HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04202010 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ADOPT and APPROVE the draft FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan (Attachment A) and
the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Attachment B); and
2. ADOPT AND APPROVE the draft FY 2010/11 Action Plan (Attachment C); and
3. APPROVE the Family and Human Services Committee recommendations for the
allocation of $645,500 in FY 2010/11 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
in the Public Service category and $145,025 in Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds
(Attachment C-1); and
4. APPROVE the Finance Committee recommendations for the allocation of $527,000 in
FY 2010/11 CDBG funds in the Economic Development category (Attachment C-2); and
the allocation of $222,065 in FY 2010/11 CDBG funds in the Infrastructure/Public Facilities
category (Attachment C-3); and
5. APPROVE the Affordable Housing Finance Committee (AHFC) recommendations for
the allocation of $2,156,709 in CDBG funds ($1,685,381 in FY 2010/11 funds and
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/27/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:See Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Bob Calkins, (925)
335-7220
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 27, 2010
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Director
Date:April 27, 2010
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Approval of FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice &
Allocation of FY 2010/11 CDBG, HOME, and ESG Funds
$471,328 in FY 2009/10 Housing Development Assistance Funds) in the Housing category,
and $3,481,328 in HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) funds ($3,220,509 in FY
2010/11 funds and $260,819 in FY 2009/10 HDAF (Attachment C-4); and
6.
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
DETERMINE that the FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice, and the FY 2010/11 Action Plan are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
guidelines;
7. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice
of Exemption for the FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice, and the FY 2010/11 Action Plan with the County Clerk;
8. AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development Director, or
designee, to execute the appropriate documents for transmittal to the U.S. Department of
Housing & Urban Development; and
9. AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development Director, or
designee, to execute the CDBG, HOME, and ESG program Agreements as approved in
the FY 2010/11 Action Plan by the Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No General Fund impact. All funds are provided to the County on a formula basis
through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program – 14.218
Home Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) Program – 14.239
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program – 14.231
Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program – 14.241
BACKGROUND:
1. FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
The Contra Costa Consortium, a partnership of five cities (Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg,
Richmond, and Walnut Creek) and Contra Costa County, receives funds each year from
the federal government for housing and community development activities. To receive
federal funds, the Consortium must submit a strategic plan – the Consolidated Plan –
every five years to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that
identifies local needs and how these needs will be addressed. The Consolidated Plan
(Attachment A) must also demonstrate how the Consortium will meet national goals set
by the U.S. Congress to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a
suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, principally for person of
extremely-low, very-low, and low income.
The preparation of the FY 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan began with holding four focus
group meetings and one service provider group meeting during the months of August,
September, and October 2009. Individuals and representatives of various public agencies,
community organizations, and service providers throughout the County were invited to
attend these meetings. These focus group meetings covered various topics, including but
not limited to:
• Persons with disabilities;
• Single parents/female-headed households;
• Homeless;
• Home Foreclosures;
• Economic Development (Business assistance and job creation/retention);
• Seniors;
• Youth and Families; and
• Neighborhood Revitalization (conducted in the Monument Corridor in Concord)
The Consortium also solicited input from community organizations, public agencies, and
the general public through an on-line survey that was accessible beginning in the month
of August through the end of October 2009.
The draft FY 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan proposes priorities for the use of funds in the
following areas: Affordable Housing (AH-1 thru AH-8), Homeless (H-1 thru H-2), and
Community Development (CD-1 thru CD-8). See Attachment A-1 for the specific
priorities.
A major focus of the Consolidated Plan is the provision of affordable housing
opportunities for very low and low-income households and persons with special needs,
many of whom are targets of housing discrimination. As part of the Consolidated Plan,
the Consortium must also certify that it actively further fair housing choice for all
residents through:
• Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice;
• Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediment identified
through the analysis; and
• Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken.
The Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice (Attachment B) constitutes the
Consortium’s effort in identifying impediments to fair housing. It also provides
recommended actions to overcome the effects of identified impediments. Through the
annual planning process, the Consolidated Plan will incorporate specific actions to be
undertaken during a fiscal year to remove impediments and to further fair housing
choice.
2. FY 2010/11 Action Plan
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is in its thirty-sixth year.
The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable urban
communities through the provision of the following, principally to very-low and
low-income persons/households - decent housing; a suitable living environment; and
economic opportunity. CDBG funds are allocated annually to eligible Entitlement
Jurisdictions by HUD on a formula basis. The County’s Department of Conservation and
Development, Redevelopment Division, administers CDBG funds on behalf of the Urban
County. The “Urban County” includes the unincorporated County and all cities except
Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek, who administer independent
CDBG programs.
The purpose of the HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) Program is to increase
and maintain the supply of affordable housing for lower income households. Funds are
allocated to eligible Participating Jurisdictions (PJs) and Consortia on a formula basis by
HUD. The Contra Costa Consortium consists of the unincorporated County plus all cities
except the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond is an independent HOME PJ. As the
Consortium representative, the County is responsible for administration and management
of the HOME program.
The County receives Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds on an entitlement basis for
use in funding renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion of buildings for use as
emergency shelters for the homeless; provision of essential services for the homeless;
emergency shelter operations and related services; and homeless prevention activities.
The County also receives Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds, as a
subgrantee to the City of Oakland, to provide localities with resources and incentives to
devise long term strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons with acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or related diseases and their families. HOPWA
funds may be used for a wide range of housing, social services, program planning, and
development costs. These include, but are not limited to, the acquisition, rehabilitation, or
new construction of housing units; costs for facility operations; rental assistance; and
short-term payments to prevent homelessness.
Attachment D lists the amount of FY 2010/11 funds available in each of the above
programs.
On February 28, 2006, the Board of Supervisors (Board) amended its funding guidelines,
originally adopted in 1993, for use of CDBG funds as follows: Housing 45.1%; Public
Services 15.0%; Economic Development 14.0%; Infrastructure/Public Facilities 3.9%;
Contingency 2.0%; and Program Administration 20.0%. Funding recommendations are
made by the following Committees:
• Family and Human Services Committee – CDBG Public Service and Emergency
Shelter Grants categories
• Finance Committee – Economic Development and Infrastructure/Public Facilities
categories
• Affordable Housing Finance Committee – Housing category
a. Family and Human Services Committee: The Family and Human Services (FHS)
Committee met on April 12, 2010 to consider staff recommendations for FY 2010/11
Public Service (PS) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) projects. The meeting was
noticed and project applicants were encouraged to attend and provide input into the
allocation process. Various agencies attended the meeting and most thanked the
Committee and the Board of Supervisors for their support. Staff noted that for FY
2010/11, it recommends that the 2% Contingency category be used for
Infrastructure/Public Facilities (IPF) projects because using the funds for Public Service
projects would result in the County exceeding the Public Service cap imposed by HUD.
After discussion, the FHS Committee approved staff recommendations as shown in
Attachment C-1, including using the 2% Contingency for eligible IPF projects.
b. Finance Committee: The Finance Committee met on March 10, 2010 to consider staff
funding recommendations for Economic Development (ED) and Infrastructure/Public
Facility IPF) projects. The meeting was noticed and project applicants were encouraged
to attend and provide input into the allocation process. After discussion, the Finance
Committee approved the recommendations as listed in Attachments C-2 and C-3,
including staff's recommendation to use the 2% Contingency category for eligible IPF
projects in FY 2010/11.
Included in the recommendation is the proposal to "pre-award" $50,000 in FY 2011/12
CDBG funds to the Montalvin Manor Pedestrian and Transit Access project. Typically
CDBG funds cannot be used for costs incurred prior to the start of the award year.
However, the Montalvin Manor Pedestrian and Transit Access project will be
substantially completed in FY 2010/11 with other funds, including the County’s
redevelopment agency and Transportation for Livable Communities State Transportation
Improvement Program (TLC-STIP-TE) funds. County staff will ensure all activities are
done in compliance with federal regulations, which will allow the County to successfully
meet the pre-award requirements per CDBG regulation 24 CFR 570.200 (iii)(h), and use
FY 2011/12 CDBG to pay for project costs incurred in FY 2010/11.
c. Affordable Housing Finance Committee: On June 27, 1995, the Board of
Supervisors established the Affordable Housing Finance Committee (AHFC) to work
with the Department of Conservation and Development to develop recommendations for
the Board concerning the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds for affordable housing
the Board concerning the allocation of CDBG and HOME funds for affordable housing
development. The current funding recommendations are the result of a competitive
application process initiated in October of 2009. A Notice of Funding Availability was
sent to over 100 jurisdictions, public agencies, affordable housing developers and interest
groups active in the Urban County and Consortium area. The Department received 9
applications requesting approximately $4 million ($1.4 million in CDBG funds and $2.5
million in HOME). In FY 2009/10, the Board allocated $400,000 in CDBG and $1.1
million in FY 2010/11 funds.
