In almost all cases the leveraging of funds is
essential for the needed improvements. Due to the limited amount of funds available the
need will exceed the five-year planning period. Funding for ADA improvements projects
will continue to be identified and considered for funding depending on the availability of
funds.

Other Community Development Needs

Energy Efficiency Improvements, Lead-Based Paint Hazards, and Code Enforcement are
components of the housing rehabilitation programs. These issues are discussed in the
section on housing needs. Other non-housing community development needs are
identified in Table 2b Non-Housing Priority Needs Summary (Appendix I).
NON-HOUSING PRIORITY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

The Contra Costa Consortium Five-Year Strategy for 2000-2005 establishes the following
priorities for non-housing programs and projects:
CD-1    Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons below the poverty level, expand economic
        opportunities for very low- and low-income residents and increase the viability of neighborhood
        commercial areas.
CD-2    Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality recreational, public facilities, and adequate
        infrastructure and ensure access for the mobility impaired.
CD-3    Accessibility Improvements: Continue to identify and address physical access barriers to public
        facilities and infrastructure as required through the Americans with Disabilities Act.
CD-4    Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the
        homeless.
CD-5    Special Needs -- Prevention: Ensure access to programs that promote prevention and early
        intervention related to a variety of social concerns such as domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, substance
        abuse, illiteracy, elder abuse, and other issues experienced by special needs populations.
CD-6    Special Needs -- Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve the
        quality of life and independence for persons with special needs such as frail elderly, disabled
        persons, migrant farm workers, abused children, those with substance abuse problems, illiterate
        adults, battered spouses and persons with HIV/AIDS.
CD-7    Families: Promote and support programs that assist families to be safe, stable and nurturing.
CD-8    Communities: Target resources to underserved areas of the County to ensure that communities are
        safe and provide a high quality of life.
CD-9    Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and enable them to maintain independence.
CD-10 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school and prepare for
      productive adulthood.
CD-11 Historic Preservation: Preserve and protect historic properties for use and enjoyment of citizens
      primarily of lower income, or to eliminate conditions of blight.
CD-12 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing.
CD-13 Administration/Planning: Support development of viable urban communities through extending and
      strengthening partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, and administer
      federal grant programs in a fiscally prudent manner.
Priority Analysis and Strategy Development

The Consortium jurisdictions are committed to allocating funds that serve the needs of the
lowest income and most disadvantaged residents. Research on the current non-housing
community development needs highlights the interrelated nature of housing and non-
housing community development. For example, in order to afford the escalating cost of
housing in the County, it is critical for lower-income families to earn a living wage. In order
for them to earn a living wage, it is critical that people are functionally literate, adequately
trained to compete in today’s job market. And in order for people to receive appropriate
training or become an employee, they must be able to access affordable and reliable
transportation. Childcare and other services also figure critically into this matrix, as do the
other program and facility needs identified in Table 2B.

Although no new Census data exist to help identify new or emerging trends in non-housing
community development needs, the statistics provided above, in conjunction with the
findings of the various community meetings and focus groups, confirm the ongoing need to
provide CDBG funds to a host of non-housing community development activities.

Local, State and private funds all play an important role in the furtherance of the
Consolidated Plan objectives. For example, most jurisdictions have Redevelopment
Agencies that provide funding to further the overall economic development goals of the
community. In Concord, the Redevelopment Agency’s focus on revitalizing the Downtown
is intended to support business growth and development that will result in increased
employment, expansion of Downtown office users, and a growing mix of retail and
shopping opportunities. While the focus is not on creating jobs, per se, the efforts of the
Redevelopment Agency to create the physical environment for jobs and businesses in
essence creates the opportunities for lower-income residents served by the CDBG
programs.

Each jurisdiction has individual needs that should be addressed at the local level, rather
than at a broader County level; however, all jurisdictions have embraced the following
priorities in the completion of their individual Action Plans during the upcoming five-year
period. Where available, examples of existing programs and activities to address the
identified needs are provided.
Priority CD-1     Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons below the
poverty level, expand economic opportunities for very low- and low-income residents and
increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas.

Analysis: As participants in the community meetings and focus groups noted, job training
is critically needed to ensure that poor workers find jobs that pay a living wage. Research
shows that many people entering the workforce for the first time do not have the literacy or
life skills necessary to be successful at their jobs – skills such as being able to get to work
consistently and on time, balancing a checkbook, and filling out a job application.

Furthermore, the discussion on non-housing needs noted that for those at the lower
incomes, efficient and affordable mass transit is critical to one’s ability to travel between
work and home, and to access services. There are serious deficiencies in transportation
services, which constitute a significant barrier to the ability of CalWORKS clients in
accessing pre-employment and placement services. In addition, these deficiencies
significantly limited access to job sites.

The focus group on economic development noted the ongoing need to support small
businesses in lower-income areas to ensure that economically viable communities can be
sustained. As noted above, Redevelopment Agencies have played an important role in
removing blight and providing opportunities for new and expanded businesses to thrive in
poorer areas of the community. An additional example includes the Industrial Incubator
program as part of the North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
implementation. The Consortium members will also work to encourage the development of
programs to provide revolving loan funds for small business capitalization.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium members have
established as a priority those activities that will increase the number of jobs available to
and held by very low- and low-income persons. Barriers to employment are not primarily
due to a shortage of jobs but to a lack of job skills that are necessary to get and keep a job.
 In addition, access to transportation, childcare, and work appropriate clothing are
contributing factors that hinder job retention. The jurisdictions will work with local
governmental agencies such as the Workforce Investment Board, Contra Costa Economic
Partnership, East Bay Works – One Stop Employment Centers, and CBOs to identify
opportunities for collaboration and leveraging of dollars to maximize assistance. The
jurisdictions will continue to explore opportunities to support activities and programs that
increase the potential for attaining skill sets that lead to employment in technological fields
and encourage life-long learning.

The jurisdictions also consider job creation and retention to be equally important to
maintain healthy and vital neighborhoods, and to increase the number and type of jobs
available to very low- and low-income persons. Micro-enterprises and small businesses
play a vital role for people new to the workforce and for those who have an entrepreneurial
spirit, providing entry level positions, internships, and self-employment. Strategies to
increase the number and sustainability of micro-enterprises and small business include
developing relationships with local banks, Small Business Development Centers, and the
Small Business Administration to expand opportunities and options for low-interest loans
for start-up or stabilization and technical assistance.
Lastly, increasing the viability of neighborhood serving commercial areas in distressed
areas through economic revitalization is the final link to long-term economic sustainability
for very low-and low-income communities. Infrastructure, building rehabilitation and façade
programs often result in the creation of neighborhood jobs, convenient access to services,
and achieving overall community development goals of communities that are safe and
provide a high quality of life.

The jurisdictions will work with local governmental agencies, the business community and
CBO's to increase job opportunities for very-low and low-income persons. Strategies to
accomplish this priority include activities and projects that:

Ø      Support job-training programs that assist persons in attaining jobs that allow for upward mobility and
       lead to a livable wage and self-sustainability.

Ø      Support programs that provide services that help persons find and keep employment, and that
       provide pre- and post-employment assistance with an emphasis on transportation and child care,
       but which may include substance abuse counseling, health services, money management, and
       similar supportive programs.

Ø      Increase opportunities for job creation and job retention through technical assistance such as the
       development of business plans, financial management, marketing, employer and employee
       relationships, etc., loan packaging, and revolving loan funds for micro enterprises and small
       business.

Ø      Increase opportunities for assistance to business and neighborhood commercial areas through
       façade programs, rehabilitation, infrastructure improvements, and plans to foster economic
       revitalization.

Ø      Support programs that provide opportunities to youth for internships, entrepreneurship, and
       exposure to the workforce.

As noted above, transportation has been identified as an ongoing, significant concern for
lower-income people throughout the County. Efforts to address this concern include
paratransit programs, assistance with bus passes, and programs to provide lower-income
residents with free or reduced-cost auto repair and fuel.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission identifies transportation as a real barrier for
individuals making the move from welfare to work. It is not only difficult for CalWORKS
participants to find jobs, they must figure out how to get to those jobs. That means they
have to consider all their transportation options -- driving, buses, trains, bicycles and so on
-- even as they look for jobs. Social service staff members who assist them must also be
aware of participants' transportation needs and options, as well as how to obtain
information about these options.

MTC has begun the development of Transportation Resource Guides for each of the nine
Bay Area counties. The Guides provide detailed information on all available transportation
services in each county, including highway, transit, employer and private shuttles, and
bicycle programs. The Guides are designed to be used by CalWORKS program staff to
help CalWORKS participants make decisions on their transportation options.
Transportation Resource Guides have been completed for Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra
Costa and San Francisco counties.
The guides are not intended to replace schedules and route maps available from individual
transit agencies. Their purpose is to give CalWORKS participants and their advisors a
general idea of what kinds of options are available and how to get more information about
them. They include an overview of all the transportation options available to CalWORKS
participants, as well as instructions for how to get more detailed information by phone, in
person, via the Internet and by mail. Also included is information about support for different
options: subsidies for transit riders, Park & Ride lots for ride-sharers and guaranteed ride
home programs.

The following is a list of available information at MTC’s Contra Costa website
(http://www.mtc.ca.gov/publications/welfareindex.htm):
       Bus Service
            West County
            Central/South County
            East County
       Amtrak
       BART
            Shuttles to BART
       Transit Ticket Programs
       Subsidy and Incentive Programs
       Carpooling and Vanpooling
       High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
       Park & Ride Lots
       Guaranteed Ride Home
       Bicycling
       Paratransit
       Automobile Transportation
       Taxis
       Children's Transportation
       Contra Costa Kiosks
       Quick Reference Guide - How to get to jobs outside Contra Costa - Alameda, San Francisco,
            Solano, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
Priority CD-2      Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality recreational, public
facilities, and adequate infrastructure and ensure access for the mobility impaired.

Analysis: Within the Contra Costa Consortium area the need for infrastructure
improvements varies depending on age of infrastructure and facilities as well as the need
for new infrastructure and facilities. Many of the older developed areas of the cities and
unincorporated county have a wide variety of infrastructure needs, these include sewage
and storm drain improvements, street lighting and landscaping, utility upgrades, water
lines, renovation or replacement of sidewalks and streets, renovation of parks and public
places, and related slum and blight issues.

With the exception of four cities in the Urban County all jurisdictions have redevelopment
areas. Infrastructure improvements are addressed in the AB 1290 plans prepared by local
Redevelopment Agencies. They include on a much larger scale the installation of streets
and sewage systems, streetscape improvements, brownfields, demolition and clearance
activities, land acquisition and other similar activities related to housing and economic
development.

As older facilities become obsolete, or new initiatives such as Welfare-to-Work occur the
need for new facilities arises. For example the CalWORKS program (California’s Welfare-
to-Work plan) has resulted in the need for additional childcare facilities within the County.
Also housing development and its companion increased traffic congestion has created the
need for more locally based services.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: Infrastructure and public facility
improvements total into the millions of dollars in the Consortium. Most strategies for
infrastructure and public facilities improvement are contained in City and County Capital
Improvement Plans and/or AB1290 plans for redevelopment areas. In addition, many
public facilities are owned and operated by non-profit agencies that provide such services
as health care, childcare, mental health, respite care, as well as community facilities which
are available for a variety of service and social programs and activities. CDBG and
Redevelopment Agency funds emphasize long-term use in the allocation of funds. In
addition, funds can be made available in the form of a loan or grant depending on the
activity and the need to ensure long term use. In most instances due to the high cost and
need throughout the County CDBG funds will be used primarily for gap financing.
Strategies to accomplish this priority include activities and projects that:

v      Assist in the acquisition and rehabilitation of public facilities that provide services or benefit primarily
       very low and low-income persons

v      Assist in the acquisition and development of neighborhood parks and public spaces that promote a
       positive living environment, and are esthetically pleasing.

v      Improve infrastructure, especially those that address health and safety issues, such as flood drain
       improvement, streetlights, water lines, design and engineering, and improve accessibility for the
       mobility impaired.

v      Support efforts to remediate brownfields and convert them to viable land uses.

v      Improve recreational facility use through the installation of playground equipment, playing fields,
       hiking and bicycle paths, and access to the natural environment.
Priority CD-3      Accessibility Improvements: Continue to identify and address physical
access barriers to public facilities and infrastructure as required through the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

Analysis: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) became effective on January
26, 1992. The purpose of the Act is to provide comprehensive civil rights protections to
individuals with disabilities in employment (Title I), State and local government services and
communications (Title II), and public accommodations (Title III). The ADA generally applies to
public accommodations such as restaurants, convention centers, libraries, health clubs and
similar commercial establishments. The emphasis of the Act is on assuring that persons with
disabilities are not discriminated against "in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation."

Throughout the Consortium area a number of projects related to compliance with the
American With Disabilities Act are ongoing and are not expected to be completed during
the five-year planning period both due to the extent of need and the limited amount of funds
available. In addition the large number of public facilities both publicly and non-profit
owned, represent millions of dollars worth of improvements, for ADA compliance,
rehabilitation, and renovation. In almost all cases the leveraging of funds is essential for
the needed improvements.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The need for accessibility improvements
far outweighs the availability of funds. In many instances accessibility improvements have
been included as part of larger projects. For example curb ramps have been incorporated
with overall renovation of buildings or landscaping. This has enabled local entitlement
jurisdictions to leverage funds very effectively and participate in projects that make a
substantial improvement in the neighborhoods in which they are located. Another
approach has been phased projects; this has been especially helpful with sidewalk curb
ramps throughout the Consortium area. In addition to CDBG funds for ADA projects may
include city and county general funds, local Measure C funds, State Gas tax funds, and
TEA 21 funds. Strategies to accomplish this priority include activities and projects that:

§      Improve accessibility to public facilities such as libraries, child care centers, senior facilities, parks
       and recreational facilities through the installation of ADA compliant ramps and doors, restrooms,
       parking spaces, lifts, etc.

§      Improve accessibility to goods and services and transportation through the installation of curb
       ramps, audible feedback traffic signals, ramps, and playground equipment.
Priority CD-4      Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in
alleviating the needs of the homeless.

Analysis: As noted in the Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment, at least 13,000
people experience an episode of homelessness each year, with 4,000 people homeless
on any given night. More than 75% of them are members of a family, including almost
7,000 children. On any given night, more than 3,600 people are homeless, living on the
streets or in temporary accommodations, such as an emergency shelter or a friend’s
couch. In addition, many others are at risk of becoming homeless, including the nearly
17,000 extremely low-income households in the County who are paying more than 30% of
their income for rent or mortgage and struggling to make ends meet.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: As discussed in the housing section the
immediate need for families and individuals that are already homeless is shelter.
Programs that support shelter services, such as outreach, securing a bed, and supportive
services that assist persons and households into transitional and permanent housing are
essential to the success of emergency shelter facilities. Equally important are those
programs that help to alleviate incidences of homelessness, maintain physical and mental
health, and provide for access to essential needs such as food, clothing, and personal
hygiene. Strategies to accomplish this priority include activities and projects that:

Ø     Support programs that provide assistance to homeless persons and families to secure shelter and
      for shelter operations

Ø     Support programs that provide prevention services to homeless and at-risk households such as food
      programs, access to essential services and basic needs.

Ø     Support programs that provide education, training, and case management to homeless persons and
      families and that strengthens the family unit to alleviate incidence of homelessness.

Ø     Promote program that address a wide range of physical and mental health issues including
      prevention, early intervention and direct access to mental health and substance abuse programs.
Priority CD-5    Special Needs -- Prevention: Ensure access to programs that promote
prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social concerns such as domestic
violence, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, illiteracy, and other issues experienced by special
needs populations.

Analysis: The Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment provides comprehensive
information on persons with special needs. In the Consortium area, lower-income
residents with special needs include: the elderly and frail elderly; large families; disabled
persons, including those with physical, developmental, or mental disabilities; persons who
have alcohol and/or drug addictions; persons with AIDS and related diseases; female-
headed households; farmworkers; and domestic violence victims. Many of these
individuals and families have significant non-housing needs.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: Special needs groups like those listed
above sometimes have more difficulty in accessing services because of language, cultural,
physical, mental, and literacy barriers. Some examples of programs include helping newly
blind adults to develop independent living skills, nutritional lunches to homebound seniors,
persons with disabilities and people with AIDS. The Consortium will continue to encourage
funding applications from providers offering preventive services and support programs
that:

q      Provide substance abuse counseling and case management for primarily very low- and low-income
       persons

q      Provide crisis intervention and recovery services to abused women and children, abused elders, and
       victims of sexual assault.

q      Foster independent living and opportunities for self-sufficiency.
Priority CD-6      Special Needs -- Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are
provided to improve the quality of life and independence for persons with special needs
such as frail elderly, disabled persons, migrant farm workers, abused children, those with
substance abuse problems, illiterate adults, battered spouses and persons with HIV/AIDS.

Analysis: See Priority CD-5 above.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium will also continue to
support programs that:

ü     Foster independent living and supportive services for persons with AIDS, frail elderly and disabled
      persons.

ü     Provide opportunities for educational programs that promote literacy and lifelong learning and may
      lead to meaningful employment or volunteer service.

ü     Support the operation of facilities that provide services to special needs populations.
Priority CD-7     Families: Promote and support programs that assist families to be safe,
stable and nurturing.

Analysis: In order to improve the service delivery system in the County, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors established the Children and Family Policy Forum in 1996.
The Forum is a cross-sector alliance of local leaders in agencies and organizations that
serve children and families, and is a critical element of Contra Costa County’s ongoing,
system-wide strategic planning efforts for human service delivery. It brings together
citizens, community service providers, foundations, private sector partners and local
government representatives who share a common dedication to improving the lives of
children and families.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The entitlement jurisdictions will continue
to work with non-profits, county agencies and the policy forum to increase opportunities to
improve the overall health and economic well being of families and to promote and develop
programs and activities that strengthen families. The jurisdictions will support programs
that:

•     Support programs that provide emergency housing and homeless services such as tenant landlord
      counseling and legal services.

•     Assist in development and support programs that improve access to services and employment such
      as transportation vouchers, van services, and utilization of public transportation, and childcare and
      physical and mental health service.