The AHFC met on March 17, 2010 to consider staff funding recommendations for
CDBG-housing and HOME projects. Members of the public, including project sponsors,
were invited to attend and provide input into the allocation process. Following discussion
and comment on each project, the AHFC developed recommendations for the allocation
of CDBG and HOME funds for affordable housing programs and projects (Attachment
C-4).
All of the housing projects will undergo CEQA review before the County enters into
project agreements and/or loan documents.
The Department of Conservation and Development will enter into a CDBG Project
Agreement with Housing Authority for its Rental Rehabilitation Program and
Community Energy Services Corporation for its Healthy Homes project. All other
projects will be entering into various legal documents with the County in addition to a
CDBG or HOME project agreement. These documents may include some or all of the
following: Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Deed of Trust and Security Agreement,
Regulatory Agreement, Intercreditor Agreement, Subordination Agreement, Loan Riders
and Estoppels. The form of these documents will be submitted for Board of Supervisors
approval at a later date, but prior to execution of any legal documents.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Because the County must submit its application for CDBG, HOME and ESG funding to
HUD by May 14, 2010, delay in approving the recommendations by the Committees may
result in the County not submitting its application on time.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Many of the programs and projects funded with CDBG, HOME and ESG funds will
benefit families with children.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
The following people spoke in favor of the recommendations: Susan Shiu, Contra
The following people spoke in favor of the recommendations: Susan Shiu, Contra
Costa Child Care Council Alissa Friedman, Executive Director of Opportunity
Junction; Daniel Broin, Village Community Resource Resource Center. By unanimous
vote, with all Supervisors present the Board: CLOSED the hearing; ADOPTED and
APPROVED the draft FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan; and ADOPTED AND
APPROVED the draft FY 2010/11 Action Plan; APPROVED the Family and Human
Services Committee recommendations for the allocation of FY 2010/11 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in the Public Service and Emergency Shelter
Grant categories; APPROVED the Finance Committee recommendations for the
allocation of FY 2010/11 CDBG funds in the Economic Development and
Infrastructure/Public Facilities categories; and;APPROVED the Affordable Housing
Finance Committee (AHFC) recommendations for the allocations in the Housing
category; DETERMINED that the FY 2010-15 Consolidated Plan and the FY 2010/11
Action Plan are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines; DIRECTED the Department
of Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption for the FY
2010-15 Consolidated Plan, and the FY 2010/11 Action Plan with the County
Clerk; AUTHORIZED the Department of Conservation and Development Director, or
designee, to execute the appropriate documents for transmittal to the U.S. Department
of Housing & Urban Development; 9.AUTHORIZED the Department of Conservation
and Development Director, or designee, to execute the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
program Agreements as approved in the FY 2010/11 Action Plan by the Board of
Supervisors; and DEFERRED action to May 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m on the draft
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice to allow staff to review and provide
written responses to the letter received from Bay Area Legal Aid and Public Advocates,
Inc.dated April 26, 2010.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Consolidated Plan
Attachment A-1 Consolidated Plan Priorities
Attachment B - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Attachment C - Draft FY 2010-11 Action Plan
Attachments C-1 thru C-4 Recommendations from Committees
Attachment D - Summsary Sources and Uses of Funds
City of Antioch, City of Concord, City of Pittsburg, City of Richmond,
City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County
2010-2015
Consolidated Plan
tioch, Ci
C
March, 2010
Contra Costa Consortium
CONTRA COSTA CONSORTIUM
2010-2015
Draft Consolidated Plan
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2530 ARNOLD DRIVE, SUITE 190
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
CITY OF ANTIOCH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
3RD AND “H” STREETS, 2ND FLOOR
P.O. BOX 5007
ANTIOCH, CA 94531-5007
CITY OF CONCORD
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE, MS/10
CONCORD, CA 94519
CITY OF PITTSBURG
COMMUNITY ACCESS DEPARTMENT
916 CUMBERLAND STREET
PITTSBURG, CA 94565
CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1666 NORTH MAIN STREET, 2ND FLOOR
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
CITY OF RICHMOND COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
P.O. BOX 4046
440 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
RICHMOND, CA 94806
March 23, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
The Planning Process ............................................................................................................................. 1
Housing and Population Data .......................................................................................................... 1
Public Meetings ................................................................................................................................... 2
Online Survey ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Consultations ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Public Review ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Priority Needs, Objectives and Strategies .................................................................... 2
Housing Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 3
Non-Housing Community Development Strategy ........................................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Plan Organization ................................................................................................................................... 8
Geographic Terms .................................................................................................................................. 8
Community Needs .................................................................................................................................... 9
Demographic Profile .............................................................................................................................. 9
Population ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Population by Age ................................................................................................................................ 12
Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Areas of Minority Concentration .................................................................................................... 13
Income .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Areas of Low- and Very Low-Income Concentration ................................................................. 18
Poverty ................................................................................................................................................... 19
Education ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Employment .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Households ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Special Needs Populations – Non-Homeless ................................................................................... 28
Elderly and Frail Elderly.................................................................................................................. 28
Persons with Disabilities .................................................................................................................. 30
Large Households ............................................................................................................................. 34
Single-Parent Households ............................................................................................................... 36
Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse ............................................................................................................. 36
Persons with HIV/AIDS ................................................................................................................... 37
Victims of Domestic Violence ......................................................................................................... 38
Homeless ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Housing Market Profile ....................................................................................................................... 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
ii
Housing Growth ............................................................................................................................... 42
Tenure ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Housing Type .................................................................................................................................... 45
Vacancy Rate ..................................................................................................................................... 47
Age of Housing Stock ....................................................................................................................... 49
Housing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 51
Contra Costa County (Unincorporated County) .......................................................................... 51
Antioch ............................................................................................................................................... 51
Concord .............................................................................................................................................. 52
Pittsburg ............................................................................................................................................. 52
Richmond ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Walnut Creek..................................................................................................................................... 53
Housing Cost ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Housing Affordability by Tenure and Household Type ................................................................ 56
Renter Households ........................................................................................................................... 57
Owner Households ........................................................................................................................... 58
Overcrowding ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Foreclosures ........................................................................................................................................... 61
Lead-Based Paint .................................................................................................................................. 63
Public Housing and Public Housing Authorities ............................................................................ 63
Housing Authority of the Contra Costa County .......................................................................... 63
Pittsburg Housing Authority .......................................................................................................... 64
Richmond Housing Authority ........................................................................................................ 64
Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Purpose and Organization of the Strategic Plan .............................................................................. 67
Housing Strategy .................................................................................................................................. 68
Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................................... 68
Special Needs Housing .................................................................................................................... 70
Homeless Strategy ............................................................................................................................ 72
Non-Housing Community Development Strategy ......................................................................... 75
Public Services ................................................................................................................................... 75
Economic Development ................................................................................................................... 77
Infrastructure/Public Facilities ........................................................................................................ 77
Administration .................................................................................................................................. 78
Targeting of Estimated Resources ...................................................................................................... 79
Federal Funds .................................................................................................................................... 79
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
iii
Local Funds........................................................................................................................................ 79
Geographic Targeting and Neighborhood Revitalization .......................................................... 79
Public Housing Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 80
Contra Costa County Housing Authorities .................................................................................. 80
Strategies to Address the Needs of Public Housing .................................................................... 83
Barriers to Affordable Housing .......................................................................................................... 83
Implementation Strategies .................................................................................................................. 84
Obstacles to Meeting Underserved Needs .................................................................................... 84