•     Support programs that strengthen the family unit and increase stability.

•     Support programs that improve parenting skills and positive family interaction.

•     Promote a safe physical environment in the home and neighborhood through environmental
      education programs as such as lead based paint information and testing.
Priority CD-8   Communities: Target resources to underserved areas of the County to
ensure that communities are safe and provide a high quality of life.

Analysis: Communities are composed of many things such as houses, parks, jobs,
transportation, public services, and the people who live and work within an area.
Fundamentally, people want a place to live that is humane and livable – a place to live,
work and play. A variety of issues have been identified that together affect the viability and
livability of communities. Transportation has been identified as an ongoing, significant
concern for lower-income people throughout the County. Efforts to address this concern
include paratransit programs; assistance with bus passes, and programs to provide lower-
income residents with free or reduced-cost auto repair and fuel. Other components revolve
around availability of goods and services within a reasonable distance to housing, safe
environments that include street lighting, sidewalks, street sweeping, and bus shelters,
opportunities for jobs, and places for community gatherings and recreation.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium will continue to target
resources to underserved areas of the County while maintaining an effective level of
service throughout the consortium area as a whole. The Consortium members support a
variety of programs to address the wellness of a community. Some activities include code
enforcement activities, from abandoned vehicles to the dogcatcher, maintaining parks and
public pools, enforcing zoning codes, graffiti abatement, crossing guards, to neighborhood
watch. In addition, through non-profits, community organizations, local schools and
colleges a variety of programs are often made available to serve the residents of an area.

An example of using targeted resources in the North Richmond Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy (NRS), which seeks to create a partnership among federal and local
governments, the private sector, community organizations, and neighborhood residents in
order to secure economic opportunities in this distressed neighborhood. In addition to
economic development goals of the NRS, the strategy also addresses the implementation
of affordable housing programs – including homeownership opportunities – to establish a
comprehensive approach to service provision.

The NRS also seeks to expand commercial services, encourage public-private
partnerships, community involvement, and eliminate environmental impediments to
development. Working in collaboration with the County Redevelopment Agency, the North
Richmond Municipal Advisory Council, residents, local businesses, community groups, and
a host of County departments, the NRS allows greater leveraging of resources towards this
area, where more than 80% of the residents are very-low income.

The CDBG Entitlement Jurisdictions will continue to encourage funding applications to
support programs that:

§      Promote code enforcement activities and arrest blight conditions in order to revitalize neighborhoods
       and promote safe neighborhoods

§      Provide for community education, information and referral to a variety of services, and are accessible
       within the County.

§      Continue to address the transportation needs of lower-income residents, including those
       participating in Welfare-to Work- activities (CalWORKS).
§   Continue to implement and maintain Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies in distressed
    communities
Priority CD-9   Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and enable them to
maintain independence.

Analysis: As discussed in the Needs Assessment, VLI elderly households are extremely
cost burdened, paying more than half of gross monthly income on housing costs. Further,
the limitation of available supportive housing and the higher costs of special housing further
limits opportunities for seniors. Therefore, it is necessary to provide options for seniors to
stay in their homes and still have a high quality of life.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: Consortium jurisdictions will continue to
support programs that assist seniors to remain in their homes and those that provide
supportive services. The following strategies and programs can be used to assist seniors:

v      Support programs such as home- equity conversion, meals on wheels, and legal and money
       management services that provide options to assisted living facilities or placement in nursing
       homes.

v      Support programs that provide case management and advocacy services to assist seniors to
       resolve and cope with elder abuse, loss of loved ones, fraud, and health care issues

v      Support programs that provide for recreational and social opportunities to alleviate feelings of
       loneliness and isolation, including programs that utilize the expertise and experience of seniors in
       volunteer efforts.

v      Support programs that assist senior to access goods and services through such services as senior
       escort and transportation assistance.
Priority CD-10 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in
school and prepare for productive adulthood.

Analysis: Many of the very low-and low-income areas of the County have a high
percentage of youth under 18 years of age. Based on 1990 census data, in communities
with more than 50% low and moderate income, the percentage of youth range from a low of
12.3% in Martinez to a high of 40% in North Richmond. Of corresponding concern is the
high school dropout rate. Although the County's high school dropout rate has remained
consistently below the State as a whole, Pittsburg has the highest dropout rate in the
County (1999). To address this issue, the City of Pittsburg partners with the Pittsburg
Unified School District and the non-profit CISCO to provide at-risk youth with tutoring and
recreational activities. Youth are referred to the program as a result of academic and
behavior problems. The School District provides an instructor and aides for after school
tutoring, while the Leisure Services Department of the City provides a recreational aide.
The concept has been so successful it has been used as a model for other jurisdictions
throughout the State.

Like many communities, Contra Costa experiences problems with gangs, teen pregnancy,
and substance abuse. Many of these problems are the result of a lack of supervised or
alternative activities during the critical after school hours. The focus group on youth cited
the need to provide alternatives to hanging out, and the limited availability of structured
recreational activities, affordable activities, or internships. In addition the need for
childcare and after school programs has taken on greater relevance as parents in
CalWORKS enter job training or employment.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: To assist children/youth, jurisdictions will
continue to work with public agencies, non-profit agencies, school districts, and youth
organizations to provide opportunities for children and youth to build self-esteem and
confidence, focusing on programs that increase health and safety, enhance educational
and recreational opportunities, and increase opportunities for employment. The following
strategies and programs can be used to assist children/youth:

§      Support programs that provide services to abused children and those with substance abuse issues.

§      Support programs that provide care during the critical hours after school hours between 2:00 and
       6:00 p.m. that increase learning skills, promote self-esteem and confidence, and cultural and
       recreational activities

§      Support programs that provide opportunities to youth for internships, entrepreneurship, and
       exposure to the workforce.

§      Explore opportunities for collaborative relationship with schools and recreational facilities to develop
       after school programs in extremely low and very-low income areas.

§      Collaborate with public and non-profit agencies, and local school districts to apply for grants such
       as Youth Build, or other job training programs.
Priority CD-11 Historic Preservation: Preserve and protect historic properties for use
and enjoyment of citizens primarily of lower income, or to eliminate conditions of blight.

Analysis: In addition to strategies for infrastructure, public facility, and community
revitalization, it is also necessary to maintain and preserve the historic and archeological
heritage of the County. Many of the historic facilities in the County have been converted to
public use and are used regularly for community activities. Older facilities if not properly
maintained, may present health and safety problems that can affect users of the facility and
the immediate neighborhood.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: In conjunction with review under the
National Environmental Policy Act and through needs identification within the various
communities within the Consortium area, jurisdictions will continue to support efforts to
acquire and rehabilitate historic structures and public spaces that serve primarily VLI and
LI neighborhoods or promote the economic viability of an area.
Priority CD-12 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively
further fair housing.

Analysis: All Consortium housing programs and projects are required to undertake
affirmative marketing activities and to provide access to housing on an equal opportunity
basis without regard to race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or
national origin. In addition, CDBG funds may be used to promote fair housing through the
provision of housing counseling programs and legal assistance to households
experiencing problems of discrimination.

The Consortium members currently contract, typically through their individual CDBG
Programs and Redevelopment Agency or General Funds, with organizations to provide
services related to fair housing. Typical subrecipients of funds include Legal Aid
Societies, immigrant community organizations, and fair housing testing agencies.

Strategy Development and Investment Plan: Each jurisdiction has prepared an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices (AI), which identifies barriers to fair
housing choice and actions to address those barriers. However, the Consortium
jurisdictions recognize that fair housing concerns are a regional issue and not specific to
each jurisdiction. This fact was reiterated in several comments from focus group
members.

Further, additional information is required to adequately assess the full range of fair
housing needs in the County. Individual service organizations may have a comprehensive
understanding of the needs of a particular geographic area – or the problems associated
with their specific area of expertise – yet there has been no comprehensive study of the
depth and breadth of fair housing concerns in the County as a whole that would assist the
jurisdictions, both individually and collectively, in targeting scarce resources to major
needs. Therefore, the jurisdictions will sponsor a fair housing needs assessment (joint
Analysis of Impediments) as part of this Five-Year Strategy.

Additionally, funding will continue to be provided for fair housing services including testing,
investigation, and legal service to households experiencing incidents of discrimination.
Priority CD-13 Administration/Planning: Support development of viable urban
communities through extending and strengthening partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector, and administer federal grant programs in a fiscally
prudent manner.

Analysis: The various jurisdictions represented in this Consolidated Plan collectively and
individually place a high priority on collaboration, both within governmental agencies and
among outside groups. Addressing the identified needs can only be achieved by
maintaining an ongoing dialogue about the issues. In preparing this Consolidated Plan,
the member jurisdictions took the unusual step of convening experts in the field of
community development to discern current needs and to gauge how the providers
themselves view the issues.

Further, the process of allocating funds is itself a collaboration between those entities with
the resources and community-wide vision, and those with the day-to-day responsibility of
implementing that vision. The City of Concord’s collaborative program between the City,
the Cambridge Community Center and the Contra Costa Child Care Council is an example
of innovative inter-agency collaboration. This program helps CalWORKS recipients and
other lower-income people start their own licensed childcare businesses while also
expanding the availability of much-needed childcare services in the community.


Strategy Development and Investment Plan: The Consortium will:

q      Use HOME, CDBG, ESG, and HOPWA funds for salary, benefits, training, and other costs of
       administering federal entitlement programs.

q      Collaborate with local jurisdictions, other public agencies, service providers, the business
       community, other stakeholders and the residents of the County at large to address the needs of
       lower-income persons and households to support the economic, social, and environmental well
       being of the entitlement jurisdictions.

q      Explore opportunities between entitlement jurisdictions to minimize administrative burden for
       subrecipients and staff and to maximize opportunities for information sharing and expertise.

q      Provide funding to carry out environmental review under NEPA, feasibility and market study, and
       other planning activities, capacity building, and grant application for other types of federal funds.

In addition to the thirteen priorities noted above, the Consortium members will continue to
address the other non-housing community development needs shown on Table 2B. In
addition, Tables 1C and 2C in Appendix J show the specific housing and non-housing
community development actions to be undertaken by the individual jurisdictions during the
life of this Plan.
ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY

The County employs a variety of strategies to help alleviate poverty in communities,
including efforts to stimulate economic growth and additional job opportunities and provide
County residents with the skills and abilities required to take advantage of those
opportunities. The County and Consortium members undertake specific programs and
projects designed to stimulate economic growth and create additional employment
opportunities for County residents. For example, the County Redevelopment Agency
provides resources and technical assistance to existing and potential new businesses in
an effort to revitalize and expand economic activity in the County's four redevelopment
areas. In addition, the County has funded job creation and commercial revitalization efforts
using a combination of CDBG and RDA resources. The thirteen priorities described
above highlight a variety of additional ways in which this is accomplished.

As described in detail in the section on strategies to assist homeless populations, the
County works with other jurisdictions and area nonprofits to provide emergency and
transitional housing and the full range of support services required to assist this population
in achieving economic independence. In addition to programs designed to improve
employment skills and provide job opportunities for this population, the County also
provides counseling and assistance in obtaining benefits to qualified individuals and
families.

Finally, the lack of affordable housing is frequently cited as a significant factor in the
movement of businesses out of the Bay Area and the difficulty encountered by many
jurisdictions in attracting new business activity. Therefore, the Consortium's strategies to
increase and maintain the supply of affordable housing and to achieve an improved jobs-
housing balance also contribute to the alleviation of poverty by creating a more positive
business environment.

The following strategies are suggested for areas with relatively high concentrations of
poverty and minority populations.
•      Implement programs and projects to rehabilitate and upgrade the existing housing stock to alleviate
       identified conditions of neighborhood blight and provide additional affordable housing opportunities for
       very low- and low-income households.

•      Encourage the development of mixed-income housing to assist in neighborhood revitalization and
       the deconcentration of lower income households, while providing expanded affordable housing
       opportunities.

•      Provide increased affordable homeownership opportunities for very low- and low-income households
       to increase neighborhood stability.

In addition to these strategies, the Consortium also recognizes the importance of
developing affordable housing opportunities throughout the County in order to provide
adequate housing for Contra Costa residents within reasonable proximity to their place of
employment.
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

Public Institutions

State

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) manages the
majority of affordable housing activities for the State of California. HCD oversees the
State housing planning process, the State Housing Element, and provides technical
assistance and review of local Housing Elements. Each local government jurisdiction in
California is required to produce a Housing Element, which covers information on the
following: population trends, current housing programs, housing opportunity sites, special
housing and service needs, homeless needs, and future affordable housing strategies.
HCD provides technical assistance and conducts special research for local governments
seeking to produce affordable housing. HCD also administers State housing programs,
such as the Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP), California Natural Disaster
Assistance Program (CALDAP), State Rental Rehabilitation Program (SRRP), and the
Emergency Shelter Program (ESP). Due to State budgetary constraints, these programs
have very limited resources.

California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) is a primary funding vehicle for affordable
housing. The Agency issues mortgage revenue bonds and finances rehabilitation and new
construction programs for both rental housing and owner-occupied units.

The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) is responsible for allocating
authority for mortgage credit certificates and mortgage revenue bonds subject to the
annual volume cap for the state.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) coordinates the award of
federal and State low-income housing tax credits for low-income housing projects through
a competitive process.
County

Contra Costa County's homeless and housing planning and programs are implemented
through the following County departments and agencies: Community Development
Department; Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa; Housing Authority of
the County of Contra Costa; the Building Inspection Department; the Social Services
Department; the Community Services Department; and the Health Services Department.

Contra Costa County Community Development Department maintains overall
responsibility for the development of housing and community development plans, policies,
and strategies, including the County Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan. In
addition, the Department implements programs designed to increase and maintain
affordable housing, expand economic and social opportunities for lower-income, homeless
and special needs populations, and revitalize declining neighborhoods. Specific programs
administered through the Department include the Community Development Block Grant
Program, the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program, the Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS Program (housing component), the Emergency Shelter Grant Program,
the tax-exempt and mortgage revenue bond, and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs.
The Department is also responsible for the review of projects applying to HUD for funding
to determine their consistency with the Consortium’s Consolidated Plan.
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) plays a major role in
supporting and implementing the County’s housing programs. The HACCC is responsible
for the County’s public housing and rental assistance programs (e.g., Section 8 certificates
and vouchers), operates rental housing rehabilitation programs for several jurisdictions,
and is the project sponsor for selected affordable housing projects. The HACCC retains
ongoing responsibility for facility management of the County-operated homeless shelters
including North Concord; Brookside; Mountain View House; and planned future shelters.

The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Contra Costa supports and provides
resources for affordable housing development in the County's redevelopment areas
located in Bay Point, North Richmond, Pleasant Hill BART, and Rodeo. In accordance with
State law, the County's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) reserves a minimum of 20% of its
annual tax increment revenues for the support of affordable housing projects. RDA
resources are used to support the maintenance and expansion of affordable
homeownership and multifamily rental opportunities within the redevelopment areas.

In addition to building inspection and code enforcement activities designed to ensure the
safety of the County's housing stock, the County Building Inspection Department
operates the Neighborhood Preservation Program, a housing rehabilitation loan program
for low-income homeowners in the Urban County.

The County Social Services Department administers resources for the County's
homeless and public assistance programs. Specifically, the Department provides
resources for operation of the County's homeless shelters and operates the TANF, General
Assistance, and Food Stamp programs, and coordinates the provision of a variety of
support services for lower income households. Currently, there are 9,500 families on the
caseload, as well as 500 on General Assistance.
The Health Services Department is responsible for the development of plans and
programs to assist homeless households and adults throughout the County by providing
emergency and transitional shelter and support services designed to enable this
population to achieve greater economic independence and a stable living environment.
The Department coordinates the activities of and provides staff support to the Contra
Costa Continuum of Care Board (CoC Board), appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors and consisting of representatives of local jurisdictions, homeless service
providers, advocacy and volunteer groups, the business and faith communities, citizens at
large, and previously/currently homeless individuals.

Responsibilities of the CoC Board include serving in an advisory capacity to the Board of
Supervisors on issues related to homelessness and participation in long-range planning
and the development of strategies to alleviate homelessness in Contra Costa County. The
CoC Board works with the Health Services Department to develop and refine the
Continuum of Care Plan, develop the County’s annual McKinney Act application, educate
the public with respect to homeless issues, and advocate for increased funding for
homeless programs.

The County Building Inspection Department operates a weatherization and energy
conservation program. This program assists lower income households to reduce monthly
housing costs through the provision of resources for rehabilitation and other improvements
designed to increase efficiency in energy use.

In addition to the specific departments and agencies discussed, during FY 1993, Contra
Costa County and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek established
the Contra Costa HOME Program Consortium for purposes of participation in the HOME
Investment Partnership Act Program.42 As stated in the Consortium Agreement and
supporting documentation, the purpose of the Consortium is to provide additional financial
resources and facilitate cooperative efforts among participating jurisdictions to increase
and maintain the supply of affordable housing throughout the geographic area of the
Consortium. Contra Costa County has been designated as the Lead Jurisdiction for the
Consortium and is implementing the HOME Program through the Community Development
Department. The Contra Costa Consortium was approved by HUD in July of 1993 and re-
certified in June 1999.




     42 Contra Costa County is participating in the Consortium on behalf of the Urban County; the City of Richmond is an
independent Participating Jurisdiction for purposes of the HOME Program.
Consortium Cities

The City of Antioch Community Development Department is responsible for both housing
and non-housing community development activities. The City reorganized several
departments in order to enhance the working relationship among Planning, Building,
Engineering, Housing, Redevelopment, and Code Enforcement. The Antioch
Development Agency [Redevelopment] oversees four project areas. The Agency recently
received a report from the ad hoc Affordable Housing Task Force outlining a program
intended to promote affordable housing development and neighborhood stabilization. An
implementation strategy has been initiated by the Community Development Department
Housing Development Program Division and approved by the Agency Board.

The City of Concord Building and Neighborhood Services Department is the agency
responsible for housing programs, neighborhood preservation and code enforcement, and
community services. The City also has a redevelopment agency responsible for
redevelopment project areas. Its goals include an increase in homeownership
opportunities throughout the City, and an expansion in housing development in the
downtown area, particularly through mixed-use projects. The Concord Redevelopment
Agency has also identified the rehabilitation of single family and multi-family housing units
as a priority in their housing setaside program.

The Housing Division administers an extensive Housing Rehabilitation program, as well as
the Fair Housing and Tenant/Landlord program. The Neighborhood Preservation Division
administers the new citywide Multi-Family Housing Inspection program, as well as code
enforcement activities, neighborhood partnerships, and neighborhood cleanups. The
Community Services Division administers the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) federal funds, as well as general funds and Child Care Developer funds that are
used to provide public and human services for low-income residents. CDBG funds are
also used for housing capital and economic development project that primarily benefit very
low- and low-income areas and residents of the City.

In the City of Pittsburg, the Department of Neighborhood Development Services
administers all aspects of the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program and the Emergency
Repair Loan Program, including provision of technical assistance. Pittsburg Housing and
Economic Development Corporation (PHEDC) provides housing counseling programs,
investigates complaints of illegal housing discrimination, and develops housing for very
low- and low-income-income families. The Pittsburg Housing Authority administers 747
Section 8 Vouchers and Certificates. The City also has a Redevelopment Agency.

The City of Walnut Creek's Community Development Department is responsible for its
affordable housing programs and non-housing community development activities. It
maintains overall responsibility for the development of the City's housing plans and policies
and plays a lead role in pursuing resources and strategies to implement housing programs
including CDBG and redevelopment programs. The City Council established a Council
Housing Subcommittee to proactively encourage the expansion of affordable housing
opportunities in Walnut Creek. The Community Development Department also implements
programs designed to expand economic and social opportunities for lower-income,
homeless and special needs populations.
As noted, in addition to the unincorporated areas of the County, the Urban County
includes the following cities: Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules,
Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, and
San Ramon. Each of these jurisdictions has a planning department or community
development department that is responsible for planning and housing activities. In
addition, all but three of them (Martinez, Moraga, and Orinda) have redevelopment
agencies with housing responsibilities.
Umbrella Organizations

A number of groups have been formed in Contra Costa County so that local jurisdictions,
applicable service providers, and advocacy organizations can coordinate their efforts in
addressing certain problems. Among such groups are the following:
      HIV/AIDS Consortium
      Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers
      Delta 2000
      Information and Referral Network
      Mobile Home Advisory Committee
      Northern California Family Housing Coalition
      ProActive Community Team (PACT)
      Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Subcommittee
Nonprofit Organizations

There are a number of non-profit organizations whose activities are related to the provision
of affordable housing in Contra Costa County. The following is a partial listing of the
groups that have been active in the County. There is also active interest among church-
related groups who want to alleviate the shortage of affordable housing or work with the
homeless.
      Affordable Housing Associates
      Agencies on Aging/Area Agency on Agency - Each city has a Committee on Aging
      AIDS Project of Contra Costa
      Battered Women's Alternatives
      Bay Area Legal Aid
      BiBett
      BRIDGE Housing Corporation
      California Housing Partnership Corporation
      Catholic Charities of the East Bay
      Christian Church Homes of Northern California
      Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond
      Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
      Concord Homes
      Diablo Valley Housing Corporation
      East Bay Services for the Developmentally Disabled
      Ecumenical Association for Housing
      Eden Housing, Inc.
      Housing Alliance
      Las Trampas Supportive Living
      Lao Family Community Development, Inc.
      Mercy Charities Housing
      Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
      Mt. Diablo Habitat for Humanity
      Oakland Community Housing, Inc.
      Pacific Community Services, Inc.
      Phoenix Programs
      Pittsburg Alliance of Technology and Homeless Services (PATHS)
      Pittsburg Housing and Economic Development Corporation (PHEDC)
      Resources for Community Development (RCD)
      Rubicon Programs
      Rural California Housing Corporation
      St. Vincent de Paul
      Salvation Army
      Satellite Senior Homes
      Shelter, Inc.
      Youth Homes, Inc.
Private Industry

Developers

There are numerous for-profit developers who have worked with the members of the
Consortium and the Urban County jurisdictions to produce both single family and
multifamily affordable housing. These developers have utilized the mortgage revenue bond
and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, density
bonus programs, as well as funds from the various redevelopment agencies to assist them
in housing development.

Major Corporations

A number of major corporations have their headquarters or other significant offices in
Contra Costa County. Although they have not been direct supporters of affordable housing
activities in the County, they are a potential resource. There are a number of programs that
employers may use to assist employees in obtaining affordable housing, such as rent
subsidies and mortgage assistance. Corporations may also form joint ventures with non-
profit developers and/or invest in tax credits for low-income housing.

Lenders

Lender participation in Contra Costa County has included provision of below market
interest rate construction and permanent loans as well as participation in the County's
mortgage revenue bond and mortgage credit certificate programs. In an effort to meet
California Redevelopment Act requirements, lenders are more actively seeking out local
jurisdictions and offering their services and expertise in the development and operation of
affordable housing projects. Some lenders are waiving bank fees and reducing points on
first mortgages for eligible lower income homebuyers.
Public Housing Authorities

The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) is governed by a Board of
Commissioners composed of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors plus one
resident representative. This Board of Supervisors/Commissioners appoints the Housing
Authority’s Advisory Housing Commission (AHC), which includes both private sector
community leaders and resident leaders. The AHC reviews staff reports and
recommendations on hiring, contracting, and procurement for HACCC and makes
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors/ Commissioners for approval. The Board of
Supervisors/Commissioners ultimately authorizes the execution of all major contracts and
agreements, reviews and approves proposed development sites, approves
comprehensive planning, and approves any proposed demolition or disposition of public
housing developments.

The City of Pittsburg Housing Authority is governed by the Housing Advisory
Commission, which is composed of 7 members, including the 5 elected City Council
members, and 2 tenants who are recipients of Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers who are
appointed to the Commission by the City Council members. The Housing Advisory
Commission meets monthly (at the beginning of the City Council meetings) to review City
of Pittsburg Housing Authority staff reports and recommendations for Housing Authority
business.
Overcoming Gaps in the Institutional Structure

During the next five years, the Urban County will initiate the several activities designed to
improve the institutional structure for implementation of affordable housing activities in the
Urban County. The Community Development Department will continue to collaborate with
the cities and other relevant public agencies in an informal cooperative network to facilitate
affordable housing development in the Urban County. Additionally, the Consortium will
collaborate on the development of an umbrella Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice to ensure that the fair housing needs of the County are more comprehensively
addressed.
COORDINATION

The County and each city within the County coordinate their affordable housing
development planning efforts with those of the State in part through regular, timely
submissions of their General Plan Housing Elements.

There is also a significant amount of intergovernmental cooperation among local
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The fourteen cities/towns and the unincorporated
area of the County have joined together as the Urban County to receive and allocate
CDBG funds. In 1993 the Urban County and the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg and
Walnut Creek joined together to create the Contra Costa Consortium for purposes of
participation in the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program.

The Community Development Department is also working with other Entitlement
Jurisdictions in the County, the County's Health Services Department, and the Ryan White
Council to develop a coordinated housing program with support services for HIV/AIDS
populations. Finally, the County and Cities have joined together to develop specific
affordable housing projects, including: rental housing for families, seniors, and the
disabled; rental and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs; first-time homebuyer
programs; and emergency shelters for the County's homeless populations.

In addition to these activities, the County participates in a number of countywide housing
and service provider organizations that facilitate the coordination of programs and
projects. These organizations include the Association of Homeless and Housing Service
Providers, the Mobile Home Advisory Committee, the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing
Subcommittee, and the Homeless Management Assistance Team. Membership in these
organizations is composed of representatives of city and County agencies, nonprofit
housing developers and service providers, and public interest groups. Finally, the County
supports several projects to provide information and referral services and coordinates the
provision of services to the County's homeless populations:
1.     In August 1993, the Northern California Grantmakers (a coalition of more than 40 foundations)
       awarded $50,000 to create the ProActive Community Team (PACT), a coalition of more than 35
       public and private agencies that serve the homeless in Contra Costa. This grant has since been
       renewed for an additional year. These funds allow the County to create public-private partnerships
       to seek solutions to increasing levels of homelessness in Contra Costa. The overarching goal of
       PACT is to create a seamless and coordinated continuum of care to include: outreach to homeless
       in the streets; shelters; transitional housing; supportive housing linked to rental assistance
       programs; and other affordable housing options.

2.     Shelter, Inc.'s receipt of $4.2 million in HUD Supportive Housing grant was used to create REACH
       Plus, a collaboration of six local community-based agencies that provide drug treatment,
       counseling, job assessment and training, and rental assistance, as well as community outreach to
       organize private community support and volunteerism.

3.     The creation of the Regional Service Cluster System of Supportive Services provided a linked,
       centralized pool of housing vouchers with flexibility to address a range of consumer needs. The
       Cluster System is comprised of multidisciplinary coalitions of providers who deliver services in
       distinct geographical regions. By working together they create an interdisciplinary team that
       delivers services to address the needs of individuals and families.
Additional efforts to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers
include the following:
1.    The Urban County and/or other Consortium members will consider the creation of a working
      committee to develop a strategy for involving major corporations/employers in addressing affordable
      housing needs.

2.    Lead paint action - A task force will be created to address the problem of lead-based paint in the
      older housing stock.
PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENT INITIATIVES

Resident participation activities include the following:

1.     Residents are active partners in the Head Start programs held on several HACCC family housing
       development sites with expansion ongoing.

2.     Residents serve on the HACCC Advisory Housing Commission and on the Housing Board of
       Commissioners.

3.     Active employment of residents exists in public housing modernization, office worker training,
       maintenance worker training and anti-drug recreation programs.
RESOURCES

Available resources are listed below by source (federal, state, local, or private) and by
activity type (acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, homebuyer assistance, rental
assistance, homeless assistance, and homeless prevention).

Federal Housing Programs

Acquisition
The following programs can be used to acquire properties for residential use: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnership Act Program (HOME);
Section 501(c)(3) Multifamily Revenue Bonds; Low Income Housing Tax Credits; Section
811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities; Section 202 (housing for seniors);
McKinney Act Supportive Housing Program; and Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS (HOPWA).

Rehabilitation

The following programs can be used to rehabilitate housing: CDBG; HOME; Section
501(c)(3) Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds; Low Income Housing Tax Credits; Section
202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly; Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities; McKinney Act Supportive Housing Program; Public Housing Development;
HOPWA; Section 203(k) Program; and Section 232 Mortgage Insurance for Nursing
Homes, and Intermediate Care and Board and Care Facilities.

New Construction
The following programs can be used to develop housing: CDBG; HOME; Multifamily
Housing Revenue Bonds; Section 501(c)(3) Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds; Low
Income Housing Tax Credits; Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly; Section 811
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities; McKinney Act Supportive Housing
Program; Public Housing Development; HOPWA; Section 231 Mortgage Insurance for
Elderly and Handicapped Housing; Section 232 Mortgage Insurance for Nursing Homes,
Intermediate Care and Board and Care Facilities, Section 221 Mortgage Insurance for
Rental Housing for Moderate Income Families; and Single Family Mortgage Revenue
Bonds.

Homebuyer Assistance

The following programs can be used to assist homebuyers: CDBG; HOME; Single Family
Mortgage Revenue Bonds; Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs); Federal Housing
Administration Mortgage Insurance; Section 203(k) Program; and Veterans' Administration
Loan Guarantees.

Rental Assistance

The following programs can be used to develop affordable rental housing: Multifamily
Housing Revenue Bonds; Section 501(c)(3) Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds; Low
Income Housing Tax Credits; Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly; and Section
811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities. The Section 8 Voucher and
Certificates Program – in conjunction with the new Housing Choice Voucher Program –
provide rental assistance to low-income families.

In addition, the HACCC receives funds for public housing improvements and resident
initiatives under the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP). The HACCC also applies for
competitive Anti-Drug Program and Family Self-Sufficiency Program funds to improve the
living environment at public housing developments.

Homeless Assistance

The following programs can be used to assist the homeless: McKinney Act Supportive
Housing Program; Emergency Shelter Grant Program; CDBG; and Section 221 Mortgage
Insurance for Rental Housing for Moderate Income Families.
Non-Federal Housing Programs

State Programs

The Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP) can be used for acquisition. The CHRP-O
Program is used for rehabilitation of owner-occupied units, and the CHRP-R Program can
be used for rental rehabilitation. The California Housing Finance Agency operates several
housing bond programs. These programs provide assistance to buyers of newly
constructed homes, buyers of existing single-family housing, and developers of new
multifamily housing.

Local Programs

Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Funds can be used for acquisition,
rehabilitation, and new construction of rental and homeowner housing. Homebuyer
assistance is provided by the Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Funds, Contra
Costa County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program and Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program.
Private Resources

For-Profit

Sources of assistance for acquisition include Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Special
Lending Programs and the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) of San Francisco Affordable
Housing Program. For rehabilitation, funds may be available from the CRA Special
Lending Programs, FHLB of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program and Fannie Mae
Multifamily Forward Commitment. For new construction, funding may be available from the
CRA Special Lending Programs, FHLB of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program,
Fannie Mae Rental Housing Equity and Venture Fund Investments, Fannie Mae Multifamily
Forward Commitment, and Saving Association Mortgage Company (SAMCO).

Homebuyer Assistance may come from a variety of sources, including Employer Assisted
Housing, CRA Special Lending Programs, FHLB of San Francisco Affordable Housing
Program, and Fannie Mae Community Homebuyer Program.

Nonprofit

Bay Area Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), Northern California Community
Loan Fund, and Low-Income Housing Fund (LIHF) are sources of funds for acquisition.
The Northern California Community Loan Fund and Low-Income Housing Fund (LIHF) may
provide funds for rehabilitation as well.

New construction financing may be available from Trade Union and Retirement Fund
Assistance, LISC, Northern California Community Loan Fund, LIHF, and California
Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC). Finally, homeless assistance may be
provided by LIHF, as well as charitable organizations, such as the Red Cross and
Salvation Army.
                 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES FOCUS GROUP
                             FOLLOW-UP NOTES
                              JANUARY 19, 2000

General Observations
Ø    Participants saw the lack of housing and poor transportation network as critical
     to the success of their programs.
Ø    When asked to rank the relative importance of the needs they identified, these
     two issues were at the top of the list.
Ø    In general, there was agreement that the problem is not availability of resources
     or programs (job training, business training, etc.), but rather getting people
     connected with those services.
Ø    Participants noted a pervasive problem with coordination/collaboration/planning
     that made it difficult for both clients and providers to know where to get the help
     they need.

Major Groupings of Needs
A.   Affordable housing
B.   Transportation
C.   Training:
      1.    lack of adequate training
      2.    lack of education for young people with disabilities
      3.    need for youth entrepreneurial development in disadvantaged communities
      4.    need for entrepreneurial training of small businesses in human resources
      5.    lack of leadership skills for youth
      6.    need high quality education system across the board

D.   Planning and organization:
      1.    no planning continuity
      2.    need current labor market information to assess real needs in a community
      3.    need someone to undertake a resource assessment
      4.    don’t know who to talk to
      5.    need a one-stop resource center
      6.    need local needs assessments, rather than generalized ones
      7.    fragmented service delivery
      8.    access issues
      9.    collaboration issues

E.   Business development:
      1.    gap financing for business expansion
      2.    business development in areas of high unemployment
      3.    small businesses need revolving working capital
      4.    job retention, jobs/housing balance, wages, etc.

F.   Support programs:
      1.    lack of employment opportunities for people with disabilities
      2.    lack of medical care/insurance
      3.    post-employment support for worker as well as employer
      4.    need transitional support system for high-risk
                     AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES FOCUS GROUP
                               FOLLOW-UP NOTES
                                JANUARY 31, 2000

General Observations
Ø    Participants saw the primary issue as one of enough supply, with all its various
     components (cost of land, quality of housing, unit type, etc.).
Ø    NIMBYism was identified as a concern in certain areas of the County – some participants
     are seeing increased resident opposition, and some perceive there is a lack of political
     will to develop housing. Service providers continue to counsel clients who face outright
     housing discrimination.