Lead Hazard Reduction ................................................................................................................... 86
Anti-Poverty ...................................................................................................................................... 87
Institutional Structure ...................................................................................................................... 88
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ......................................................................................... 89
Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 89
Limited English Proficiency ............................................................................................................ 90
CONSOLIDATED PLAN APPENDICES
1. Areas of Minority Concentration
2. Areas of Hispanic Concentration
3. Areas of Low-Income and Very Low-Income Concentration
4. “CHAS” Tables
5. Lead Hazard Estimate Tables
6. Priority Need Tables (1B, 2A, 2B)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Current and Projected Population ......................................................................................... 10
Table 2 Rate of Change in Current and Projected Population ....................................................... 11
Table 3 Population by Age .................................................................................................................... 12
Table 4 Race as a Percentage of Total Population ............................................................................. 14
Table 5 Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population ........................................................ 15
Table 6 Income Categories .................................................................................................................... 16
Table 7 Income Characteristics for Incorporated Jurisdictions ...................................................... 17
Table 8 Income Characteristics for Unincorporated Areas ............................................................. 18
Table 9 Share of Population Below Poverty ...................................................................................... 20
Table 10 Educational Attainment for Persons Aged 25 Years and Older ..................................... 22
Table 11 Employment Statistics ........................................................................................................... 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
iv
Table 12 Occupation as a Percentage of the Workforce ................................................................... 25
Table 13 Household Composition, 2009 ............................................................................................. 26
Table 14 Family Household Composition .......................................................................................... 27
Table 15 Senior Households ................................................................................................................. 29
Table 16 Disability Status and Types ................................................................................................. 31
Table 17 Licensed Care Facilities by Jurisdiction and Type ........................................................... 33
Table 18 Large Households ................................................................................................................... 35
Table 19 Single-Parent Households .................................................................................................... 36
Table 20 Unsheltered Individuals ....................................................................................................... 41
Table 21 Sheltered Individuals ............................................................................................................ 41
Table 22 Housing Units, 2000–2009 ..................................................................................................... 43
Table 23 Housing Tenure ...................................................................................................................... 44
Table 24 Tenure by Units in Structure ................................................................................................ 46
Table 25 Vacancy Status, 2009............................................................................................................... 48
Table 26 Vacancy Status, 2000............................................................................................................... 49
Table 27 Age of Housing by Tenure .................................................................................................... 50
Table 28 Median Home Sale Listings ................................................................................................. 55
Table 29 Median Rental Listings ......................................................................................................... 56
Table 30 Fair Market Rents, 2009 ......................................................................................................... 56
Table 31 Cost Burden Summary, Renters ........................................................................................... 60
Table 32 Cost Burden Summary, Owners .......................................................................................... 60
Table 33 Persons per Room ................................................................................................................... 61
Table 34 Foreclosure Activity ............................................................................................................... 62
Table 35 Needs of Families on the Public Housing Authority Waiting List, Contra Costa
County ....................................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 36 Needs of Families on the Public Housing Authority Waiting List, Pittsburg ............ 64
Table 37 Needs of Families on the Public Housing Authority Waiting List, Richmond .......... 65
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Consolidated Plan fulfills the requirement that recipients of certain funds administered by
the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) create a plan describing
how these funds will be expended over a five-year period. These funds are Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME),
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). This
Consolidated Plan is for the period of July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015.
The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek and the County of
Contra Costa have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to cooperatively plan for the housing
and community development needs of the County. This Consolidated Plan was created by the
Consortium to assess the needs of all Consortium member communities and to guide the use of
funds within each individual member community.
The County of Contra Costa is responsible for planning for the use of funds in the
unincorporated areas of the County and the communities of Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El
Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San
Pablo, and San Ramon.
PLAN ORGANIZATION
The Consolidated Plan has four major components: the Executive Summary, the introduction,
the assessment of Community Needs, and the Strategic Plan. The Consolidated Plan also has
several appendices including maps, tables and supplemental information regarding community
needs and the planning process.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process involved the assessment of current housing and population needs
through the analysis of available data; public meetings; an online survey; and consultations
with service providers and key stakeholders.
HOUSING AND POPULATION DATA
Available data utilized includes the 2000 US Decennial Census, the 2007 American Community
Survey, housing and population reports from the California Department of Finance, reports
from the California Department of Employment Development, the Association of Bay Area
Governments, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
2
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Public meetings requested those attending to comment on the level of housing and community
development needs in the County and the relative priority of those needs. The meetings made
use of live polling technology (Turning Point) to document audience responses. All publi c
meetings were advertised in the Contra Costa Times. The Consortium held five public
meetings:
August 26, 2009 (evening) -- Pinole, Public Library
September 8, 2009 (evening) -- Oakley, Community Annex
September 15, 2009 (day) -- Walnut Creek, St. Paul’s
September 29, 2009 (evening) -- Concord, Meadow Homes School
The Consortium also discussed priority needs with the County’s housing and social services
providers at its annual CDBG and HOME application workshop on October 8, 2009.
ONLINE SURVEY
Recognizing that not all can attend public meetings and that the scope of a one -hour meeting is
limited, the Consortium provided an online survey. The survey was mentioned in all meeting
advertisements and mentioned at all public meetings.
CONSULTATIONS
The Consortium consulted with a wide range of service providers and stakeholders. These
involved both the public sector and private non-profit sector. These personal contacts asked
those who help to meet the housing and social services needs of the residents of Contra Costa
County to describe level of needs in the community, the relative priority of needs and what they
believe can be done to better meet the needs of the County’s residents.
PUBLIC REVIEW
A draft of the Consolidated Plan was made available for public review and comment from
March __, 2010 to April __, 2010.
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY NEEDS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
The Consolidated Plan sets forth the priority needs, objectives and strategies for the five-year
planning period. Priority needs have been determined as the result of the needs assessment
process. The Community Needs section of the Consolidated Plan provides a detailed discussion
of needs.
The Strategic Plan section establishes the priority of needs, objectives and strategies. The
objectives are intended to meet the identified priority needs. The strategies are programs or
polices intended to implement the objectives. Each strategy is identified with one or more
objectives that it advances.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
3
A priority need is one that has a demonstrated level of need and will have a preference for
funding. A higher level of priority can be established as the result of a hi gh absolute level of
need or a high level of need in relation to resources available to meet that need.
A detailed discussion of the priority needs, objectives and strategies are included in the
Strategic Plan section.
HOUSING STRATEGY
Affordable Housing
Objectives
AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income,
and moderate-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe, and
affordable rental housing and rental assistance.
AH-2: Increase homeownership opportunities.
AH-3: Maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
AH-4: Reduce the number and impact of home foreclosures.
Strategies
Land Acquisition for New Construction (AH-1, 2)
Construction and Development of New Affordable Housing (AH-1, 2)
Acquisition and Rehabilitation (AH-1, 2, 3, 4)
Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation (AH-3)
Rental Rehabilitation (AH-1, 3)
First-Time Homebuyer (AH-2)
Homebuyer Foreclosure Counseling (AH-4)
Special Needs Housing
Objectives
AH-5: Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs
populations.
AH-6: Preserve existing special needs housing.
AH-7: Adapt or modify existing housing to meet the needs of special needs populations.
AH-8: Improve access to services for those in special needs housing.
Strategies
All affordable housing programs will target special needs populations as appropriate.
Supportive and Special Needs Housing Production (AH-5)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
4
Supportive and Special Needs Housing Preservation (AH-6)
Housing Accessibility Modifications (AH-7)
Housing and Supportive Services Coordination (AH-8)
Homeless Strategy
Objectives
H-1: Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency,
transitional, and permanent affordable housing with appropriate supportive services.
H-2: Reduce the incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the homeless.
In addition to these objectives, the affordable housing and human services objectives of the Plan
also address the needs of the homeless and the problem of homelessness.
Strategies
Affordable Housing Production (H-1)
Emergency Shelter Programs (H-1)
Crisis Intervention (H-2)
Family Shelter and Homeless Housing (H-1)
Services to the Homeless (H-2)
NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Public Services
Objectives
CD-1 General Public Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve
the quality of life and independence for lower-income persons, and ensure access to programs
that promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social concerns such as
substance abuse, hunger, and other issues.
CD-2 Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and frail elderly, and enable them
to maintain independence.
CD-3 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school, and
prepare for productive adulthood.
CD-4 Non-Homeless Special Needs: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to
improve the quality of life and independence for persons with special needs, such as disabled
persons, battered spouses, abused children, persons with HIV/AIDS, illiterate adults, and
migrant farmworkers.
CD-5 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair
housing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
5
Strategies
Social Services Programs – General (CD-1, 2, 3, 5)
Emergency Shelter – Non-Homeless (CD-4)
Crisis Intervention (CD-1, 2, 3, 4)
Information and Referral, and Outreach (CD-1)
Economic Development
Objectives
CD-6 Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons with incomes below the poverty
level, expand economic opportunities for very low- and low-income residents, and increase the
viability of neighborhood commercial areas.
Strategies
Job Training (CD-6)
Small Business Assistance (CD-6)
Infrastructure/Public Facilities
Objectives
CD-7 Infrastructure and Accessibility: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate
infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility-impaired by addressing physical access
barriers to public facilities.