Major Groupings of Needs
A.   Affordable housing
      1.    especially for ELI families (making less than 15% of MFI or less than $6000)
      2.    housing for people with special needs
      3.    larger affordable units for large families
      4.    also, smaller units for one person
      5.    quality of housing that is affordable is often poor
      6.    rents are rising astronomically – from $390 per unit to more than $700 for a studio
      7.    people with Section 8 can’t find units
      8.    need entry level homeownership projects
      9.    need more Single Room Occupancy residences
      10.   cost of land is escalating
      11.   not enough accessible units for the disabled
      12.   housing not located near jobs
      13.   need more downtown housing
      14.   there are few jobs in West County
      15.   we need more subsidy funding for housing
      16.   we do a patchwork job in getting funding for affordable housing – need too many sources to make
            deals work
      17.   complicated process
      18.   we try to convince some people to go into shared housing
      19.   the complication factor stems from having to accommodate all the special interests
      20.   this is a huge state issue at all levels of affordability – not confined to CCC nor even the Bay Area
      21.   it’s estimated there are 1 million people (and however many people in their families) on waiting
            lists for housing
      22.   used to be that rent subsidies were enough
      23.   now it’s a white-hot economy – even middle income families cannot afford housing
      24.   we’re finding families rotating throughout the Bay Area shelters due to a lack of affordable units
      25.   problem is the same all over, not just in one area of the County or another
      26.   CCC/San Jose are projected to grow the most in the next five years
      27.   over the last 18 months CCC rents have climbed rapidly
      28.   even some housing that isn’t affordable is in terrible condition
      29.   fixing some housing that isn’t restricted will raise rents
      30.   Brentwood/Highway 4 Corridor and parts of West County have more affordable housing
      31.   Pittsburg is heavy with senior units
      32.   types of housing being built sometimes depend on local politics, not what the needs are
      33.   also an economic concern – some cities that are wealthier than others may not think they need
            affordable housing, or it costs too much
      34.   and, there are jurisdictions that have little or no subsidies available for housing – development in
            these communities is nearly impossible
      35.   as time progresses, more landlords may avoid subsidy programs because it’s not as profitable as
            market rate now
      36.   we need to advocate to have Section 8 as a protected class in the income language of State law
     37.   need more funding for subsidies for all housing
     38.   now is the perfect time to do something – before it’s too late and there is absolutely nothing that
           can be done
     39.   we need a “healthy communities” concept or vision – a rounded approach including affordable
           housing, education and services
     40.   available: welfare to work programs
     41.   available: supportive housing funding
     42.   available: AB 34 funds – homeless mentally ill
     43.   available: multifamily programs – subsidies for development AND operations
     44.   local jurisdictions should work with housing developers to apply for these funds to show an active
           interest
     45.   there’s underdeveloped land in the private sector
     46.   more creativity now with lenders (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac)
     47.   CRA lenders can get more involved
     48.   CCC should be behind such efforts
     49.   jurisdictions need to make sure housing meets accessibility standards – much does not
     50.   consider adding additional accessibility requirements to local ordinances
     51.   barriers: feds have been barrier because of low FMRs
     52.   barriers: skyrocketing costs
     53.   barriers: adding other public benefits to affordable housing drives up costs – prevailing wage,
           parks, etc.
     54.   barriers: long-term operating subsidies not available – makes it impossible to plan the future!
     55.   barriers: used to do more family housing but now there’s no political will – use the plan review
           process as the barrier, but political will is the real problem
     56.   barriers: amount of subsidy available in a given jurisdiction – just enough for one or two projects a
           year
     57.   lack of money is the more important issue
     58.   community opposition is the second most important issue

B.   Fair Housing and NIMBYism
     1.    displacement is occurring
     2.    monolingual (esp. Spanish) have hard time finding housing, more easily evicted
     3.    there appears to be discrimination based on real or perceived residency status
     4.    NIMBYism in the community – need to do more to foster acceptance
     5.    some communities do their share of housing while others do not – need to disperse better
           (especially acquisition/rehabs)
     6.    perception that some cities want to skirt rules, for example creating preferences in housing for
           only those who live in the area – effect is discrimination
     7.    how the housing ends up doesn’t match the demographics
     8.    the regulations are sometimes vague and difficult to understand
     9.    complicated issue – fair housing laws are sometimes the only protection some people have
     10.   affirmative action kind of issue
     11.   on the one hand we are trying to protect certain people but on the other hand the laws preclude
           us from certain kinds of targeting
     12.   lack of education for owners, service providers, and communities – regs change often
     13.   to know the law and to carry the law out are two different things
     14.   some landlords are not clear on what is required
     15.   perception housing crisis is worse in Concord than other areas with private landlords
     16.   court system in CCC tends to be more anti-tenant
     17.   this situation may get worse – the more that landlords can get whatever price they ask for
           housing, the more discrimination we will see
     18.   were we to build LOTS more housing, we need to look at different standards than we are used to
           –needs to be more dense, more like East Coast – requires a cultural shift
     19.   people need to be convinced that denser housing is a good thing
     20.   relates to political reality of density and land use
     21.   CCC has unique challenges – race and culture, class issue: who’s living where
     22.   very intolerant time
     23.   fair housing as an issue would probably be less of an issue for some people were there an ample
           supply of housing, but it would still be bad for some
     24.   part of fair housing issue is fear
     25.   available: FHIP money – very political
     26.   available: Fannie Mae Foundation
     27.   Concord has the political will to back up fair housing enforcement
     28.   NIMBYism is really finding the political will to build the housing needed
     29.   why don’t cities do more? Class issues?
     30.   education project is ok, but need big business behind it (who are the voters?)
     31.   need to engage business in addressing the problem – they have an important stake in the
           outcome (housing for their workers)
     32.   education also necessary for the politicians’ constituents – they also vote
     33.   trend to provide teacher housing is ominous – the problem is that this approach is exclusionary of
           other eligible groups (e.g. janitors), divi ding low-income population into “acceptable” and
           “unacceptable” groups

C.   Bureaucracy:
     1.    time it takes for government approvals too long – hard to pull projects together
     2.    local building officials totally bureaucratic

D.   Access:
     1.    transportation – infrequent service, poor connections
     2.    nonprofits need to be trained and collaborate more
     3.    household barriers: poor credit, no money, prior evictions
     4.    property management – business hours not convenient for working people
     5.    landlords make conservative credit decisions because they are taking all the risk
     6.    low-income households can’t afford credit reports, which are often required by rental property
           owners
     7.    organizations and people are doing client advocacy – clients obtain access to services on a case
           management basis only, rather than on demand
     8.    property management is a business; some landlords are better than others at addressing client
           concerns
     9.    credit/risk problems: agencies can guarantee rent payments to reduce landlord risk
     10.   Rental Assistance Programs can be set up to help people with bad credit, etc.
     11.   two pronged effort – case management AND landlord assistance
     12.   question of intent: WOULD the landlord really participate if there were a rent guarantee?
     13.   how do you get private market to participate?
     14.   local government can get people together to talk about it
     15.   rent eviction training – educate tenants re: how to be a good tenant
     16.   cultural issues – education
                                SPECIAL NEEDS FOCUS GROUP
                                     FOLLOW-UP NOTES
                                      JANUARY 18, 2000

General Observations
Ø    Participants saw the lack of housing and poor transportation access as critical to the
     success of their programs.
Ø    When asked to rank the relative importance of the needs they identified, these two
     issues were at the top of the list.
Ø    Participants noted a pervasive problem with coordination/collaboration/planning that
     made it difficult for both clients and providers to know where to get the help they need.

Major Groupings of Needs
A.   Transportation:
      1.    physical access also
      2.    transportation to and from service hubs
      3.    limited paratransit
      4.    some public transit (bus)
      5.    can get a bus ticket, but central county can’t get to east and west
      6.    not so much a cost issue but a poor network
      7.    could co-locate services to be more efficient
      8.    countywide problem – three bus systems not connected
      9.    hrs of operation not helpful
      10.   vouchers
      11.   situation will become worse in the next five years – more people, more cars
      12.   a problem that affects everyone
      13.   can address it as it affects each person or organization individually, but no one is looking at the
             big picture
      14.   approaches:
                  i. hubs
                 ii. multiple service locations
      15.   available: funds from Dept of Rehab – cost of transportation
      16.   available: grants to pay field trip costs
      17.   available: Migrant farmworkers – JTPA funds to pay for transportation costs
      18.   available: fundraised money for literacy
      19.   available: Ryan White Title I
      20.   we’ll use any means to help our clients – hire private drivers when we have to
      21.   barriers: geography, road network
      22.   not so much a funding issue but coordination and staffing – except as an access and frequency of
             service issue

B.   Affordable Housing:
      1.    need more affordable hsg across the board
      2.    need transitional housing for:
                  i. youth coming out of foster care
                 ii. women coming out of residential drug treatment programs
                iii. battered women
                iv. mental health
      3.    special need for RENTAL housing
      4.    need supportive/supported housing
      5.    there is little seasonal housing and that which is available is in poor condition
      6.    less housing than before
      7.    shared housing – clients need to be taught how to select a roommate
     8.    housing for service providers is also a problem – it affects our ability to deliver services because
           of long staff commute times
     9.    available: some supported housing for battered women and HIV/AIDS
     10.   available: mother and child live with a mentor – Share Family Care
     11.   available: some transitional housing for youth in foster care
     12.   migrant farmworkers – program for LI (HUD program)
     13.   lots of opportunities for people to take advantage of but most limited in scope – not diverse
           enough
     14.   not enough housing or not adequate – problems placing people
     15.   there is a perception that there is less money for housing in Central County – market issue?
           There is still much needed there
     16.   middle of county has less affordable housing
     17.   getting worse because of gentrification; special needs will increase as population ages
     18.   lots of programs exist but they are cobbled together
     19.   structure is messed up – programs do not mesh
     20.   you can collaborate all you want but if there is no funding there is no housing
     21.   some funding streams do allow collaboration – disabled and HIV/AIDS
     22.   barrier: rental housing – no availability
     23.   barrier: lots of discrimination
     24.   barrier: lack of accessible housing
     25.   barrier: migrant farmworkers – do not have the income to be eligible
     26.   barrier: we spend huge amounts of staff time trying to find housing for clients
     27.   this would take millions to address – no centralized approach, so it’s also a coordination issue
     28.   no incentives in the private market

C.   Access:
     1.    handled haphazardly – by luck
     2.    need better access to info and referral
     3.    need to know where the resources are in order to be successful (clients)
     4.    physical access to treatment programs – both program access and transportation access
     5.    translators – access based on language
     6.    people don’t know where to begin
     7.    need consumer education to access services
     8.    life skills training needed – but bring it to the people who need it, rather than wait for them to come
           ask for it
     9.    some collaboration projects in the community
     10.   pretty much a crisis response
     11.   we respond to the needs of the client and don’t have time, funding or staff to do more
     12.   need to do more outreach – clients do not trust
     13.   no one entity knows everything
     14.   language and culture are a real issue – multilingual and cultural, not organizations to address this
           diversity
     15.   data exist but need to know how to get it
     16.   not just about the provider – does the consumer know?
     17.   libraries coordinating information and referral; some more advanced than others
     18.   skill sets of clients not able to use technology
     19.   county is not integrated – very segregated
     20.   access is tied to transportation – east county especially hard to address
     21.   problem is increasing, dependent on accessing technology – education and literacy
     22.   access is urgent, but follows housing and transportation
     23.   various resources: Independent Living Centers, foundations, CA endowment
     24.   coordination of services useful
     25.   communication and resources both needed, as well as time and money
     26.   worked hard to collaborate with each other
     27.   we are good at coordinating with known entities, but not others
     28.   some duplication of services because of it – similar efforts in overlap
     29.   access is primarily a coordination problem, but money drives it

D.   Planning and coordination:
     1.    coordinated services
     2.    case management – not enough to just point people in the right direction
     3.    see comments in other sections

E.   Substance abuse:
     1.    need treatment beds for HIV/AIDS and substance abuse – true in general
     2.    especially for multiple diagnoses
     3.    need treatment beds for domestic violence survivors
     4.    abused children also need treatment
     5.    need access to treatment for alcohol abuse – farmworkers
     6.    growing problem, especially the acknowledgment of it
     7.    not enough service providers
                 i. residential: only a certain number of beds, with wait lists
                ii. outpatient: limited resources and effectively a waiting list; therefore, fewer services,
                    different levels of care
     8.    need after-residential care: supportive/supported housing
     9.    no coordination with other service providers – regs won’t allow it

F.   Specific services and needs:
     1.    need places for services to be delivered in more public places
     2.    domestic violence prevention treatment, especially at schools
     3.    legal services to special needs clients – expanded, including immigration
     4.    overcome barriers to employment, including youth
     5.    expansion of child counseling

G.   Bureaucracy:
     1.    need consistent funding, especially for operations, but federal programs don’t allow
     2.    Catch-22 of federal requirements: can’t work while on SSI, so client can never get out of poverty
     3.    another barrier is CDBG program requirements – length of grant too short, can’t plan strategically
           because you’re never sure if you’ll get funding year to year
                           SENIOR ISSUES FOCUS GROUP
                                FOLLOW-UP NOTES
                                 JANUARY 18, 2000

General Observations
Ø    Participants saw the lack of housing and poor transportation network as critical to
     the success of their programs.
Ø    When asked to rank the relative importance of the needs they identified,
     affordable housing was at the top of the list, while transportation was ranked a
     close second.
Ø    Participants noted a pervasive problem with coordination/collaboration/planning
     that made it difficult for both clients and providers to know where to get the help
     they need.
Ø    Access to services –in terms of transportation as well as information – was seen
     as also a critical problem to developing an appropriate network of care

Major Groupings of Needs
A.   Affordable housing
      1.    housing production geared to new workers, creating intense need
      2.    aging in place issues – design, accessibility
      3.    expiring Section 8 rents

B.   Transportation
      1.    not uniform system of transit
      2.    need to coordinate affordable hsg and transit
      3.    many can’t get to the senior center nearest them
      4.    some senior coalitions trying to address transportation problems
      5.    barrier is cost as well as coordination
      6.    countywide and regional problem
      7.    paratransit vouchers, state taxi script and Caltrans $$ available but more private support
            needed
      8.    although it would take millions to address this issue, there are modest ways to improve
            the problem

C.   Respite/Day Care:
      1.    some areas with adequate services for respite/day care
      2.    need more options for Alzheimer’s
      3.    daily respite/adult day care
      4.    more people working outside of the home, fewer home care givers
      5.    legislation needed to require certain # of beds earmarked for LI
      6.    there are some services for the impaired (disabled access)
      7.    dementia/Alzheimer’s well served if you have the funds; LI not served
      8.    support to care givers less vital than direct services
      9.    barrier: short term funding cycles
      10.   barrier: diverse populations – cultural diversity
      11.   barrier: bureaucratic paperwork
      12.   funds needed to address less than for housing and transit but still needed

D.   Planning and organization:
      1.    lack of integration between services
      2.    presents a serious problem for doing our work
      3.    some collaboration between agencies, often born out of necessity
      4.    no long-range planning
      5.    we do things on a case management basis rather than big picture
      6.    agencies have individual identities so some collaboration may not be possible because of
             turf
      7.    need to rethink services to ensure they are addressing needs
       8.      lack of coordination between various communities in the County
       9.      BUT, need parallel track – not one size fits all
       10.     County needs to be more involved to deliver services
       11.     On Lok model – how to provide services in an integrated approach
       12.     Continuum of Care model – create network (HUD idea) to build in this component
       13.     corporate buy-in connecting workers with seniors

E.     Access and education
       1.      need education for care givers
       2.      lack of info to seniors – some available but not accessible
       3.      medical services – access
       4.      mental health services – access
       5.      affordability issue – some available but can’t afford it
       6.      info and referral – some centers provide this
       7.      need education at whatever level they are at
       8.      maintaining information is a fulltime job
       9.      difficult for users to access – not everyone can use a computer
       10.     need a media campaign to address information concerns

F.     Mental Health needs:
       1.      loneliness and isolation
       2.      geriatric services – psych units needed
       3.      elder abuse (increasing reports of physical neglect as well as emotional and financial
                abuse)
       4.      elder suicide – increasing incidence esp. because of perceived shame and stigma of
                getting psychological help
       5.      need to address premature discharge and planning
       6.      barrier: lack of valuing our elders
       7.      not enough geropsych workers
       8.      “Kevorkian issue” – I would rather be dead
       9.      can’t improve quality – social/spiritual issue of what it means to live
       10.     self neglect
       11.     alcohol and prescription drug abuse
       12.     easier to manage with access and options

Statistical information:
       Cost of housing
       Inflation
       Increase in age cohort – need to be planning for it
       Little planning with coming age problem
                                 YOUTH ISSUES FOCUS GROUP
                                     FOLLOW-UP NOTES
                                      JANUARY 31, 2000

General Observations
Ø    Participants saw the lack of options for at-risk youth as a significant problem.
Ø    There needs to be more attention given to “cultural competency” – addressing the needs
     of special subpopulations of youth at-risk.
Ø    Substance abuse is an increasing problem, compounded by youth culture that sees
     drugs as “cool.”
Ø    At-risk kids also need significant job training – they don’t see getting an adequate
     education as important.

Major Groupings of Needs
A.   Training/Job Skills
      1.    lack of access to computers/technology – requires educational support
      2.    kids aren’t going to college and can’t get a job because they have no skills – need training/skills to
            become independent
      3.    this is a big problem in the county
      4.    there is no workforce trained for high tech
      5.    can’t work in McDonald’s and expect to get a living wage
      6.    issues about hope – this gives kids a chance if they have a sense of hope
      7.    need career counseling – a dying art
      8.    problem is throughout CCC
      9.    school districts don’t place that much emphasis – some schools better than others
      10.   available: Pittsburg’s Redevelopment Agency has a program for computers
      11.   available: west CCC has youth one-stop to develop jobs skills
      12.   pretty urgent issue, not as expensive as housing be certainly a lot of money is needed
      13.   some say it’s the schools responsibility
      14.   Workforce Investment Act -- funding for high risk
      15.   training for vocational needed
      16.   need to open up to choice

B.   Family Support
      1.    we need better ways to engage the parents in helping their kids
      2.    sometimes the barrier to getting treatment for kids is the parents’ own drug or alcohol addictions
      3.    treatment is not accessible for non-English-speaking families
      4.    no community counseling
      5.    few free or low cost community counseling centers
      6.    lack of trust – language issue
      7.    no strong ethnic organizations
      8.    need day care centers
      9.    mismatch with working poor – people working above income limits need help too
      10.   need more moderate income programs
      11.   this issue is a high priority
      12.   funding issue – not the resources compared with the whole
      13.   need to take a family systems approach
      14.    there are some services in Central CCC, less in the east
      15.   we don’t engage with family early enough – need to get them younger
      16.   categorical funding issue – can use money on very small segments of pop. For specific things
      17.   can’t attract qualified staff because the funding isn’t there
      18.   more expensive – labor intensive kind of case management
      19.   must pay a premium for multi-language counseling
      20.   cheaper to fragment care
     21.   need family support earlier – prevention
     22.   multiple services/orgs – bring all to the family
     23.   collaboration is expensive
     24.   how do you get the family engaged in the first place? Need lots of collaboration to see the red
           flags early on
     25.   difficult to make connections
     26.   some help from schools – juvenile officers

C.   Alternatives for Youth:
     1.    no space for teens, like gym or community center – problem throughout CCC
     2.    gang youth wanting other opportunities – want to get out and can’t
     3.    support kids who are truly at risk
     4.    no alternatives to hanging out especially East CCC
     5.    there activities/alternatives will serve the truly at risk
     6.    few things are safe/affordable
     7.    harder for kids to be self-motivated – kids trying to be anti-culture, see rebellion as freedom
     8.    youth too young for work too old for child care
     9.    funding is spread so thin – need after school programs for ages 12-15: those are the ones
           hanging out
     10.   “kids use and get pregnant in the afternoon”
     11.   need services neighborhood focused in approach
     12.   global teen centers don’t work – access problems, too far away
     13.   need some system that is decentralized
     14.   can’t get a bus after group time – can’t use buses because of union issues, etc.
     15.   need more collaboration with schools and community groups, Recreation Departments
     16.   makes sense to make the schools the youth centers but lots of barriers:
                  i. transportation, etc.
                 ii. teachers underpaid, overworked
                iii. generally understaffed
                iv. maybe others can provide the help?