Strategies
Construct or Improve Public Facilities (CD-7)
Removal of Barriers (CD-7)
Right-of-Way Improvements (CD-7)
Administration
Objective
CD-8 Administration: 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.
Strategies
Collaboration and Standardization (CD-8)
Support of Inter-Jurisdictional Efforts (CD-8)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
6
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
7
INTRODUCTION
This Consolidated Plan fulfills the requirement that recipients of certain funds administered by
the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) create a plan describing
how these funds will be expended over a five-year period. These funds are Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME),
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). This
Consolidated Plan is for the period of July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015.
The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek and the County of
Contra Costa have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to cooperatively plan for the housing
and community development needs of the County. This Consolidate d Plan was created by the
Consortium to assess the needs of all Consortium member communities and to guide the use of
funds within each individual member community.
The County of Contra Costa is responsible for planning for the use of funds in the
unincorporated areas of the County and the communities of Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El
Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San
Pablo, and San Ramon.
Principal cities of metropolitan areas and other metropolitan cities with populations of at least
50,000 persons and urban counties with populations of at least 200,000 persons are eligible to
receive an annual allocation of funds through the federal Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. These cities and counties are known as “entitlement communities.” The
jurisdiction of an Urban County entitlement community includes the unincorporated area of the
county and the non-entitlement municipalities within the county.
Cities and counties who are eligible to receive at least $500,000 in funding under the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) may receive a direct allocation of HOME Program
funding from HUD. These municipalities are known as “Participating Jurisdictions.” Cities and
counties may join together to form a HOME Consortium to meet the HOME funding threshold
and thereby receive a joint allocation of HOME funding.
The Urban County and the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek receive
HOME funds as a formal HOME Consortium. The City of Richmond receives HOME funds as a
Participating Jurisdiction.
The Urban County receives Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for
People With AIDS (HOPWA) funds that it administers for the benefit of the Urban County.
INTRODUCTION
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
8
PLAN ORGANIZATION
The Consolidated Plan has four major components: the Executive Summary, this introduction,
the assessment of Community Needs, and the Strategic Plan. The Consolidated Plan also has
several appendices including maps, tables and supplemental information regarding community
needs and the planning process.
GEOGRAPHIC TERMS
Throughout this document the following geographic terms will be used. To assist the reader,
below is an explanation of each.
Contra Costa County “County” (countywide): Includes all 19 jurisdictions within
the County as well as the unincorporated area of the County (Antioch, Brentwood,
Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga,
Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon,
the unincorporated area of the County, and Walnut Creek).
Urban County: Includes all jurisdictions which are not entitlement jurisdictions
(Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga,
Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, San Ramon, and the
unincorporated area of the County).
Unincorporated County: Includes unincorporated area of the County (this area is
not a part of any municipality).
Entitlement Cities: The CDBG entitlement cities in the County are Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and Walnut Creek.
HOME Consortium: The members of the HOME Consortium are Antioch, Concord,
Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek.
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
9
COMMUNITY NEEDS
The community needs section of the Consolidated Plan provides a community profile that
describes the housing and population characteristics of the County and cities in the County.
This section serves as the basis for determining the housing and community development needs
in Contra Costa County.
The data sources used to compile this section include the U.S. Census, the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Projections, and the California Department of Finance,
supplemented with current market data and secondary sources of information such as local
Housing Elements, reports from service providers, and reports produced by local government
agencies. As the 2000 U.S. Census data is 10 years old, information from the Census was only
used when more recent data was unavailable.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The following information provides a profile of the residents of Contra Costa County, the
Urban County, and specifically the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond, and
Walnut Creek, including age and racial/ethnic composition . The section focuses on anticipated
changes, which are significant when planning for the Consortium’s needs over the next five
years.
POPULATION
Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate a few notable growth trends in the Bay Area and in Contra Costa
County and its cities. The estimated annual percentage growth rate from 2000 to 2010 decreased
with respect to the actual annual growth percentage rate from 1990 to 2000 for the County and
cities.
From 1990 to 2000, the actual growth percentage rate in the County (18.1 percent), Antioch (46.0
percent), Pittsburg (19.5 percent), and Richmond (14.1 percent) exceeds the percentage growth
for the Bay Area (12.6 percent) as a whole.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2007, the
population in Contra Costa County is expected to reach 1,061,900 in 2010 and grow to 1,105,600
by 2015. Between 2010 and 2015 the County’s population is estimated to grow by 4.3 percent.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
10
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction 1990 1 2000 1 2010 2 2015 2 2020 2
Bay Area 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,412,500 7,730,000 8,069,700
Urban County
Brentwood 7,563 23,284 51,300 56,900 67,400
Clayton 7,317 10,792 11,300 11,700 12,000
Danville 31,306 42,127 44,000 44,400 45,000
El Cerrito 22,869 23,179 23,600 23,900 24,500
Hercules 16,829 19,299 23,900 25,200 26,400
Lafayette 23,501 23,463 24,500 24,700 25,300
Martinez 32,038 36,167 37,600 38,600 39,600
Moraga 15,852 16,642 16,700 16,900 17,500
Oakley 3 18,225 25,465 31,950 34,050 35,850
Orinda 16,642 17,446 18,000 18,200 18,500
Pinole 17,460 19,394 20,100 20,300 20,700
Pleasant Hill 31,585 32,847 33,900 34,400 34,900
San Pablo 25,158 30,121 31,400 31,700 32,100
San Ramon 35,303 44,477 58,200 64,400 70,300
Unincorporated County 151,690 159,650 165,550 173,050 179,050
Urban County Subtotal 377,247 427,978 592,000 618,400 649,100
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 62,195 90,814 106,000 111,400 115,000
Concord 111,348 121,710 125,800 129,400 135,400
Pittsburg 47,564 56,820 65,900 67,900 71,000
Richmond 87,425 99,716 104,700 109,800 115,600
Walnut Creek 60,569 64,583 67,500 68,700 70,900
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 746,348 861,621 1,061,900 1,105,600 1,157,000
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equal 100 .
1 Data provided by the 1990 and 2000 Census.
2 Data provided by ABAG.
3 Oakley was incorporated as a city July 1, 1999; therefore, the data under 1990 is from the Oakley Census Designated Place (CDP).
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
11
TABLE 2
RATE OF CHANGE IN CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction
1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2015
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Urban County
Brentwood 20.8% 207.9% 12.0% 120.2% 3.2% 16.2%
Clayton 4.7% 47.5% 0.5% 5.0% 0.7% 3.5%
Danville 3.5% 34.6% 0.6% 5.5% 0.2% 0.9%
El Cerrito 0.1% 1.4% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.3%
Hercules 1.5% 14.7% 2.3% 22.7% 1.1% 5.4%
Lafayette 0.0% -0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 0.1% 0.8%
Martinez 1.3% 12.9% 0.4% 4.8% 0.5% 2.7%
Moraga 0.5% 5.0% 0.3% 2.5% 0.2% 1.2%
Oakley 3.9% 39.5% 2.5% 24.7% 1.3% 6.6%
Orinda 0.5% 4.8% 0.2% 2.3% 0.2% 1.1%
Pinole 1.1% 11.1% 0.6% 5.6% 0.2% 1.0%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.0% 0.3% 3.2% 0.3% 1.5%
San Pablo 2.0% 19.7% 0.4% 3.9% 0.2% 1.0%
San Ramon 2.6% 26.0% 3.0% 30.1% 2.1% 10.7%
Unincorporated County 0.5% 5.2% 0.9% 9.1% 0.9% 4.5%
Urban County Total 1.4% 13.6% 1.5% 14.9% 0.4% 4.46%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 4.6% 46.0% 1.7% 17.1% 0.8% 4.2%
Concord 0.9% 9.3% 0.3% 3.3% 0.6% 2.9%
Pittsburg 1.9% 19.5% 1.6% 16.1% 0.6% 3.0%
Richmond 1.4% 14.1% 0.6% 5.5% 1.0% 4.9%
Walnut Creek 0.7% 6.6% 0.5% 5.0% 0.4% 1.8%
Contra Costa County (countywide)
Total 1.8% 18.1% 1.2% 11.9% 0.9% 4.3%
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
12
POPULATION BY AGE
Table 3 shows population by age group. Of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Walnut
Creek had the largest share of persons over 65 (25.0 percent), followed by El Cerrito (20.7
percent) and Orinda (18.4 percent). Oakley had the largest percentage of persons under the age
of 18 (34.7 percent), followed by Brentwood (33.8 percent) and Antioch (33.7 percent). Contra
Costa County had a total of 27.7 percent of persons under 18 and 11.3 percent of persons
over 65.