D.   “Cultural Competency”:
     1.    gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered youth: hard to socialize; need encouragement, space;
           problem of attitudes people hold
     2.    provide education on gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered issues – at the school, etc. to create
           welcoming spaces
     3.    need to know how to handle youth kicked out of house because of being
           gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered
     4.    need to retrain staff to deal with group home kids – support groups?
     5.    little ethnic/cultural resources
     6.    lots of progress on these issues but not addressed fully
     7.    education will help
     8.    people need to be well informed
     9.    multi-layered issue: government, businesses, schools
     10.   need culturally competent services

E.   “The Evil Empire Fiefdoms” : Bureaucratic Barriers, etc.:
     1.    funding is categorical – lack of flexibility in use of funds
     2.    hard to navigate the system
     3.    need more outreach on the steps in the system
     4.    transportation – difficult access is a barrier, etc.
     5.    we should discard the notion that there should be no duplication of services – we need to offer
           choices, esp. for adolescents
     6.    there should be many different activities, since not everyone will resonate with the same ones
     7.    the bulk of choices are in Central CCC – the dilemma of location
     8.    categories should be broader – talk about total services, not specifics
     9.    public funding issue
     10.   structure by design: under fund an orgs’ infrastructure or make it too difficult to comply…then it’s
           not worth it to allocate to anything but personnel
     11.   pressure to fund operating costs
     12.   self-evaluation is important but we have to bear the cost out of pocket
     13.   accountability is important but who pays?
     14.   no one pays for us to evaluate our own process
     15.   can’t learn from own outcomes
     16.   always scrambling for funding -- never know what funding you’ll get
     17.   sustainability issue
     18.   we need multi-year funding

Uncategorized comments:
     1.    drug and alcohol abuse – big problem among youth in CCC
     2.    but there are available treatment beds – they are not coming in for treatment
     3.    not seeing an increase of lower income people seeking treatment
     4.    youth acceptance of drug culture, therefore can’t get participation
 APPENDIX A

THEMATIC MAPS
  APPENDIX B

    TABLE 2A:
PRIORITY HOUSING
     NEEDS
                                          Table 2A
                               Priority Needs Summary Table
PRIORITY                                                        Priority Need
HOUSING NEEDS                                                       Level                   Unmet          Goals‡
(households) Contra Costa County,                               High, Medium,               Need†
CA.                                                                 Low*

                                                               0-30%             H               2227               45

                              Small Related§                  31-50%             H               1733             560

                                                              51-80%            M                1852             130

                                                               0-30%             H                 686              10

                              Large Related                   31-50%             H                 668              50

                                                              51-80%            M                  565              20

Renter                                                         0-30%             H               1378               50

                              Elderly                         31-50%             H               1108             370

                                                              51-80%            M                  491              60

                                                               0-30%            M                1595                0

                              All Other**                     31-50%            M                1421                0

                                                              51-80%            M                1621                0

                                                               0-30%            M                3183                5

Owner                                                         31-50%             H               2725               85

                                                              51-80%            M                3846             290

Special Populations ††                                         0-80%             H                 500            150

Total Goals                                                                                                     1,825

Total 215 Goals‡‡                                                                                               1,490




      *
         “Priority Need Level” is defined as follows: High priority means activities to address this need will be funded by
the County with federal funds, usually with the investment of other public or private funds during the Consolidated Plan
period. Medium priority means if funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the locality with
federal funds, usually with the investment of other public or private funds during the Consolidated Plan period. Also, the
locality will take other actions to help this group locate other sources of funds. Low priority means the County will not
fund activities to address this need during the Plan period. The locality will consider certifications of consistency for
other entities’ applications for federal assistance.
                                                       Table 2A
                                            Priority Needs Summary Table
                                                         Cont.
      †
           Based on 1990 Census data.

     ‡
       Goals include projects funded by the County with the following resources: CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, County
Redevelopment Agency, Mortgage Revenue Bonds, and Mortgage Credit Certificates.

       These goals were established assuming a constant level of funds over the next five years. County CDBG funds
are available for projects located in the Urban County. HOME funds are available for projects located in the Consortium
area, including Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek as well as the Urban County. HOPWA funds may be
used for projects located throughout the County. Consequently, the housing goals included in this table may include
some projects funded with HOME and HOPWA funds located in the County or Consortium area as well as in the Urban
County.

      §
         As defined by HUD, a “Small Related” household (HH) is a household of 2 to 4 persons which includes at least
one person related to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption. A “Large Related” HH is a household of 5 or
more persons which includes at least one person related to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption. An
“Elderly” HH is a 1 or 2 person household in which the head of the household or spouse is at least 62 years of age.
“Special Populations” include households of one or more persons containing at least one person with a disability, (i.e.
mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families) or alcohol or other drug addiction that may
require housing with supportive services. “Other” refers to households of one or more persons that do not meet the
definition of a small related, large related, elderly, or special populations households.

      **
           Goals to meet this population are included with the goals for small and large related households.

      ††
            These numbers include goals for homeless and special needs populations.

      ‡‡
            Section 215 Affordable Housing is defined as follows:

                  1.    Rental Housing: A rental housing unit is considered to be an affordable housing unit if it is occupied
           by an extremely-low, very-low, or low -income household and bears a rent that is the lesser of (A) the existing
           Section 8 Fair Market Rent for comparable units in the area or, (B) 30% of the adjusted income of a family
           whose income equals 65% of the median income for the area, except that HUD may establish income ceilings
           higher or lower than 65% of the median income because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market
           rents, or unusually high or low family incomes.

                 2.    Homeownership:

                  A. Housing that is for purchase (with or without rehabilitation) qualifies as affordable housing if it (i) is
           purchased by an extremely-low, very-low, or low -income first-time homebuyer who will make the housing his
           or her principal residence and; (ii) has a sale price that does not exceed the mortgage limit for the type of single
           family housing for the area under HUD’s single family insuring authority under the National Housing Act.

                  B. Housing that is to be rehabilitated, but is already owned by a family when assistance is provided,
           qualifies as affordable housing if the housing (i) is occupied by an extremely-low, very-low, or low -income
           household which uses the house as its principal residence and; (ii) has a value, after rehabilitation, that does
           not exceed the mortgage limit for the type of single family housing for the area, as described in (A) above.
 APPENDIX C

TABLE 1A: GAPS
  ANALYSIS
                                 TABLE 1A: HOMELESS AND SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 2000-2005*



                                                                                                                                         FIVE-YEAR
                                                                                ESTIMATED          CURRENT            UNMET              RELATIVE
                                   HOMELESS POPULATIONS                           NEED            INVENTORY          NEED/GAP            PRIORITY**
                                                               INDIVIDUALS
                         EMERGENCY SHELTER                                395                                 214             -181           M
BEDS/UNITS               TRANSITIONAL HOUSING                             456                                 201             -255           H
                         PERMANENT HOUSING                                543                                 271             -272           H
                         TOTAL                                          1,394                                 686             -708
                         OPERATING SUPPORT FOR SHELTERS                 1,394                                 686             -708           H
                         JOB TRAINING                                     762                                 162             -600           M
ESTIMATED                CASE MANAGEMENT                                1,394                                 771             -623           H
SUPPORTIVE               SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT                        739                                 263             -476           M
SERVICES                 MENTAL HEALTH CARE                               976                                 337             -639           M
SLOTS                    HOUSING PLACEMENT                                967                                 309             -658           H
                         LIFE SKILLS TRAINING                           1,394                                 407             -987           M
                         REPRESENTATIVE/PAYEE MONEY MGMT                  956                                 369             -587           M
                         CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSERS                        572                                 171             -401           H
                         SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL                           237                                 122             -115           H
                         DUALLY-DIAGNOSED                                 167                                 151              -16           M
ESTIMATED                VETERANS                                         223                                  15             -208           L
SUB-                     PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS                            320                                  37             -283           H
POPULATIONS              VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE                     209                                  23             -186           H
                         YOUTH                                             70                                  18              -52           M
                                                      PERSONS IN FAMILIES W/CHILDREN
                         EMERGENCY SHELTER                                616                                 286             -330           H
BEDS/UNITS               TRANSITIONAL HOUSING                           1,588                                 367           -1,221           H
                         PERMANENT HOUSING                                683                                 296             -387           M
                         TOTAL                                          2,887                                 949           -1,938
                         OPERATING SUPPORT FOR SHELTERS                 2,887                                 949           -1,938           H
                         JOB TRAINING                                     877                                 123             -754           M
ESTIMATED                CASE MANAGEMENT                                1,042                                 340             -702           H
SUPPORTIVE               CHILD CARE                                       782                                  53             -729           M
SERVICES                 SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT                        554                                  78             -476           M
SLOTS                    MENTAL HEALTH CARE                               385                                  42             -343           M
                         HOUSING PLACEMENT                                940                                 177             -763           H
                         LIFE SKILLS TRAINING                           1,042                                 211             -831           H
                         REPRESENTATIVE/PAYEE MONEY MGMT                  325                                  53             -272           M
                         CHRONIC SUBSTANCE ABUSERS                        429                                 124             -305           H
                         SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL                           177                                  35             -142           H
ESTIMATED                DUALLY-DIAGNOSED                                 125                                  39              -86           M
SUB-                     VETERANS                                         167                                   5             -162           L
POPULATIONS              PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS                            240                                  17             -223           H
                         VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE                     156                                  55             -101           H

* This table presents the Consortium's five-year priorities for the provision of housing and support services for homeless and special needs
populations. These priorities will be reviewed as part of the FY2001/06 Continuum of Care planning process.

**The priorities shown here represent the Consortium's priorities for funding during the life of the Consolidated Plan. Therefore, the
priority levels here may not be consistent with the Continuum of Care's priority levels.




                                                                  Revised 6/9/2001
  APPENDIX D

UNITS AT RISK OF
CONVERSION TO
 MARKET RATE
               INVENTORY OF UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE, BY CONVERSION RISK (1999)

                                                         FHA       Owner   Sec. 8 Exp.   Rent   Rent                             Sec. 8 Total
          Project Name                  City           Program      Type      Date       %FMR   %Mkt     Risk Assessment         Units Units

LOW RISK PROJECTS
Anitoch Rivertown Senior               Antioch           202        NP     10/13/2013    59%           Low -- Restricted or NP      50     50
Hudson Townhouse Manor                 Antioch         236(j)(1)    LD      9/30/1999    66%           Low -- Restricted or NP      70     70
Hudson Townhouse Manor                 Antioch         236(j)(1)    LD      3/31/2000    66%           Low -- Restricted or NP      49     49
Willowbrook Apts                      Bay Point        221(d)(4)    PM     11/27/2003    107%   143%   Low -- Rents > Market        72     72
Sycamore Place                        Brentwood          202        NP      7/15/2017    51%           Low -- Restricted or NP      40     40
Kirker Court                           Clayton         202/162      NP     11/30/2013    66%           Low -- Restricted or NP      20     20
La Vista Apartments                    Concord                              3/14/2013     119           Low -- post 2005 exp.       75     75
Concord Green                          Concord         221(d)(3)    LD     12/31/1998    98%           Low -- Restricted or NP      57     57
Concord Residential Club               Concord          202/8       NP       2/3/2012    133%          Low -- Restricted or NP      19     19
Phoenix Apartments                     Concord          202/8       NP     12/13/2002    164%          Low -- Restricted or NP      11     11
The Heritage                           Concord         236(j)(1)    NP     11/30/1998    49%           Low -- Restricted or NP      40     40
The Heritage                           Concord         236(j)(1)    NP      7/31/1999    52%           Low -- Restricted or NP      81     81
Aspen Court                      Contra Costa County     811        NP       9/9/2003     0%           Low -- Restricted or NP
Pres. Theodore Roosevelt Manor        El Cerrito        202/8       NP      7/10/2006    120%          Low -- Restricted or NP      63     63
Creekside Terrace                    El Sobrante       236(j)(1)    LD     10/16/1999    86%           Low -- Restricted or NP      56     56
El Sobrante Silvercrest              El Sobrante         202        NP      1/31/2014    47%           Low -- Restricted or NP      49     49
Chateau Lafeyette                     Lafayette                             8/28/2018    104%           Low -- post 2005 exp.       67     67
Emerson Arms                           Martinez        236(j)(1)    NP      2/28/2000    112%          Low -- Restricted or NP      32     32
Orinda Senior Village              Orinda Village       202/8       NP     11/16/2003    129%          Low -- Restricted or NP     150    150
Columbia Park Manor                    Pittsburg         202        NP     12/13/2017    46%           Low -- Restricted or NP      78     78

Lido Square I                         Pittsburg        236(j)(1)             8/311/99    74%           Low -- Restricted or NP    124   124
Lido Square I                         Pittsburg        236(j)(1)            1/31/1999    68%           Low -- Restricted or NP      3     3
Lido Square II                        Pittsburg        236(j)(1)    LD      8/31/1999    73%           Low -- Restricted or NP     40    40
Lido Square II                        Pittsburg        236(j)(1)    LD      1/31/1999    72%           Low -- Restricted or NP      3     3
Pittsburg Plaza Apts                  Pittsburg                     NP       6/9/1999    70%           Low -- Restricted or NP    125   125
Stoneman Village                      Pittsburg         202/8       NP      9/14/2001    130%          Low -- Restricted or NP    145   145
Stoneman Village II                   Pittsburg          202        NP      9/30/2015    70%           Low -- Restricted or NP     60    60
Chilpancingo Vista                  Pleasant Hill       202/8       NP      8/31/2002    152%          Low -- Restricted or NP     25    25
El Portal Gardens                    San Pablo         221(d)(4)    PM       3/2/1999    119%   132%   Low -- Rents > Market       81    81
Rumrill Gardens                      San Pablo         221(d)(4)    PM      12/5/2003    140%   182%   Low -- Rents > Market       60    60
Tice Oaks                           Walnut Creek                            2/11/2011    117%           Low -- post 2005 exp.      91    91
Casa Montego                        Walnut Creek        202/8       NP     11/29/2009    119%          Low -- Restricted or NP     79    79
                                                                                                                          TOTAL 1,915 1,915
MEDIUM RISK PROJECTS
Clayton Gardens                       Concord          221(d)(4)    PM      9/4/1999     106%   114%          Medium               130    130
Clayton Villa                         Concord          221(d)(4)    PM     9/30/1999     100%   107%          Medium                79     79
East Santa Fe Ave Apts                Pittsburg        236(j)(1)    LD     3/31/1999     96%    112%          Medium                19     19
Pleasant Hill Village               Pleasant Hill      221(d)(4)    PM      1/4/1999     113%   106%          Medium               101    101
                                                                                                                         TOTAL     329    329
HIGH RISK PROJECTS
Woods Manor                           Pittsburg        236(j)(1)           7/31/1999     69%    99%             High                45     45
Woods Manor                           Pittsburg        236(j)(1)           6/30/1999     71%                    High                32     32
                                                                                                                         TOTAL      77     77
  APPENDIX E

 JANUARY 2000
“STREET SHEET”
 APPENDIX F

 INVENTORY OF
ASSISTED UNITS
  APPENDIX G

PARTIAL LISTING
 OF SUPPORT
  SERVICES
                                HOMELESS SERVICES AND FACILITIES

The following is a partial listing of services and facilities addressing homeless concerns
in the County. Unless otherwise noted, hours of operation and other operating
information for homeless facilities and services can be found on the Street Sheets in the
previous Appendix.

FOOD                                                            Food Pantries
Meals/Soup Kitchens                                                Antioch Brown Bag
   Bread of Life                                                   Concerted Services
   Family and Community Services (MOW                              Contra Costa Food Bank
    Program)                                                       Hillcrest
   Loaves & Fishes- Martinez, Concord, Pittsburg                   Richmond Food Pantry
   Richmond Rescue Mission                                         St. Anthony's, Oakley
   Richmond Souper Center                                          Salvation Army
   Diablo Valley AIDS Center                                       San Pablo Food Pantry
                                                                   Share

CLOTHING                                                            Richmond Rescue Mission
   Cambridge Community Center                                       Richmond Souper Center
   Community Clothes Closet                                         St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Shop
   Hillcrest Church                                                 Salvation Army
   Human Resource Building, Antioch
HEALTH SERVICES                                                 Drug and Alcohol Services/Programs
Medical/Counseling Services                                        Alano Club - center for recovering substance
                                1
   Contra Costa AIDS Program                                        abusers
   County Clinics                                                  Alcohol & Drug Abuse Council - crisis
   County Mental Health Services/Clinics                            counseling, phone intervention, drunk driving
   Diablo Valley Lions for the Blind                                program
   Health Care for the Homeless Project                            Concord Fellowship - provides AA meetings
   HIV Testing & Counseling                                        County Alcohol Program (AIRS) - counseling,
   Martin Luther King Health Services                               phone intervention, drunk driving and referrals
   Phoenix Program/Multi-Service Centers -                         East County Detox Center
    serving the mentally disabled                                  Jesse Holloman Detox - serves single males
   Turning Point - sexual abuse counseling                          and females
                                                                   New Connections - substance abuse
                                                                    counseling
                                                                   REACH Project, Inc.
                                                                   St. Vincent de Paul - drug testing
                                                                   San Pablo Discovery Center - full-scale
                                                                    outpatient treatment for clients and their
                                                                    families
                                                                   Shennum Center Detox - 20 bed facility serving
                                                                    single males and females
                                                                   Sojourne - outpatient treatment based on
                                                                    sliding scale and MediCal payments


INFORMATION AND REFERRAL                                            Independent Living Resource - information and
   Assistance League                                                 referral for the disabled

     1
      The Contra Costa AIDS Program is a division of the County Health Services Department. Services are provided through
contracts with Diablo Valley AIDS Center, Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council, CAN/Tranquillium, New Connections,
SHELTER, Inc., Catholic Charities of the East Bay, DF/Familias Unidas, adnt he Hawkins Center.
   Battered Women's Alternatives                         Love Inc.
   Bay Area Crisis Nursery - emergency                   Mental Health Associates
    residence for children, ages 0 to 5 years            Ombudsman
   Center for New Americans                              Rape Crisis Center
   Contact Care - 24-hour telephone helpline             San Ramon Community Services
   Crisis & Suicide Intervention                         SSI/SSA Information
   Delta Services Far E. County                          United Way Helpline
   Diablo Valley Foundation for the Elderly              Widow/Widowers Network
   East County I & R                                     A Women's Center

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
  Employment Development Department
  Family and Community Services - in-home care provider training program and referral service
  Phoenix Enterprises - Countywide employment services for individuals with disabilities.
  Private Industry Council
  Rubicon - Employment and training services for the homeless.