TABLE 3
POPULATION BY AGE
Jurisdiction
Percentage
of Persons
Under 18
Percentage
of Persons
Over 18
Percentage
of Persons
Age 19–64
Percentage
of Persons
Over 65
Urban County
Brentwood 33.8% 66.1% 56.5% 9.6%
Clayton 26.9% 72.5% 63.4% 9.1%
Danville 29.5% 70.5% 60.2% 10.3%
El Cerrito 16.6% 83.4% 62.7% 20.7%
Hercules 28.7% 71.3% 64.5% 6.8%
Lafayette 26.4% 73.6% 59.6% 14.0%
Martinez 24.0% 76.0% 65.8% 10.2%
Moraga 25.6% 74.4% 59.2% 15.2%
Oakley 34.7% 64.6% 58.8% 5.8%
Orinda 26.4% 73.6% 55.2% 18.4%
Pinole 26.6% 73.5% 59.4% 14.1%
Pleasant Hill 22.6% 77.4% 64.3% 13.1%
San Pablo 33.0% 67.0% 58.1% 8.9%
San Ramon 27.4% 72.6% 66.4% 6.2%
Unincorporated County 27.2% 72.8% 61.9% 10.9%
Urban County Total 27.4% 72.6% 60.1% 11.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 33.7% 66.3% 59.0% 7.3%
Concord 26.5% 72.4% 61.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 31.3% 67.9% 59.7% 8.2%
Richmond 28.7% 71.2% 61.6% 9.6%
Walnut Creek 18.0% 81.6% 56.6% 25.0%
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 27.7% 72.3% 61.0% 11.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equal 100 .
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
13
RACE/ETHNICITY
Although Contra Costa County is generally diverse, the particular racial and ethnic composition
varies by community. Please see Tables 4 and 5.1 Of the nineteen cities in the County, there are
eight with a White population of over 80 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez,
Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek), and six with a minority population near or
greater than 50 percent (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Richmond).
In a similar fashion, four communities have an Hispanic or Latino population over 25 percent
(Brentwood, Oakley, San Pablo, Richmond), and six have an Hispanic or Latino population of
less than 6 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek).
The communities that are predominantly White tend to be those located in the central portion of
the County, in the Interstate Highway 680 corridor. The predominantly minority and Hispanic
or Latino communities tend to be in the industrial and agricultural eastern and western regions
of the County.
AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION
Data on race and ethnicity were examined at the block group level to determine areas of
minority and ethnic concentration (2000 U.S. Decennial Census, Summary File 3). Minority
population is defined as the total population less those who responded “White alone” to the
U.S. Census. Block group areas where the percentage of total minority population exceeds the
group’s countywide total percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of “minority concentration.” Areas that have a minority population at least 1.5 times the
countywide total percentage are considered to be areas of “high minority concentration.” Note
that of all the entitlement jurisdictions, Walnut Creek does not have any areas of minority
concentration, therefore a map was not included. Please see Maps 1 through 5 in Appendix 1.
(Please note that although Census tract boundaries are contiguous with County boundaries,
block group area boundaries within tracts may not be contiguous with current city boundaries.)
It should be noted that in all areas which show an overall minority concentration, the
predominant minority group is Black/African American.
Since the U.S. Census enumerates Hispanic as a distinct ethnic category, this characteristic was
examined separately. Block group areas where the percentage of total Hispanic population
exceeds the countywide percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of Hispanic concentration. The average countywide percentage of Hispanic population is 17.6
percent. Areas that have a Hispanic population at least 1.5 times the countywide percentage are
considered to be areas of high Hispanic concentration. Of all the entitlement jurisdictions,
1 Race is shown for persons who reported being of that race alone. Persons reporting more than one race are included
in “two or more races.” Persons who indicated they were of only one race but did not report a race in one of the five
categories shown are included in “some other race.”
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
14
Walnut Creek does not have any areas of Hispanic concentration therefore a map was not
included. Please see Maps 6 through 10 in Appendix 2.
TABLE 4
RACE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
other race
Two or
more races
Urban County
Brentwood 74.0% 1.5% 0.5% 3.3% 0.2% 14.0% 6.6%
Clayton 87.7% 1.2% 0.1% 5.5% 0.4% 1.3% 3.8%
Danville 86.3% 1.0% 0.2% 8.5% 0.0% 0.9% 3.0%
El Cerrito 57.0% 8.1% 0.6% 24.3% 0.5% 3.4% 6.2%
Hercules 28.0% 18.8% 0.6% 43.0% 0.2% 5.1% 4.6%
Lafayette 88.0% 0.5% 0.2% 7.0% 0.1% 0.9% 3.3%
Martinez 81.0% 3.3% 0.8% 6.4% 0.1% 3.4% 5.0%
Moraga 80.0% 1.3% 0.4% 13.0% 0.1% 1.6% 4.1%
Oakley 76.0% 3.0% 0.7% 3.0% 0.0% 11.1% 6.6%
Orinda 87.0% 0.3% 0.2% 8.7% 0.2% 0.8% 3.0%
Pinole 55.0% 10.9% 0.5% 21.1% 0.9% 5.8% 6.0%
Pleasant Hill 82.0% 1.1% 0.5% 10.0% 0.3% 1.9% 4.3%
San Pablo 31.0% 18.3% 1.1% 16.3% 0.2% 26.0% 7.0%
San Ramon 76.0% 2.1% 0.4% 15.3% 0.2% 2.2% 3.8%
Unincorporated County 66.1% 9.9% 0.8% 10.9% 0.6% 5.9% 5.7%
Urban County Total 65.3% 9.2% 0.6% 10.9% 0.4% 8.2% 5.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 65.2% 9.5% 0.8% 7.3% 0.4% 9.2% 7.5%
Concord 70.7% 3.0% 0.8% 9.4% 0.5% 9.7% 5.9%
Pittsburg 43.5% 18.9% 0.8% 12.7% 0.9% 16.1% 7.2%
Richmond 31.4% 36.1% 0.7% 12.3% 0.5% 13.9% 5.3%
Walnut Creek 83.9% 1.1% 0.3% 9.4% 0.2% 2.0% 3.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 65.5% 9.4% 0.6% 11.0% 0.4% 8.1% 5.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P6
Note: Rounding may lead to row totals slightly more or less than 100%.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
15
TABLE 5
HISPANIC ORIGIN AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction Hispanic or Latino (all races) Not Hispanic or Latino (all races)
Urban County
Brentwood 28.9% 71.1%
Clayton 5.7% 94.3%
Danville 4.9% 95.1%
El Cerrito 7.9% 92.1%
Hercules 10.8% 89.2%
Lafayette 4.3% 95.7%
Martinez 10.6% 89.4%
Moraga 4.6% 95.4%
Oakley 24.6% 75.4%
Orinda 3.5% 96.5%
Pinole 14.4% 85.6%
Pleasant Hill 8.2% 91.8%
San Pablo 44.5% 55.5%
San Ramon 7.2% 92.8%
Unincorporated County 20.6% 79.4%
Urban County Total 17.7% 82.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 22.0% 78.0%
Concord 21.9% 78.1%
Pittsburg 32.0% 68.0%
Richmond 26.8% 73.2%
Walnut Creek 5.8% 94.2%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 17.7% 82.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P7
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
16
INCOME
In this plan, income will be discussed using the terms as defined in Table 6 below. These terms
correspond to the income limits published annually by HUD. HUD bases these income
categories on the Decennial Census with adjustment factors applied using the annual American
Community Survey. Income categories take into consideration family size. The income limit for
a family of four is shown for illustration.
TABLE 6
INCOME CATEGORIES
Term Percentage AMI1 2009 Income Limit, Family of 42
Extremely low income 30% $26,790
Very low income 50% $44,650
Low income 80% $66,250
Moderate income3 120% $107,160
1 AMI = area median family income
2 Oakland-Fremont HMFA (HUD Metropolitan FMR Area) including Contra Costa County.
3 HUD does not publish a “moderate income” limit. It is calculated as 2.4 times the published very low -income limit.
Table 7 provides a summary of income statistics as reported by the 2000 Census for all
jurisdictions within Contra Costa County except the unincorporated area of the County. The
2000 Census does not provide information for the unincorporated area but does include data for
a Census-designated place (CDP). A CDP comprises a densely settled concentration of
population that is not within an incorporated place but is locally identified by a name. Contra
Costa County has 22 different CDPs. To get a better idea of the incomes for the unincorporated
area, Table 8 provides data for each CDP in the unincorporated County.