LEGAL ASSISTANCE
   Contra Costa County Legal Services Foundation - Low-income County residents are eligible for free
    service.

DAY CENTERS
  Cambridge Community Center - provides a variety of services to people in need; e.g., emergency
   food, clothing, homeless assistance, youth programs, child care, senior services, household budget
   counseling and emotional support and outreach.
  Phoenix Program-Multi-Service Centers - provide advocacy, case management, and other core
   services to homeless people with mental disabilities.

VOUCHER AND OTHER PROGRAMS
  Bay Area Crisis Nursery - provides no-cost emergency residential care for children from ages birth to
   5 years old, whose families are undergoing a crisis. Length of stay is typically 24 hours to one
   week. Longer stays can be arranged if the situation necessitates it. The facility, located in Concord,
   serves families throughout Contra Costa County as well as the Bay Area.
  Crisis and Suicide Intervention - with funding from FEMA, provides motel vouchers for battered
   women and homeless individuals and families.
  Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council - with Ryan White funding, provides motel vouchers for
   homeless persons with HIV/AIDS.
  Neighborhood House of North Richmond - with funding from FEMA, provides emergency motel
   vouchers for homeless individuals and families.
  St. Vincent de Paul - with funding from FEMA, provides emergency motel vouchers for individuals
   and families.
  SHARE - operates a limited motel voucher program with contributions from Concord area churches.
   Vouchers are provided for women and children with no other available shelter resources and are
   limited to one night.
  Shelter, Inc. - operates a small privately funded motel voucher program for families. Beginning
   January, 1994, an expanded motel voucher program (270 vouchers) funded by the State will be in
   effect for one year. The target population may include families as well as others in need.
  APPENDIX H

CONTINUUM OF CARE
RECOMMENDATIONS
 APPENDIX I

  TABLE 2B:
PRIORITY NON-
  HOUSING
 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
   NEEDS
Community Needs - CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Anti-Crime Programs
                                                   Need Level    Units         Estimated $

 Overall                                           Med              5,000      $   25,000

Sub-Categories
 Crime Awareness (051)                             Med              5,000      $   25,000


 Economic Development
                                                   Need Level    Units         Estimated $

 Overall                                           Med                   191   $ 675,000

Sub-Categories
 Rehab, Publicly or Privately Owned Commer (14E)   Low                    10   $   75,000
 CL Land Acquisition/Disposition (17A)             None                    0
 CL Infrastructure Development (17B)               None                    0
 CL Building Acquisition, Construction, Re (17C)   Low                     1   $ 100,000
 Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements (17D)    None                    0
 ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Pro (18A)   Low                     5   $ 50,000
 ED Technical Assistance (18B)                     High                  100   $ 150,000
 Micro-Enterprise Assistance (18C)                 High                   75   $ 300,000

 Infrastructure
                                                   Need Level    Units         Estimated $

 Overall                                           Med                   153   $ 1,710,000

Sub-Categories
 Flood Drain Improvements (03I)                    Med                     1   $   310,000
 Water/Sewer Improvements (03J)                    Med                     1   $   500,000
 Street Improvements (03K)                         Med                     3   $   500,000
 Sidewalks (03L)                                   Low                     8   $   100,000
 Tree Planting (03N)                               Low                   100   $   100,000
 Removal of Architectural Barriers (10)            High                   40   $   200,000
 Privately Owned Utilities (11)                    None                    0


 Planning & Administration
                                                   Need Level   Units          Estimated $

 Overall                                           High                        $ 765,000

Sub-Categories




Walnut Creek
Community Needs (Page 2) CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Public Facilities
                                                   Need Level   Units        Estimated $

 Overall                                           Med                  18   $ 18,807,700

Sub-Categories
 Public Facilities and Improvement (Gener (03)     High                  6   $ 18,150,000
 Handicapped Centers (03B)                         Low                   1   $     10,000
 Neighborhood Facilities (03E)                     Low                   1   $     10,000
 Parks, Recreational Facilities (03F)              Med                   1   $    317,000
 Parking Facilities (03G)                          Low                   1   $     10,000
 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements (03H)           None                  0   $
 Fire Stations/Equipment (030)                     None                  0   $
 Health Facilities (03P)                           Low                   1   $     10,000
 Asbestos Removal (03R)                            Med                   4   $    100,000
 Clean-up of Contaminated Sites (04A)              Med                   2   $    100,000
 Interim Assistance (06)                           None                  0   $
 Non-Residential Historic Preservation (16B)       Low                   1   $     10,000


 Public Services
                                                   Need Level   Units        Estimated $

 Overall                                           High           17,675     $ 3,575,000

Sub-Categories
 Public Services (General) (05)                    High            9,000     $   900,000
 Handicapped Services (05B)                        High              375     $   200,000
 Legal Services (05C)                              High              400     $   250,000
 Transportation Services (05E)                     Med               100     $    75,000
 Substance Abuse Services (05F)                    High              300     $   300,000
 Employment Training (05H)                         High              500     $   250,000
 Health Services (05M)                             High            1,000     $   300,000
 Mental Health Services (050)                      High            5,000     $   700,000
 Screening for Lead Based Paint/Lead Hazar (05P)   High            1,000     $   550,000

 Senior Programs
                                                   Need Level   Units        Estimated $

 Overall                                           High

Sub-Categories
 Senior Centers (03A)                              Low                 2     $ 400,000
 Senior Services (05A)                             High           10,000     $ 1,200,000




Walnut Creek
Community Needs (Page 3) CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Youth Programs
                                                   Need Level   Units       Estimated $

 Overall                                           Med             7,403    $   3,000,000

Sub-Categories
 Youth Centers (03D)                               Med                 1    $   1,200,000
 Child Care Centers (03M)                          Low                 1    $     200,000
 Abused and Neglected Children Facilities (03Q)    Med                 1    $     200,000
 Youth Services (05D)                              High            5,700    $     600,000
 Child Care Services (05L)                         Med               500    $     300,000
 Abused and Neglected Children (05N)               High            1,200    $     500,000


 Other
                                                   Need Level   Units       Estimated $

 Overall                                           Low                  5   $    50,000

Sub-Categories
 Urban Renewal Completion                          None                     $
 CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity Bui (19C)   Med                  5   $    50,000
 CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher E (19D)   None                     $
 Repayments of Section 108 Loan Principal (19F)    None                     $
 Unprogrammed Funds (22)                           None                     $




Walnut Creek
   APPENDIX J

 TABLES 1C AND 2C:
 HOMELESS/SPECIAL
NEEDS, HOUSING, AND
    COMMUNITY
   DEVELOPMENT
    OBJECTIVES
                                                 Table1C1
                        Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Populations Objectives,
                                     (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)

   Applicant’s Name Contra Costa County

   HOUSING—HOMELESS/SPECIAL POPULATIONS 2
   Priority Need Category
   ADOPT THE CONTINUUM OF CARE PLAN AS THE OVERALL APPROACH TO ADDRESSING
   HOMELESSNESS IN THE CONSORTIUM (H-5)

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-5
   Work with the Continuum of Care Board to reassess the needs of homeless and at-risk populations and
   develop and adopt a new five-year Continuum of Care (CoC) Plan consistent with the Consortium’s
   Consolidated Plan. The CoC Plan will include goals, strategies, and priorities to guide the use of federal,
   state, and local resources, programs, and actions to alleviate homelessness in Contra Costa.
   Priority Need Category
   ASSIST THE HOMELESS AND AT-RISK OF HOMELESSNESS BY PROVIDING EMERGENCY,
   TRANSITIONAL, AND PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT
   SERVICES (H-6)
   Specific Objective
   Number: H-6.A
   The County will increase the supply of transitional housing for households with children by 40 to 50 units,
   including the new construction of 20 apartments in East County and the development of 20 to 25
   apartments in West County for this purpose.

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-6.B
   The County will increase the supply of emergency shelter for homeless adults by 40 to 50 beds.


   Priority Need Category
   INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF APPROPRIATE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
   POPULATIONS (H-7)
   Specific Objective
   Number: H-7.A
   The County will increase the supply of affordable rental housing with appropriate support services for
   special needs populations, including the disabled, persons with substance abuse problems, and victims of
   domestic violence. Specific objectives include 50 units of housing to be affordable to and occupied by
   special needs households with extremely-low incomes and 40 units for households with very-low incomes.

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-7.B
   The Housing Authority of County of Contra Costa will expand the Shelter Plus Care program by 50 to 60
   participants per year as the budget allows. This program serves very-low income special needs adults.




     1
       This Table presents Contra Costa County’s objectives over a five-year period unless otherwise specified. The County will
accomplish these objectives using a combination of CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG and other funds available to the County.
     2
       Objectives for housing priorities 1-4, 8, and 9 are included in Table 2C.

Contra Costa
                                           Table 1C
                   Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Populations Objectives
                                (Table 1A/B Continuation Sheet)


Applicant’s Name          City of Antioch




Priority Need Category:   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

     Priority #CD-1: Reduce the number of persons below the poverty level, expand economic
   opportunities for low- income residents and increase the viability of neighborhood commercial
                                               areas.




Specific Objective #1

Provide support to develop and assist in maintaining 15 new licensed family child care businesses for low-
income Antioch residents between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #2

Provide funds for the creation and retention of 120 low-income jobs for Antioch residents between PY 2000
and 2005.




Priority Need Category: INFRASTRUCTURE/PUBLIC FACILITIES

    Priority #CD-2: Maintain quality recreational, public facilities, and adequate infrastructure and
                               ensure access for the mobility impaired.




Specific Objective #1

Provide streetscape, landscaping, road, sidewalk and other improvements to the West Rivertown Focus
Area between 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #2

Provide assistance to 10 low-income homeowners to pay for sidewalk repairs for their properties between
2000 and 2005.




Antioch
Priority Need Category: HOMELESS SERVICES

      Priority #CD-4: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the
                                             homeless.




Specific Objective #1

Provide emergency information and referral services; landlord counseling and mediation service; community
seminars for 3000 low-income Antioch residents between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #2

Provide advice/assistance/ and legal representation regarding housing and benefit related issues
(especially eviction prevention) to 1200 persons at risk of homelessness between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #3

Provide meals for approximately 2000 low-income Antioch residents each year between PY 2000 and
2005.


Specific Objective #4

Provide information and referral services for homeless services (including services to place homeless
individuals in homeless shelters) for 3000 people between PY 2000 and 2005.




Priority Need Category:           SPECIAL NEEDS PROGRAMS

Priority CD-#5: Ensure access to programs that promote prevention and early intervention related to
 a variety of social concerns such as domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, and illiteracy.

  Priority CD-#6: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve the quality of life
  and independence for persons with special needs such as frail elderly, disabled persons, migrant
   farm workers, abused children, those with substance abuse problems, illiterate adults, battered
                                spouses and persons with HIV/AIDS.




Specific Objective #1

Provide assistance with case management and counseling services to 4000 low-income victims of
domestic violence between PY 2000 and 2005.




Specific Objective #2


Antioch
Provide self-help training for 300 low-income blind Antioch residents between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #3

Provide 550 handicapped individuals with self- support assistance intended to promote independence
between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #4

Provide support services to 125 low-income residents suffering from HIV/AIDS between PY 2000 and 2005.




Priority Need Category: FAMILY SERVICES

   Priority #8: Promote and support programs that assist families to be safe, stable, and nurturing.




Specific Objective #1

Provide comprehensive in-home case management and counseling services for 35 low-income families with
children at high risk of neglect and abuse between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #2

Provide financial assistance for 200 low-income Antioch residents to access essential medical services
between PY 2000 and 2005.




Priority Need Category:         SENIOR CITIZEN SERVICES

          Priority #9: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and enable them to maintain
                                               independence


Specific Objective #1

Provide daily activities for 1700 elderly low-income Antioch residents annually for each year between PY
2000 and 2005


Specific Objective #2

Provide day care services for 40 low-income frail elderly Antioch residents for each year between PY 2000
and 2005.




Antioch
Specific Objective #3

Provide legal services to 225 low-income Antioch seniors between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #4

Provide one, hot meal to 100 low-income seniors, 5 days a week, between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #5

Investigate and resolve nursing home complaints and/ or provide representative payee services for 1400
elderly low-income Antioch residents between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #6

Provide hot-home delivered meals to 1250 low-income frail Antioch residents between PY 2000 and 2005.




Priority Need Category:           YOUTH SERVICES

  Priority #10: Increase opportunities for children and youth to be healthy, succeed in school, and
                                prepare for a productive adulthood


Specific Objective #1

Provide an opportunity to participate in youth recreational programs for 600 low-income Antioch youth
between PY 2000 and 2005.




Priority Need Category:           FAIR HOUSING

    Priority #12: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing.


Specific Objective #1

Provide assistance with information and legal advice for 100 low-income Antioch residents with fair housing
discrimination complaints between PY 2000 and 2005.




Antioch
                                               Table 1C
                       Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Populations Objectives
                                    (Table 1A/B Continuation Sheet)

Applicant’s Name: CONCORD, CA


                                Priority Need Category – HOUSING & HOMELESS

HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-5 – Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the overall approach to address
homelessness in the Consortium.

Specific Objective H-5.1 – Work with the Continuum of Care Board to reassess the needs of homeless
and at-risk populations and develop and adopt a new five-year Continuum of Care (CoC) Plan consistent with
the Consortium’s Consolidated Plan. The CoC Plan will include goals, strategies, and priorities to guide the
use of federal, state, and local resources, programs, and actions to alleviate homelessness in Contra Costa.

Specific Objective H-5.2 – Continue active participation as a member of the Contra Costa Homeless
Continuum of Care Advisory Board, and support the CoC Plan through funding decisions which reflect Plan
priorities.

HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-6 – Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by
providing emergency and transitional housing, permanent affordable housing, and appropriate supportive
services.
Specific Objective H-6.1 – Provide support for over 100 emergency shelter beds for Concord families
through the rotating Winter Shelter program.

Specific Objective H-6.2 –Assist in the development, expansion, or rehabilitation of emergency and
transitional housing and shelters for the homeless, and special needs facilities as appropriate.


                    Priority Need Category – HOUSING & SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS

HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-7 – Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special
needs populations.
Specific Objective H-7.1 – Assist in the development of 12 units of affordable supportive housing for
persons with disabilities.

Specific Objective H-7.2 – Assist in the development of 147 units of senior housing: 15 units affordable at
30% of area median income; 15 units at 35%; 15 units at 40%; 15 units at 45%; 15 units at 50%, 44 units
at 60%; and 28 2-bedroom units at 60%.

Specific Objective H-7.3 – Assist in the development of other affordable housing for special needs
populations as appropriate.



    1
      This Table presents Concord’s objectives over a five-year period unless otherwise specified. The City of Concord w ill
accomplish these objectives using a combination of CDBG, RDA, HOME, HOPWA, ESG and other funds available to the City.
    1
      Objectives for housing priorities 1-4, 8, and 9 are included in Table 2C.




Concord
                                             Table 1C
                     Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Populations Objectives
                                  (Table 1A/B Continuation Sheet)

Applicant’s Name PITTSBURG, CA

HOMELESS/SPECIAL NEEDS
Priority Need Category
ASSIST THE HOMELESS AND THOSE AT RISK OF BECOMING HOMELESS BY PROVIDING
EMERGENCY AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, PERMANENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND
APPROPRIATE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. (H-6)

Specific Objective
Number: H-6

Over the next year, the City will use CDBG funds to provide construction costs for an East Contra Costa
Transitional Housing Facility. The facility will provide 20 units of transitional housing for families. Once the
facility is completed, the City would anticipate assisting in some portion of the programming costs for
services provided to the residents.

Priority Need Category
INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF APPROPRIATE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
POPULATIONS. (H-7)

Specific Objective
Number: H-7

Over the next year, the City will provide funds to assist in the funding of Presidio Village, a Senior Housing
facility with 104 units of housing.

Priority Need Category
ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS: CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS PHYSICAL ACCESS
BARRIERS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AS REQUIRED THROUGH THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (CD-3)

Specific Objective
Number: CD-3

Provide funds to remove physical barriers on public roads, and to/in public facilities to provide better access
for physically handicapped residents by providing curb cuts and other handicap improvements as identified.
The City will complete 5 projects in PY 2000 – PY 2005.

Priority Need Category
SPECIAL NEEDS: ENSURE THAT OPPORTUNITIES AND SERVICES ARE PROVIDED TO IMPROVE
THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND INDEPENDENCE FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS SUCH AS
FRAIL ELDERLY, DISABLED PERSONS, MIGRANT FARM WORKERS, ABUSED CHILDREN, THOSE
WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS, ILLITERATE ADULTS, BATTERED SPOUSES AND PERSONS
WITH HIV/AIDS. (CD-6)

Specific Objective
Number: CD-6.A

Provide funds to support services to over 1000 elderly and disabled adults for the investigation of abuse,
advocacy, and other services in nursing homes, residential care, intermediate care and adult residential
care facilities.


Pittsburg
Specific Objective
Number: CD-6.B

Utilize funds to provide assistance that reaches 7,000 homeless and at-risk homeless individuals and
families, including battered spouses and their children, by funding emergency shelter, transitional housing,
meals and food, access to community resources, case management, and services to prevent and/or
reduce poverty.