The communities of Contra Costa County have a significant disparity of household income
between them. Four cities and three CDPs have annual median household incomes above
$100,000 (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, Alamo, Blackhawk-Camino/Tassajara, and
Diablo). None of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions.
Three cities and eight CDPs have annual median household incomes near or below $50,000 (San
Pablo, Pittsburg, Richmond, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Crockett, El Sobrante, Pacheco,
Rollingwood, and Vine Hill). Two of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions,
eight are un-incorporated CDPs.
Higher income communities in the County tend to be in the central region, lower income
communities are more likely to be in the industrial and agricultural communities of the eastern
and western regions.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
17
TABLE 7
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR INCORPORATED JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Urban County
Brentwood $69,198 $24,909
Clayton $101,651 $42,048
Danville $114,064 $50,773
El Cerrito $57,253 $32,593
Hercules $75,196 $27,699
Lafayette $102,107 $54,319
Martinez $63,010 $29,701
Moraga $98,080 $45,437
Oakley $65,589 $21,895
Orinda $117,637 $65,428
Pinole $62,256 $25,170
Pleasant Hill $67,489 $33,076
San Pablo $37,184 $14,303
San Ramon $95,856 $42,336
Unincorporated County See Table 8
Urban County Total n/a n/a
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch $60,359 $22,152
Concord $55,597 $24,727
Pittsburg $50,557 $18,241
Richmond $44,210 $19,788
Walnut Creek $63,238 $39,875
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total $63,675 $30,615
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
18
TABLE 8
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Census Designated Place Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Alamo CDP $137,105 $65,705
Bay Point CDP $44,951 $16,743
Bayview-Montalvin CDP $50,750 $16,056
Bethel Island CDP $44,569 $26,739
Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara CDP $154,598 $66,972
Byron CDP $35,938 $21,231
Clyde CDP $66,875 $30,822
Crockett CDP $48,574 $27,469
Diablo CDP $197,904 $95,419
Discovery Bay CDP $89,915 $41,313
East Richmond Heights CDP $57,500 $27,873
El Sobrante CDP $48,272 $24,525
Kensington CDP $93,247 $55,275
Knightsen CDP $58,929 $22,191
Mountain View CDP $51,986 $26,071
Pacheco CDP $45,851 $26,064
Port Costa CDP $61,429 $33,563
Rodeo CDP $60,522 $21,432
Rollingwood CDP $48,229 $13,428
Tara Hills CDP $56,380 $22,946
Vine Hill CDP $48,125 $17,985
Walden CDP $58,552 $41,093
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
AREAS OF LOW- AND VERY LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION
Data on income was examined at the block group level to determine areas of low- and very low-
income concentration (2009 HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary Data).
Low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more low-income persons.2 The exception
is the Urban County and entitlement communities within the County which have been
designated by HUD as “exception grantees.” In those communities, the HUD exception
2 Using the LOWMODPCT variable which is defined as “the percentage of persons who are of low/moderate income;
calculated by LOWMOD/LOWMODUNIV times 100.”
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
19
threshold was used to determine low-income areas.3 Please see Maps 11 through 16 in
Appendix 3. Very low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more very low-income
persons or a percentage of very low-income persons that exceeds the applicable exception
threshold. 4 Please see Maps 17 through 18 in Appendix 3.
POVERTY
In addition to reporting income, the 2000 Census reports the number of persons and families
that have incomes that fall below the federal poverty level.5 The poverty level is adjusted for
family size and composition making it a more relative measure than household income. Persons
and families that are below the poverty level are in general very poor. Please see Table 9 for
persons and families who fall below the poverty line. The table also shows children who are
below the poverty line.
The cities of San Pablo and Richmond are notable for the level of poverty as is the un-
incorporated area of the County. The un-incorporated area of the County has a notably high
level of children in poverty.
3 Defined by HUD as an area “within the highest quartile of all areas within the jurisdiction . . . in terms of the degree
of concentration of persons of low and moderate income.” This threshold is 42.60% for the Urban County; 47.9% for
Concord; 32.5% for Walnut Creek.
4 Calculated as “PVLOW/LOWMODUNIV times 100.” PVLOW = “The total number of persons below the very low-
income threshold. LOMODUNIV = “Persons with the potential for being deemed Low Mod.”
5 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau bas ed on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
20
TABLE 9
SHARE OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY
Jurisdiction Persons Persons Under
18 Years of Age Families
Urban County
Brentwood 5.8% 2.5% 5.1%
Clayton 2.6% 1.0% 1.9%
Danville 2.2% 0.5% 1.2%
El Cerrito 6.7% 1.3% 3.8%
Hercules 3.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Lafayette 2.9% 0.6% 2.0%
Martinez 5.2% 1.0% 3.0%
Moraga 2.9% 0.9% 2.0%
Oakley 5.0% 1.8% 3.7%
Orinda 1.9% 0.3% 1.1%
Pinole 5.0% 1.4% 3.3%
Pleasant Hill 5.0% 0.8% 2.3%
San Pablo 18.1% 7.5% 15.5%
San Ramon 2.0% 0.4% 1.4%
Unincorporated County 47.8% 16.8% 36.7%
Urban County Total 17.6% 6.0% 13.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 8.5% 3.8% 7.2%
Concord 7.6% 2.4% 5.6%
Pittsburg 11.5% 4.3% 9.6%
Richmond 16.2% 6.4% 13.5%
Walnut Creek 3.7% 0.6% 1.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 7.6% 10.3% 5.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 (persons and families for whom poverty status is determined), Table P87 and P89
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
21
EDUCATION
Education level plays a critical role in determining the income level of a household. Table 10
provides a summary of educational attainment for persons aged 25 years and older for the share
of the population in the state and in each jurisdiction. Both Clayton and Orinda had zero
persons who reported no schooling, with Moraga and Danville following close behind (0.1
percent). San Pablo (6.6 percent) and Richmond (3.4 percent) had the greatest number of
persons who reported no schooling. For the share of persons having a college degree, only 6 of
the 19 jurisdictions in Contra Costa County were below the state percentage (33.7 percent).
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
22
TABLE 10
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR PERSONS AGED 25 YEARS AND OLDER
Jurisdiction % No
Schooling
% Some
Schooling
(nursery–
11th grade)
% High
School
(without
diploma)
% High
School
Graduate
and
Equivalent
% Some
College (no
degree)
% College
Degree
State of California 3.2% 15.3% 4.7% 20.1% 22.9% 33.7%
Urban County
Brentwood 1.9% 11.4% 3.9% 25.4% 28.7% 28.8%
Clayton 0.0% 1.3% 1.2% 15.1% 22.9% 59.5%
Danville 0.1% 2.1% 1.3% 11.2% 19.0% 66.4%
El Cerrito 1.0% 4.5% 1.9% 13.0% 17.6% 62.0%
Hercules 1.4% 4.8% 3.2% 16.8% 27.2% 46.5%
Lafayette 0.2% 1.2% 0.9% 8.7% 15.8% 73.1%
Martinez 0.4% 5.3% 3.3% 20.3% 28.8% 42.0%
Moraga 0.1% 1.7% 1.2% 8.3% 16.3% 72.4%
Oakley 0.8% 10.3% 4.1% 30.4% 32.4% 22.0%
Orinda 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 5.5% 12.7% 79.6%
Pinole 1.1% 7.7% 3.0% 24.1% 28.1% 36.1%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.4% 2.1% 17.5% 24.1% 51.5%
San Pablo 6.6% 24.2% 6.8% 26.1% 21.2% 15.1%
San Ramon 0.3% 1.7% 1.5% 11.8% 23.8% 60.9%
Unincorporated County 1.5% 8.8% 3.5% 20.4% 24.7% 41.1%
Urban County Total 1.3% 7.9% 3.2% 19.3% 24.2% 44.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 1.1% 9.2% 4.1% 28.6% 29.9% 27.1%
Concord 1.7% 10.0% 3.6% 23.2% 26.9% 34.6%
Pittsburg 2.6% 16.2% 5.5% 25.9% 27.8% 22.1%
Richmond 3.4% 15.4% 5.8% 21.8% 24.4% 29.2%
Walnut Creek 0.3% 3.3% 1.4% 12.6% 21.1% 61.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 1.4% 8.4% 3.4% 19.8% 24.4% 42.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P37
Note: Due to rounding, the total percentage for each jurisdiction may not equal 100.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
23
EMPLOYMENT
Table 11 provides a summary of the civilian labor force, employment (the number employed),
unemployment (the number unemployed), and the unemployment rate for 2007 and 2008 –2009
for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The 2007 data is the annual average, and the 2008–
2009 data was collected from March 2008 through December 2009. When comparing the 2007
data to the 2008–2009 data for Contra Costa County as a whole, due to the current economic
conditions the unemployment rate has increased dramatically from 4.7 percent in 2007 to 11
percent in 2008–2009. This increased unemployment rate is the trend for all jurisdictions in the
County, with every jurisdiction seeing an increase in unemployment.