Specific Objective
Number: CD-6.C

Provide funds to ensure that opportunities and services are provided for 500 physically, mentally, and
developmentally disabled persons, including those with chronic substance abuse problems and persons
living with HIV/AIDS, to maximize their potential for independent living through supported living, housing
assistance, meals and nutrition assistance, personal care referral, benefits and employment counseling,
and other services.

Priority Need Category
SENIORS: ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF SENIOR CITIZENS AND ENABLE THEM TO MAINTAIN
INDEPENDENCE. (CD-9)

Specific Objective
Number: CD-9.A

The City will use CDBG funds to assist 50 seniors with emergency home repairs.

Specific Objective
Number: CD-9.B

Provide funds to enhance the quality of life for 3000 senior citizens and enable them to remain at home and
avoid institutionalization by providing a variety of services, including free or low cost nutritional meals at
senior centers and for the homebound, transportation for frail and disabled seniors, counseling services,
legal services, in-home care, and advocacy services for those in rest homes and other facilities.




Pittsburg
                                              Table 1C
                      Summary of Specific Homeless/Special Populations Objectives
                                   (Table 1A/B Continuation Sheet)

  Applicant’s Name CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

  Priority Need Category
  H-6 – ASSIST THE HOMELESS & THOSE AT RISK F HOMELESSNESS BY PROVIDING EMERGENCY
  AND TRANSITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

  Specific Objective Number: H-6a

  Over the next year, the City will provide winter shelter space for approximately 15 weeks for 10 homeless
  individuals who are Walnut Creek residents. Annual goal: 10 people for 15 weeks

  Specific Objective Number: H-6b

  Over the next 5 years, the City will provide funding to support emergency family shelter facilities within the
  Central County area. Annual goal: 10 families

  Specific Objective Number: H-6c

  Over the next 5 years, the City will help provide funding to help develop 2 units of transitional housing within
  the Central County area for homeless individuals and families that were previously in emergency shelters.
  Annual goal: NA, 2 units total in one facility completed within the next 5 years.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-4 – HOMELESS SERVICES

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4a

  Each year, the City will provide funding to support emergency shelter spaces for 5 homeless individuals or
  families in facilities in the Central County area. Annual goal: 5 beds

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4b

  Use CDBG, City Community Services and other target City Homeless funds to provide case management,
  emergency vouchers and transportation for 350 individuals or families over the next 5 years. Annual goal:
  70 extremely low income individuals and families.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4c

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide rental assistance and tenant/landlord counseling
  services to 1,750 low-income households, in order to prevent homelessness, over the next 5 years. Annual
  goal: 350 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4d

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to support the Homeless Hotline for 500 individuals or
  families over the next 5 years. Annual goal: Hotline services for 100 extremely low-income individuals or
  families.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4e
Walnut Creek
  Over the next 5 years, the City will provide funding for programs addressing homeless individuals and
  families with HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, and mental health problems, or who are victims of domestic
  violence as well as those who need assistance with money management, child care, employment training
  and housing advocacy services.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-4f

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide parent education programs and transportation for
  75 homeless families, participating in the (Roving) Emergency Family Shelter in Central County, over the
  next 5 years. Annual goal: 15 extremely low-income families.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-5 SPECIAL NEEDS/PREVENTION

  Specific Objective Number: CD-5a

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide respite care, physical therapy, and training for
  the blind or disabled to stay in home over the next 5 years for 1,000 persons. Annual goal: 200 extremely
  low-, very low-, and low-income seniors and disabled persons.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-5b

  Use CDBG and City Community Service funds to provide substance abuse prevention counseling and
  HIV/AIDS counseling to 700 low-income persons over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 140 extremely low-,
  very low-, and low-income persons.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-5c

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide crisis intervention services for battered women,
  rape victims, and sexually abused persons, and to provide grief counseling for a total of 9,000 low-income
  persons over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 1,800 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-6 SPECIAL NEEDS/SERVICES

  Specific Objective Number: CD-6a

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide food and nutrition services to those with
  HIV/AIDS and to low income and other needy households, totaling 375 low-income households, over the
  next 5 years. Annual goal: 75 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-6B

  Use CDBG and City Community Service funds to provide services to 100 severely mentally disabled and
  developmentally disabled residents over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 20 extremely low-, very low, and
  low-income persons.




Walnut Creek
                                                Table 2C1
                   Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                     (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)

   Applicant’s Name CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

   HOUSING2
   Priority Need Category
   EXPAND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES (H-1)

   Specific Objective
   Number H-1.A (Non-elderly Renter Households)
   The County will expand and maintain affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households through
   the new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation of multi-family rental housing, including the following: 55
   units affordable to and occupied by extremely-low income households, 610 units for very-low income
   households, and 150 units for low-income households.

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-1.B (Elderly Renter Households)
   The County will expand and maintain affordable housing opportunities for lower-income senior households
   through the new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation of multi-family rental housing, including the
   following: 50 units affordable to and occupied by extremely-low income households, 370 units for very-low
   income households, and 60 units for low-income households.

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-1.C (All Households)
   The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) will continue to implement and expand the
   Section 8 Program to provide rental assistance for lower income households in Contra Costa. Contingent on
   available federal resources through Section 8 and other programs (e.g. Shelter Plus Care), the HACCC will
   increase the number of very-low income households receiving rental assistance by approximately 200
   households per year.
   Priority Need Category
   AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES (H-2)


   Specific Objective
   Number: H-2
   The County will increase affordable homeownership opportunities through the provision of first-time
   homebuyer assistance (subsidized loans and Mortgage Credit Certificates) to enable 130 low and very-low
   income households to purchase homes in Contra Costa.

   Priority Need Category
   MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK (HSG-3)

   Specific Objective
   Number: H-3.A (Rental Housing)
   Objectives for maintenance and preservation of affordable rental housing are incorporated in Objectives
   H-1.A and H-1.B.




    1
      This Table presents Contra Costa County’s objectives over a five-year period unless otherwise specified. The County will
accomplish these objectives using a combination of CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG and other funds available to the County.
    2
      Objectives for housing priorities 5, 6, and 7 are included in Table 1C

Contra Costa
  Specific Objective
  Number: H-3.B (Homeowner Housing)
  The County will assist in the maintenance and preservation of 250 units of affordable housing through the
  provision of emergency grants and subsidized loans for the rehabilitation of housing owned and occupied
  by lower-income households.
  Specific Objective
  Number: H-3.C
  By September 15, 2000, the County will develop and begin implementation of an action plan to meet the
  requirements of the new HUD regulation on lead-based paint hazards in federally owned housing and
  housing receiving federal assistance (24 CFR 35, et seq.).

  Priority Need Category
  IMPROVE THE PUBLIC HOUSING STOCK (H-4)

  Specific Objective
  Number: H-4.A
  Over the next five years, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) will improve
  security continue the renovation and modernization of over 800 public housing units.
  Specific Objective
  Number: H-4.B
  Over the next five years, the HACCC will reduce the public housing vacancy rate to a level of 3% or less.

  Priority Need Category
  ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION (H-8)


  Specific Objective
  Number: H-8.A
  Over the next two years, the County will work with Consortium members to prepare a consolidated
  Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for the entire Consortium. The Consortium AI will
  incorporate each member’s existing AI, update and re-assess existing impediments to fair housing choice
  and develop coordinated strategies and actions to overcome or eliminate those impediments.

  Specific Objective
  Number: H-8.B
  The County, through fair housing service agencies, will provide fair housing counseling to 450 households
  and legal services to 500 households experiencing problems of discrimination. In addition, the agencies
  will conduct educational workshops for landlords and tenants, and broadly market their services to the
  community.

  Priority Need Category
  REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (H-9)

  Specific Objective
  Number: H-9.A
  In addition to efforts to alleviate housing discrimination and promote fair housing activities (see HSG-8
  objectives), the County will continue to promote the use of Planned Unit Development zoning to permit the
  application of flexible design standards for special needs and affordable housing projects.

  Specific Objective
  Number: H-9.B
  The County will provide a density bonus to qualified housing projects. In exchange for a density bonus, a
  developer must reserve a portion of the housing developed for occupancy by very-low income, low-income,
  or senior households. The units will be required to remain affordable to and occupied by the target
  population for 10 to 30 years depending on whether the developer has received additional development
  incentives from the County.


Contra Costa
  Specific Objective
  Number: H-9.C
  Wherever feasible, the County will consider the waiver or deferral of County development fees and “fast-
  track” processing for projects which contain a special needs or affordable housing component.

  Specific Objective
  Number: H-9.D
  Expand capacity to develop affordable housing by providing technical assistance and CHDO operating
  support to eligible non-profit organizations.




Contra Costa
                                          Table 2C
             Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                               (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)
Applicant’s Name Antioch CA


Priority Need Category

H-1. Expand housing opportunities for lower-income households through an increase in the
supply of decent, safe, and affordable rental housing and rental assistance.


Specific Objective #1

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
10 extremely-low income, small-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #2

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
25 very-low income, small-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #3

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
10 low- income, small-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #4

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
10 extremely-low income, large-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #5

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
20 very-low income, large-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #6

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
10 low income, large-related Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.




Antioch
Specific Objective #7

Use CDBG, HOME, and Antioch Development Agency (ADA) funds to provide new rental housing units for
20 extremely-low income, elderly Antioch households between Program Year 2000 and 2005.


Priority Need Category

H-2. Increase homeownership opportunities for lower-income households


Specific Objective #1

Using HOME and ADA funds, assist in the construction of 20 low- and very-low income new ownership
housing units between PY 2000 and 2005.


Priority Need Category

H-3. Maintain and preserve the affordable housing stock


Specific Objective #1

Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 10 extremely-low
income, small-related households between PY 2000 and 2005.




Specific Objective #2

Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 10 extremely-low
income, small-related households between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #3

Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 5 extremely-low
income, large-related households between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #4

Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 5 very-low income,
large-related households between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #5

Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 5 extremely-low
income, elderly households between PY 2000 and 2005.


Specific Objective #6

Antioch
Using HOME, CDBG, and ADA funds, assist in the rehabilitation of rental units for 10 very-low income,
elderly households between PY 2000 and 2005.


Priority Need Category

H-5. Adopt the Continuum of Care Plan as the overall approach to addressing homelessness in
the Consortium




Specific Objective #1

The City will have a representative on the County’s Continuum of Care Board.




Priority Need Category

H-6. Assist the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency and
transitional housing, permanent affordable housing, and appropriate supportive services


Specific Objective #1

Provide life-management, job training, and case management services to 35 extremely-low income
Antioch families at the new East County Transitional Housing Center between 2000 and 2005.


Priority Need Category

H-8. Alleviate problems of housing discrimination (see Community Development Strategy #CD-12)


Priority Need Category

H-9. Remove constraints to affordable housing development.


Specific Objective #1

Formalize incentives and streamline permit procedures for affordable housing development within zoning
ordinance and general and housing plan update.




Antioch
                                              Table 2C 1
                 Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                   (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)

Applicant’s Name: CONCORD, CALIFORNIA

                                                                                       2
                                         Priority Need Category – HOUSING

HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-1 – Expand housing opportunities
Expand housing opportunities for lower income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe,
and affordable rental housing, and rental assistance.

Specific Objective H-1.1 – (Non-Elderly Renter Households) The City of Concord will expand and maintain
affordable rental housing opportunities through the construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition/rehabilitation
of multi-family rental units for 50 extremely low-, 150 very low-, and 50 low-income households.

Specific Objective H-1.2 –(Elderly Renter Households) The City of Concord will expand and maintain
affordable rental housing opportunities for seniors through the construction, rehabilitation, and
acquisition/rehabilitation of multi-family rental units for 100 extremely low-, 100 very low-, and 45 low-
income households.

Specific Objective H-1.3- (All Households) Work with the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County in
their efforts to expand the Section 8 Program to provide rental assistance.


HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-2 - Increase homeownership opportunities for lower income households.
Specific Objective H-2.1 –Construct new homes under the Self-Help Opportunity Program with Habitat for
Humanity and provide land and financing for the construction of 16 townhomes for first time home buyers - 8
for very low- and 8 for low-income households.

Specific Objective H-2.2 – Provide first-time homebuyer assistance through the use of silent second loans
and mortgage credit certificates, when available, to 10 low- and 15 moderate-income households.


HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-3 – Maintain and preserve the affordable housing stock.
Specific Objective H-3.1 - (Rental Housing) Please see Objectives H.1.1-H.1.3

Specific Objective H-3.2 - (Owner-occupied Housing) Provide loans and grants for the maintenance and
preservation of 330 units of affordable housing (single family and mobilehomes) through the provision of the
following: Low interest and no-interest loans; grants for emergency repairs, weatherization and home
security for seniors, handicapped accessibility, and exterior enhancement.

Specific Objective H-3.3 – Preserve and enhance the living environment in lower income neighborhoods
through a comprehensive and integrated program of neighborhood preservation and blight control and
eradication, utilizing the expertise of planners, community organizers, police, engineers, housing, traffic,
and park and recreation specialists to address neighborhood problems.

Specific Objective H-3.4 – Proactively identify blighted and deteriorated multi-family housing stock and
ensure the rehabilitation or elimination of housing that does not meet minimum City standards, through
adoption and enforcement of a Multiple Family Dwelling Unit Inspection and Maintenance Code.

    1
      This Table presents the City of Concord’s objectives over a five-year period unless otherwise specified. The City will
accomplish these objectives using a combination of CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG and other funds, as well as City of Concord
RDA funds, General Funds, and Child Care Developer Funds.
    2
      Objectives for housing priorities 5, 6, and 7 are included in Table 1C

Concord
HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-4 – Improve the public housing stock.
Specific Objective H-4.1 - Please see Objective H.1.3


HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-8 – Alleviate problems of housing discrimination.
Specific Objective H.8.1- Over the next two years work with all Consortium members to prepare a
consolidated Analysis to Impediments to Fair Housing (AI). The Consortium AI will incorporate the AI of
each participating jurisdiction.

Specific Objective H.8.2 – Promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing for all of
Concord’s residents by providing fair housing services for 200 people, tenant/landlord services for 3,000
people, conducting 10 workshops (for tenants, landlords and agencies), housing counseling for 200 people,
and distribution of over 7,500 pieces of literature.


HOUSING PRIORITY GOAL H-9 – Remove constraints to affordable housing development.
Specific Objective H-9.1 – Implement the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance which allows the developers of
affordable housing an increase in the number of units by 25%-50% depending on the number of affordable
housing units provided and units provided specifically for special needs populations.

Specific Objective H-9.2 – Allow for the deferral of City building, planning and engineering fees in the
development of affordable housing and facilitate the “fast tracking” of the development application through
the planning process.

Specific Objective H-9.3 – When feasible and/or appropriate, consider the flexibility or elimination of
certain design standards or requirements in the development of affordable and special needs housing.

Specific Objective H-9.4 – In General Plan, continue to allow conversion of commercial property to
residential under certain circumstances, secondary living units (mother-in-law cottages) and alternative
building materials such as straw bale.


                         Priority Need Category - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-1 – Economic Development: Reduce the number of
persons below the poverty level, expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents,
and increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas.

Specific Objective CD-1.1 - Implement City of Concord economic development strategy to provide
opportunities for business and residents in low- income areas, concentrating resources in Monument
Boulevard corridor.

Specific Objective CD-1.2 – Assist low-income Concord residents, with emphasis on those residing in the
Monument Corridor, to develop and maintain 30 new licensed in-home family day care microenterprise
businesses, creating 150 new childcare slots.

Specific Objective CD-1.3 – Support efforts to increase the employability of very low-income Concord
residents and those with disabilities by expanding existing job opportunities, and through offering job and
life-skills training, placement, and support services.

Specific Objective CD-1.4 - Assist merchants in the Monument Boulevard Corridor in forming a Business
Improvement District and in establishing programs to assist business development and expand economic
opportunities for low-income residents.


Concord
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-2 – Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality
recreational, public facilities, and adequate infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility impaired.

Specific Objective CD-2.1 - Invest over $500,000 to construct or reconstruct infrastructure in lower income
areas, including replacement and/or construction of utilities, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets and flood
drain improvements.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-3 – Accessibility Improvements: Continue to identify
and address physical access barriers to public facilities and infrastructure as required through the
Americans With Disabilities Act.

Specific Objective CD-3.1 – Provide over 200 handicapped curb cuts to remove physical barriers on public
roads, to provide better access for physically handicapped residents.

Specific Objective CD-3.2 – Fund handicap improvements within public facilities, and others as identified.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-4 – Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of
homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the homeless.

Specific Objective CD-4.1 – Ensure that over 2,000 homeless and at-risk individuals and families have
access 24-hours a day to a homeless hotline, providing information and referral, shelter space reservation,
and emergency motel vouchers.

Specific Objective CD-4.2 – Support emergency homeless shelter services, and transitional housing
support services for over 2,000 homeless individuals and families, including those for battered spouses and
their children, providing access to community resources, case management, and services to prevent and/or
reduce poverty.
.
Specific Objective CD-4.3 – Provide over 4,000 hot, nutritious meals and 30,000 bags of groceries for
homeless and at-risk individuals and families.

Specific Objective CD-4.4 - Help prevent or reduce homelessness for over 100 Concord households by
providing one-time emergency housing financial assistance, with money management and budget
counseling support services to help maintain permanent housing.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-5 – Special Needs – Prevention: Ensure access to
programs that promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social concerns, such as
domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, and illiteracy.
.      Note: The City of Concord will combine Special Needs Prevention under Special Needs Services,
Goal   CD-6, most of which have a prevention component.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-6 – Special Needs – Services: Ensure that
opportunities and services are provided to improve the quality of life and independence for persons with
special needs such as frail elderly, disabled persons, migrant farm workers, abused children, those with
substance abuse problems, illiterate adults, battered spouses, and persons with HIV/AIDS.