The jurisdictions that had the greatest increase in unemployment rates for 2008–2009 were San
Pablo (11.7 percent increase) and Richmond and Moraga (each with an approximate 10 percent
increase). The Department of Finance does not provide a breakdown of occupation for
individual jurisdictions, therefore the 2000 U.S. Census was used. As shown in Table 12,
management, professional, and related occupations represent the largest share of occupations
for the Urban County and entitlement jurisdictions, followed by sales and office occupations.
Persons employed in farming, fishing, and forestry represent the smallest share of the
workforce.
An increase in demand for a wide range of services has resulted from job losses and reductions
in work hours. There has been a particular increase in demand from families who previously
did not need services. As a result of a job loss or work reductions, there have been families
pushed down into a lower income category and in need of financial assistance to meet their
most basic living expenses, housing, food, and health services. SHELTER, Inc. saw a 37 percent
increase in demand for homeless prevention services between 2008 and 2009.6 Many cities
consulted noted an increase in the need for affordable housing resources in light of decreases in
household income resulting from job losses and cuts to benefits.7
6 SHELTER, Inc, September 17, 18, and 19, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17, 18, and 19,
2009.
7 City of Clayton, December 2009 ; City of El Cerrito, December 2009; City of Orinda, December 2009; City of Oakley,
December 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
Page 24
TABLE 11
EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Jurisdiction
2008–2009 2007
Labor Force Employment Unemployed Labor Force Employment Unemployed
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Urban County
Brentwood 10,900 9,900 1,100 9.8% 10,900 10,400 400 4.1%
Clayton 6,200 6,000 100 2.3% 6,400 6,400 100 0.9%
Danville 23,100 21,700 1,300 5.8% 23,500 23,000 600 2.4%
El Cerrito 14,000 12,600 1,400 9.8% 13,900 13,300 600 4.1%
Hercules 11,300 10,400 800 7.4% 11,400 11,000 400 3.1%
Lafayette 12,600 12,100 500 4.0% 12,900 12,700 200 1.6%
Martinez 21,900 20,000 1,900 8.8% 21,900 21,100 800 3.7%
Moraga 9,400 7,800 1,600 16.5% 8,900 8,300 700 7.3%
Oakley 13,700 12,600 1,100 8.0% 13,800 13,300 500 3.3%
Orinda 8,600 8,300 300 3.9% 8,900 8,700 100 1.6%
Pinole 10,500 9,800 700 7.1% 10,600 10,300 300 3.0%
Pleasant Hill 20,300 18,500 1,800 9.0% 20,300 19,600 800 3.8%
San Pablo 14,400 11,300 3,100 21.5% 13,200 11,900 1,300 9.8%
San Ramon 28,100 26,800 1,300 4.6% 28,900 28,300 500 1.9%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 49,500 43,400 6,200 12.4% 48,400 45,800 2,600 5.3%
Concord 70,500 62,100 8,400 11.9% 69,100 65,600 3,500 5.1%
Pittsburg 31,000 25,700 5,300 17.2% 29,300 27,100 2,200 7.6%
Richmond 54,000 44,500 9,500 17.6% 51,000 47,000 4,000 7.8%
Walnut Creek 34,200 31,600 2,600 7.5% 34,500 33,400 1,100 3.1%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 527,100 469,100 58,000 11.0% 519,700 495,400 24,300 4.7%
Source: Economic Development Department, Labor Force and Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2008–2009.
Note: The data is not seasonally adjusted; therefore the employment and unemployment numbers may not be the total labor force.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
25
TABLE 12
OCCUPATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WORKFORCE
Jurisdiction
Management,
professional,
and related
Service
Sales
and
office
Farming,
fishing,
and
forestry
Construction,
extraction, and
maintenance
Production,
transportation,
and material
moving
Urban County
Brentwood 35.9% 15.0% 25.6% 1.2% 14.1% 8.1%
Clayton 54.5% 9.3% 27.0% 0.0% 4.6% 4.6%
Danville 58.1% 5.7% 28.5% 0.1% 4.0% 3.6%
El Cerrito 58.2% 8.6% 24.2% 0.1% 4.0% 4.9%
Hercules 39.6% 9.6% 35.1% 0.0% 6.0% 9.7%
Lafayette 64.3% 7.8% 20.1% 0.1% 4.2% 3.6%
Martinez 41.3% 10.1% 31.0% 0.1% 10.6% 7.0%
Moraga 61.2% 7.8% 24.7% 0.1% 2.3% 3.9%
Oakley 25.2% 15.9% 29.9% 0.4% 15.7% 12.9%
Orinda 66.4% 6.3% 22.2% 0.3% 2.0% 2.8%
Pinole 34.3% 16.1% 29.6% 0.0% 9.7% 10.2%
Pleasant Hill 48.9% 10.7% 26.9% 0.1% 8.2% 5.2%
San Pablo 20.2% 23.4% 25.8% 0.7% 13.8% 16.2%
San Ramon 54.8% 6.0% 30.6% 0.0% 4.5% 4.0%
Unincorporated County 41.2% 13.5% 26.9% 0.5% 9.3% 8.7%
Urban County Total 47.8% 10.3% 27.8% 0.2% 7.4% 6.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 29.1% 15.1% 31.2% 0.2% 13.2% 11.3%
Concord 34.0% 17.8% 27.9% 0.1% 10.9% 9.3%
Pittsburg 24.0% 19.1% 29.8% 0.1% 13.2% 13.7%
Richmond 32.9% 18.1% 26.4% 0.2% 9.0% 13.3%
Walnut Creek 55.5% 9.0% 27.6% 0.1% 4.1% 3.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 41.0% 13.4% 28.0% 0.2% 8.9% 8.5%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P50
Note: Due to rounding errors, total employment shares for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
26
HOUSEHOLDS
The type, size, and composition of a household can affect the type of housing and services that
are needed. The following section provides an analysis of the household profiles for all
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, as well as in the unincorporated County.
Table 13 presents household size, percentage of persons living alone, and percentage of persons
over age 65. San Pablo had the largest average household size (3.25 persons) of all the
jurisdictions, with the second largest household size (3.23 persons) reported in Oakley. Based on
the 2000 U.S. Census, Walnut Creek had the largest share of persons living alone (38.4 percent)
and householders over the age of 65 (35.8 percent).
TABLE 13
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2009
Jurisdiction Average Household
Size (persons)1
% of Single Persons Living
Alone2
% Headed by Person
65 and Older2
Urban County
Brentwood 3.04 14.5% 18.2%
Clayton 2.73 14.5% 15.9%
Danville 2.75 15.7% 16.7%
El Cerrito 2.23 30.9% 30.8%
Hercules 2.99 17.8% 8.6%
Lafayette 2.57 18.9% 21.6%
Martinez 2.39 27.3% 16.0%
Moraga 2.56 19.9% 26.2%
Oakley 3.23 12.9% 11.5%
Orinda 2.63 16.4% 30.4%
Pinole 2.76 20.0% 23.2%
Pleasant Hill 2.33 28.9% 20.1%
San Pablo 3.25 22.4% 16.3%
San Ramon 2.60 21.1% 9.8%
Unincorporated County 2.69 21.7% 18.9%
Urban County Total -- 21.3% 18.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 3.04 15.8% 13.3%
Concord 2.71 23.2% 17.8%
Pittsburg 3.13 18.3% 15.2%
Richmond 2.79 25.9% 17.7%
Walnut Creek 2.07 38.4% 35.8%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 2.75 22.9% 19.3%
Source: 1 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10 and H1; 2 Department of Finance 2009, E-5 Report
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
27
Table 14 presents the number of family households and the share of family households that are
married, single parents, and have children under 18 years of age for all jurisdictions in Contra
Costa County. Of the 344,129 households in the County, 243,971 (70.9 percent) were family
households.8 Of the family households, 123,948 (50.8 percent) had children under 18. When
looking closer at the jurisdictions in the County: Oakley (63.4 percent), San Pablo (61.1 percent),
and Antioch (59.8 percent) had the largest share of families with children under 18; Orinda (91.5
percent), Clayton (90.5 percent), and Lafayette (90.1 percent) had the largest share of married
couples; and San Pablo (21.7 percent) and Richmond (18.9 percent) had the largest share of
single parents. These percentages exceed that of the County for each category: families with
children under 18, married couples, and single parents.