Specific Objective CD-6.1 – Provide crisis, legal, support, and advocacy services for over 1,000 battered
spouses and their children; HIV/AIDS case management, nutrition education and food bag distribution, and
substance abuse services as necessary for over 200 clients with HIV/AIDS; and independent living skills
training for over 200 newly blind and physically/mentally disabled clients.

Specific Objective CD-6.2 – Ensure that over 200 homebound frail elderly, disabled, and persons with
HIV/AIDS have home-delivered, complete hot meals, helping to prevent premature institutionalization by
allowing them to remain in their homes.

Concord
Specific Objective CD-6.3 – Assure that approximately 1,500 institutionalized elderly and dependent,
disabled adults residing in nursing homes and residential care facilities have their personal rights protected
by providing for investigation of complaints, advocacy, training on rights, family support groups, and training
for volunteers who serve this population.

Specific Objective CD 6.4 – For over 100 abused children in the foster care and child welfare system,
provide personal advocates to interface with parents, foster parents, social workers and the courts, and to
act as a mentor, friend and confidant to the children.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-7 – Communities: Target resources to underserved
areas of the City to ensure that communities are safe and provide a high quality of life.

Specific Objective CD-7.1 – Target over $1,000,000 in resources in the Monument Corridor area for a
variety of housing, services and infrastructure improvements, while maintaining an effective level of service
throughout the City.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-8 – Families: Promote and support programs that
assist families to be safe, stable, and nurturing.

Specific Objective CD-8.1 – Provide quality, affordable child care for lower income residents by supporting
programs that train people to become child care providers, offering ongoing training to service providers, and
funding capital improvements for child care centers.

Specific Objective CD-8.2 - Assist 10,000 lower income individuals/families in times of crisis by providing
trauma intervention services, crisis hotline access, grief counseling, educational outreach regarding suicide
prevention, as well as specific and appropriate services to victims of rape and their families and home care
and assistance to terminally ill low/mod income residents.

Specific Objective CD-8.3 – Provide short-term mental health youth and family counseling services to over
1,500 individuals to help establish personal and family stability that can lead to improved overall family
functioning.

Specific Objective CD-8.4 – Assist in bringing together over 2,000 Concord seniors, youth, and families in
a variety of literacy, tutoring, and mentoring programs.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-9 – Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior
citizens and enable them to maintain independence.

Specific Objective CD-9.1 – For over 4,000 Concord seniors, provide a wide variety of services, including
free or low cost nutritional meals at senior centers, bags of food, counseling services, legal services, and in-
home care.
         Note: Refer also to services for frail elderly, listed under CD-6.2 and CD-6.3.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-10 –Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth
to be healthy, succeed in school, and prepare for productive adulthood.

Specific Objective CD-10.1 – For over 300 Concord high school students, especially those attending
Olympic Continuation High School, conduct job readiness training including employability workshops,
meetings with professionals, mock interviews, job fairs and workshops, and employment expansion and
placement.

Specific Objective CD-10.2 – Provide comprehensive youth and family substance abuse prevention and
intervention counseling services for over 10,000 youth in every middle and high school in Concord, including

Concord
consultation for school staff members.

Specific Objective CD-10.3 – For over 150 Concord youth who are deaf, late-deafened, deaf-blind, and
hard of hearing, provide mental health family and youth services with counselors trained in communication
techniques and sensitive to deaf culture, to prevent/reduce the rate of youth delinquency, and reduce
substance abuse.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-11 – Historic Preservation: Preserve and protect
historic properties for use and enjoyment of citizens primarily of lower income, or to eliminate conditions of
blight.

Specific Objective CD-11.1 – Acquire and rehabilitate properties deemed to be appropriate for public use,
and provide assistance in the rehabilitation of other properties where a National Objective can be met.


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-12 – Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing
activities and affirmatively further fair housing.
          Note: Rrefer to Housing Priority Goal H-8


COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY GOAL CD-13 – Administration/Planning: Support development
of viable urban communities through extending and strengthening partnerships among all levels of
government and the private sector, and administer federal grant programs in a fiscally prudent manner.

Specific Objective CD-13.1 – Continue Concord’s evolution into Community Oriented Government by
increasing collaboration with institutions, local jurisdictions, agencies, the business community, and
Concord residents through attainment of the City’s Corporate Goals.

Specific Objective CD-13.2 - Maximize existing federal and general fund resources by leveraging
$5,000,000 in outside resources through matching fund requirements and other means.

Specific Objective CD-13.3 – Ensure compliance with CDBG program and comprehensive planning
requirements.




Concord
                                           Table 2C
              Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)

Applicant’s Name CONCORD, CALIFORNIA

Priority Need Category

                         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Specific Objective Number CD-1

Expand Concord’s mandate of Community Oriented Government by increasing collaboration with
institutions, local jurisdictions, agencies, the business community, and Concord residents by 25%.

Specific Objective Number CD-2

Maximize existing federal and general fund resources by leveraging $5,000,000 in outside resources
through matching fund requirements and other means.

Specific Objective Number CD-3

Target $1,000,000 in resources in the Monument Corridor area while maintaining an effective level of
service throughout the City.

Specific Objective Number CD-4

Assist low-income Concord residents, with emphasis on those residing in the Monument Corridor, to
develop and maintain 30 new licensed in-home family day care microenterprise businesses, creating 150
new childcare slots.

Specific Objective Number CD-5

Provide job training, life-skills assistance, and related support to increase economic independence of 300
homeless, low-income, disabled, and youth residents of Concord.

Specific Objective Number CD-6

Assist merchants in the Monument Boulevard Corridor in forming a Business Improvement District and in
establishing programs to assist business development and expand economic opportunities for low-income
residents.

Specific Objective Number CD-7

Provide $500,000 assistance in the development, expansion, or rehabilitation of facilities serving lower
income areas or persons, including but not limited to senior centers, day care facilities for children and
frail elderly, emergency and transitional housing and shelters for the homeless, and special needs
facilities.

Specific Objective Number CD-8

Invest $500,000 to construct or reconstruct infrastructure in low and moderate income areas including
replacement and/or construction of utilities, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets and flood drain
improvements.


Concord
Specific Objective Number CD-9

Remove physical barriers on public roads, and to/in public facilities to provide better access for physically
handicapped residents by providing 150 curb cuts and other handicap improvements as identified.

 Specific Objective Number CD-10

 Provide assistance that reaches 12,500 homeless and at-risk homeless individuals and families, including
 battered spouses and their children, by funding emergency shelter, transitional housing, meals and food,
 access to community resources, case management, and services to prevent and/or reduce poverty.

Specific Objective Number CD-11

Enhance the quality of life for 4,000 senior citizens and enable them to remain at home and avoid
institutionalization by provide a variety of services, including free or low cost nutritional meals at senior
centers and for the homebound, transportation for frail and disabled seniors, counseling services, legal
services, in-home care, and advocacy services for those in rest homes and other facilities.

Specific Objective Number CD-12

Ensure that opportunities and services are provided for 1,000 physically, mentally, and developmentally
disabled persons, including those with chronic substance abuse problems and persons with HIV/AIDS, to
maximize their potential for independent living through supported living, housing assistance, meals and
nutrition assistance, personal care referral, benefits and employment counseling, and other services.

Specific Objective Number CD-13

Support the development of strong, healthy low- and moderate-income families by serving 30,000 people
through the provision of quality, affordable child care, extended stay crisis nursery facilities, advocacy for
children who have been abused, counseling for children with special mental health needs, substance
abuse prevention for pre-teens and teens, and related services.

Specific Objective Number CD-14

Assist 10,000 lower income individuals/families in times of crisis by providing trauma intervention services,
crisis hotline access, grief counseling, educational outreach regarding suicide prevention, as well as
specific and appropriate services to victims of rape and their families and home care and assistance to
terminally ill low/mod income residents.

Specific Objective Number CD-15

Promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing for all of Concord’s residents by
providing fair housing services for 200 people, tenant/landlord services for 3,000 people, conducting 10
workshops (for tenants, landlords and agencies), housing counseling for 200 people, and distribution of
over 7,500 pieces of literature.




Concord
                                            Table 2C
               Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                 (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)

 Applicant’s Name PITTSBURG, CA

 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 Priority Need Category
 EXPAND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS THROUGH AN INCREASE
 IN THE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE AND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND RENTAL
 ASSISTANCE. (H-1)

 Specific Objective
 Number: H-1

 Provide funds to construct affordable housing units for 5 extremely low, 10 low, and 10 moderate-income
 households.

 Priority Need Category
 MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. (H-3)

 Specific Objective
 Number: H-3

 Utilize funds to provide Rehabilitation Loans to 125 homeowners in the City’s designated Target Areas: 75
 extremely low, 25 low, and 25 moderate income.

 Priority Need Category
 ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION. (H-8)

 Specific Objective
 Number: H-8.A

 Over the next two years, the City will work with Consortium members to prepare a consolidated Analysis
 of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for the entire Consortium. The Consortium AI will incorporate
 each member’s existing AI, update and re-assess existing impediments to fair housing choice and develop
 coordinated strategies and actions to overcome or eliminate those impediments.

 Specific Objective
 Number: H-8.B

 In an effort to comply with the requirements of the new HUD regulation on lead-based paint hazards in
 federally owned housing and housing receiving federal assistance, the City will notify participants in
 Rehabilitation programs of the regulations.

 Priority Need Category
 COMMUNITIES: TARGET RESOURCES TO UNDERSERVED AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO ENSURE
 THAT COMMUNITIES ARE SAFE AND PROVIDE A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE. (CD-7)




Pittsburg
 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-7.A

 Target $700,000 to the City’s Code Enforcement Division to enhance the viability of target areas by
 improving infrastructure, arresting blighted conditions, enforcing state and municipal statutes that impact
 housing and neighborhood conditions, and other public and private improvements.


 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-7.B

 Ensure that 1000 low-income residents in targeted areas receive food, information and referral to services,
 parenting support groups and other services.

 Priority Need Category
 YOUTH: INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN/YOUTH TO BE HEALTHY, SUCCEED IN
 SCHOOL AND PREPARE FOR PRODUCTIVE ADULTHOOD. (CD-10)

 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-10

 Provide funds for over 1000 low-income youth to engage in services, which will provide alcohol, tobacco,
 and drug prevention and intervention through group support.

 Priority Need Category
 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL,
 EXPAND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME RESIDENTS AND
 INCREASE THE VIABILITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS. (CD-1)

 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-1

 Maximize funding for job training, life-skills assistance, and related support to increase the economic
 independence of 500 homeless, low-income, disabled, and youth residents of Pittsburg.

 Priority Need Category
 INFRASTRUCTURE/PUBLIC FACILITIES: MAINTAIN QUALITY RECREATIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES,
 AND ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENSURE ACCESS FOR THE MOBILITY IMPAIRED. (CD-2)

 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-2.A

 Provide $400,000 in funding to assist in the development, expansion, or rehabilitation of facilities serving
 lower income areas or persons, including a senior center, youth center, day care facilities for children,
 transitional housing for the homeless, and special needs facilities.

 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-2.B

 Provide $250,000 in funding to construct or reconstruct infrastructure in low and moderate income areas
 including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets and flood drain improvements.

 Priority Need Category
 FAMILIES: PROMOTE AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST FAMILIES TO BE SAFE, STABLE
 AND NURTURING. (CD-8)

Pittsburg
 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-8

 Assist 5,000 lower income individuals/families in times of crisis by providing trauma intervention services,
 crisis hotline access, grief counseling, educational outreach regarding suicide prevention, as well as
 specific and appropriate services to victims of rape and their families and home care and assistance to
 terminally ill low/mod income residents.

 Priority Need Category
 FAIR HOUSING: CONTINUE TO PROMOTE FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES AND AFFIRMATIVELY
 FURTHER FAIR HOUSING. (CD-12)

 Specific Objective
 Number: CD-12

 Promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing for all of Pittsburg’s residents by
 providing fair housing services for 200 people, tenant/landlord services for 2,000 people, conducting 10
 workshops (for tenants, landlords and agencies), housing counseling for 200 people, and distribution of
 over 5,000 pieces of literature.




Pittsburg
                                            Table 2C
               Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                 (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)
                                            HOUSING

Applicant’s Name CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

Priority Need Category
H-1 –EXPAND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES

Specific Objective Number: H-1a

Use CDBG, RDA funds and other City Affordable Housing funds to help construct affordable rental
housing units for 10 extremely low, 30 very low-, and 65 low-income households over the next 5 years. 5
units would serve large households and the rest would be for small related or other households. Annual
goal: 2 extremely low-, 6 very low-, and 13 low-income households.


Priority Need Category
H-2 –EXPAND AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Specific Objective Number: H-2a

Use CDBG and RDA funds to provide First Time Home Buyer Assistance Loans to 20 low- income
households over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 4 low-income households


Priority Need Category
H-3 –MAINTAIN AND PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK

Specific Objective Number:    H-3a

Use CDBG and RDA funds and City Affordable Housing funds to acquire and rehabilitate a 91 unit
affordable senior complex at risk of converting to marekt rate housing, with 32 extremely low, 36 very low,
and 23 low income seniors within the next 2 years. Annual goal: NA, acquisition to be completed within
next 2 years.

Specific Objective Number     H-3b

Use CDBG and RDA funds to preserve 9 units of existing mixed income senior developments for 3
extremely low, 3 very low and 3 low-income households within the next 4 years. Annual goal: NA

Specific Objective Number     H-3c

Use CDBG and RDA funds to provide Home Owner Rehabilitation loans to 10 low-income households over
the next 5 years. Annual goal: 2 low-income households.

Specific Objective Number: H-3d

Use CDBG funds to provide at least 80% of the cost to rehabilitate rental housing units for 2 extremely
low, 15 very low- and 30 low- income households. 10 units would serve large families, the rest would be
for small related or other households. Annual goal: 3 very low- and 6 low-income households.


Priority Need Category
H-8 ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS OF HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

Walnut Creek
Specific Objective Number: H-8a

Over the next 2 years, the City will work with Consortium members to prepare a consolidated Analysis of
Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for the entire Consortium. The Consortium AI will incorporate
each member’s existing AI, update and reassess existing impediments to fair housing choice and develop
coordinated strategies and actions to overcome or eliminate those impediments.




Walnut Creek
                                             Table 2C
                Summary of Specific Housing and Community Development Objectives
                                  (Table 2A/B Continuation Sheet)
                                    COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

  Applicant’s Name CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

  Priority Need Category
  CD-1 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  Specific Objective Number: CD-1a

  Use CDBG funds for programs to train, place, or assist 100 low-income people to start their own
  businesses including, but not limited to , in-home health care and computer office and technical workers
  over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 20 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-1b

  Use CDBG funds for programs to train 50 low-income residents for establishing family day care
  businesses over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 10 very low- and low-income persons.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-1c

  Use CDBG fund for 25 low income residents to develop micro enterprises over the next 5 years. Annual
  goal: 5 low-income persons/businesses.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-1d

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide job readiness training to 500 low-income persons
  over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 100 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-2 – INFRASTRUCTURE/PUBLIC FACILITIES

  Specific Objective Number: CD-2a

  Use CDBG funds to help acquire, construct or rehab 5 facilities over the next 5 years for use by various
  community services which predominately serve low income households. Annual goal: 1 facility per year.
  .
  Specific Objective Number: CD-2b

  Use City and bond funds to construct one new City library within 5 years. Annual goal: NA, 1 facility.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-3 – ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Walnut Creek
  Specific Objective Number: CD-3a

  Use CDBG and City funds to increase handicapped accessibility (curb cuts/ramps) in 5 project areas, in
  the Core Area, in parks, to libraries, and along creeks, over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 9 cuts/ramps
  per year.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-8 - FAMILIES

  Specific Objective Number: CD-8a

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to test for Lead Based paint in housing units and to
  mitigate this situation for 500 low-income homeowners/renters over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 100
  extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-8b

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide meals to 1,500 persons over the next 5 years.
  Annual goal: 200 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-8c

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide health and mental health services for 2,000
  persons over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 400 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income persons.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-9 - SENIORS

  Specific Objective Number: CD-9a

  Use CDBG and City Community Service funds to provide legal, crisis intervention, and abuse investigation
  and senior advocacy services to 10,000 low-income seniors over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 2,000
  extremely low-, very low-, and low income seniors

  Specific Objective Number: CD-9b

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide adult day care, financial management, and
  services to help maintain the elderly in their homes for 1,000 seniors. Annual goal: 200 extremely low-,
  very low-, and low-income seniors.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-10 – YOUTH


  Specific Objective Number: CD-10a

Walnut Creek
  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds for services focused on 3,000 low-income elementary
  school children, including clothing/school supplies, tutoring , and counseling, over the next 5 years.
  Annual goal: 600 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income children.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-10b

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds for cultural and environmental programs available to 200
  low-income youth from K-12 over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 40 extremely low-, very low-, and low-
  income youth.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-10c

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds for Child Assault Program for 2,500 low-income youth over
  the next 5 years. Annual goal: 500 extremely low-, very low-, and low-income youth.

  Specific Objective Number: CD-10d

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds for child advocacy programs, substance abuse and sexual
  abuse counseling for 1,200 low-income youth over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 240 extremely low-,
  very low-, and low-income youth.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-12 – FAIR HOUSING

  Specific Objective Number: CD-12a

  Use CDBG and City Community Services funds to provide Fair Housing services to 200 low-income
  households over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 15 extremely low-, 15 very low-, & 10 low-income
  households.




  Priority Need Category
  CD-13 – ADMINISTRATION/PLANNING

  Specific Objective Number: CD-13a

  Use CDBG and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds to fund salaries, benefits, training and other
  administrative costs for administering the CDBG and Community Services Grant programs and the CDBG
  and RDA Housing programs over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 1.5 - 2 FTE employees

  Specific Objective Number: CD-13B

  Use CDBG and RDA funds for environmental reviews, feasibility studies, and market studies (totaling 10
  studies) for potential affordable housing projects over the next 5 years. Annual goal: 2 studies




Walnut Creek
APPENDIX K

GLOSSARY OF
   TERMS
APPENDIX L

MONITORING
 APPENDIX M

CERTIFICATIONS
APPENDIX N

APPROVALS

								
To top