TABLE 14
FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Jurisdiction Family Households % Married % With Children
Under 18 % Single Parent
Urban County
Brentwood 6,231 87.0% 58.7% 9.3%
Clayton 3,212 90.5% 48.1% 5.4%
Danville 12,054 89.0% 52.1% 6.1%
El Cerrito 6,047 78.5% 34.5% 7.7%
Hercules 4,993 78.9% 55.2% 11.4%
Lafayette 6,805 90.1% 49.1% 6.3%
Martinez 9,279 78.6% 48.0% 11.6%
Moraga 4,361 88.6% 47.1% 5.7%
Oakley 6,483 86.4% 63.4% 8.8%
Orinda 5,231 91.5% 46.1% 4.2%
Pinole 5,148 77.3% 46.3% 9.6%
Pleasant Hill 8,435 80.6% 46.9% 10.3%
San Pablo 6,672 63.1% 61.1% 21.7%
San Ramon 12,077 86.1% 53.3% 8.4%
Unincorporated County 39,370 79.1% -- 11.1%
Urban County Total 136,398 82.1% 42.1% 9.7%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 23,307 77.5% 59.8% 14.8%
Concord 30,637 75.6% 51.4% 12.8%
Pittsburg 13,509 72.9% 55.1% 14.7%
Richmond 23,403 63.4% 51.0% 18.9%
Walnut Creek 16,717 85.0% 39.1% 7.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 243,971 78.7% 50.8% 11.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10
8 Comprising related individuals.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
28
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – NON-HOMELESS
Certain groups may have more difficulty finding housing and may require specialized services
or assistance. Owing to their special circumstances, they are more likely to have extremely low,
very low, low, or moderate incomes. These groups include the elderly, frail elderly, persons
with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug
addiction, victims of domestic violence, large households, and single parent-headed (female
and male) households. HUD also requires an analysis of the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS
and their families. HUD does not require an analysis on large households or single parent-
headed households, but the Consortium believes both of these groups fall into the special needs
group.
ELDERLY AND FRAIL ELDERLY
The three jurisdictions with the largest share of senior households were Walnut Creek (36.1
percent), Orinda (31.9 percent), and El Cerrito (31.4 percent). Please see Table 15.
Of all jurisdictions in the County, both San Pablo (52.6 percent) and Pit tsburg (50.7 percent) had
over half of their senior population reporting a disability, compared to the total County with
39.6 percent of the senior population reporting a disability.
Seniors are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the in crease in evictions in
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted during foreclosure. Seniors are more likely to be on fixed
incomes and fall into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that
they can afford.9
Seniors are also among those who have experienced an increase in domestic abuse — both
physical and financial — in 2008 and 2009. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, based in
Richmond, reported significant increases in requests for elder abuse services, both physical and
financial. Contra Costa Senior Legal Services has experienced a sharp increase in calls from
seniors who have relatives who are trying to force them to sign their homes over to their
relatives. Many of these seniors are victims of both physical and financial abuse.10
Seniors were also among the groups of people most likely to use food services offered by
Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County in 2009.11
Frail elderly persons are especially adversely impacted by decreases in public benefits,
retirement income, and health services. In 2009, medical costs continued to increase for seniors
9 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009.
10 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 17 and 18, 2009.
11 Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
29
and the disabled, while their SSI and Medicare benefits were the same or less. In addition,
funding and provision of health services, such as in-home support services, were cut
substantially in 2009. Due to state budget cuts and constrained local resources, Contra Costa
County has had to significantly reduce funding for in-home support services, HIV prevention,
and meal delivery services, among others. These reductions increase the need among the frail
elderly for financial assistance, food banks, nursing home care, emergency room visits, and
paratransit services.12
TABLE 15
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction % Senior
Population
% Senior
Households
% Renter
Households
% Owner
Households
% With a
Disability*
Urban County
Brentwood 9.6% 19.4% 9.2% 90.8% 34.9%
Clayton 9.1% 16.2 % 1.6% 98.4% 34.1%
Danville 10.3% 17.6% 11.5% 88.5% 37.8%
El Cerrito 20.7% 31.4% 16.5% 83.5% 38.0%
Hercules 6.8% 8.8% 18.0% 82.0% 39.3%
Lafayette 14.0% 21.5% 11.8% 88.2% 25.4%
Martinez 10.2% 16.3% 23.9% 76.1% 42.0%
Moraga 15.2% 27.8% 8.2% 91.8% 28.4%
Oakley 5.8% 12.0% 18.8% 81.2% 45.8%
Orinda 18.4% 31.9% 8.7% 91.3% 22.3%
Pinole 14.1% 22.6% 20.7% 79.3% 44.1%
Pleasant Hill 13.1% 20.3% 31.3% 68.7% 42.7%
San Pablo 8.9% 16.8% 36.3% 63.7% 52.6%
San Ramon 6.2% 9.3% 22.0% 78.0% 35.0%
Unincorporated County 10.9% 19.1% 16.8% 83.2% 37.5%
Urban County Total 11.1% 21.2% 19.5% 80.5% 37.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 7.3% 13.8% 26.0% 74.0% 44.0%
Concord 10.8% 17.6% 21.5% 78.5% 41.9%
Pittsburg 8.3% 15.9% 25.5% 74.5% 50.7%
Richmond 9.6% 18.0% 22.6% 77.4% 47.2%
Walnut Creek 25.0% 36.1% 15.1% 84.9% 37.0%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 11.3% 19.5% 18.9% 81.1% 39.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8, P11, P41 and H14
12 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17, 18, and 19, 2009; Rainbow Community, September 17, 18,
and 19, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
30
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Table 16 presents data from the 2000 Census for persons with disabilities in the state, Urban
County (all non-entitlement jurisdictions), and entitlement jurisdictions. Of the jurisdictions in
Contra Costa County, San Pablo (25.5 percent) had the greatest share of the persons with a
disability for all persons over 5 years of age, followed by Richmond (21.6 percent). Moraga (9.7
percent) had the smallest share of persons with a disability, followed by Lafayette (9.8 percent).
Of the disabled persons in the County, 24.1 percent reported an employment disability and 23.5
percent reported a physical disability. These percentages were consistent with the state and
most jurisdictions in the County.
Disabled persons are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the increase in
evictions during 2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon.
There is little legal recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Disabled
persons find it more difficult to find housing that can accommodate their needs than
nondisabled persons and are more likely to fall into a low-income category, making it more
difficult to find new housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.13
Disabled persons were also adversely impacted by decreases in public benefits, retirement
income, and health services in 2008 and 2009. Reductions in funding for in -home support
services and meal delivery services, among others, have increased the need among disabled
persons for financial assistance, food banks, disabled home care, emergency room visits, and
paratransit services.14
SHELTER, Inc. reported that 19 percent of their homeless service clients self-reported having
mental health needs.15 The actual number of homeless service clients with mental health needs
is anticipated to be much higher as this is an underreported number, particularly for parents
who are scared they might lose custody of their children if they self-report having mental health
needs.
13 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
14 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Rainbow Community, September 17 and 18,
2009.
15 SHELTER, Inc., September 17, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
31
TABLE 16
DISABILITY STATUS AND TYPES
Jurisdiction
Number of
Disabled
Persons
% of
Persons
Disabled
% of Disabled
Population –
Sensory*
% of Disabled
Population –
Physical*
% of Disabled
Population –
Mental*
% of Disabled
Population –
Self-care*
% of Disabled
Population –Go-
outside-home*
% of Disabled
Population –
Employment
Disability*
State of California 5,923,361 19.2% 9.3% 21.0% 13.3% 7.2% 23.0% 26.2%
Urban County
Brentwood 3,232 15.4% 9.5% 24.6% 13.6% 6.5% 21.1% 24.6%
Clayton 1,128 11.2% 10.7% 21.4% 13.0% 4.7% 23.8% 26.5%
Danville 4,330 11.1% 10.7% 22.6% 16.5% 8.7% 19.5% 22.1%
El Cerrito 3,746 16.9% 12.3% 25.0% 14.7% 9.8% 21.7% 16.4%
Hercules 2,595 14.3% 9.0% 20.5% 11.9% 6.7% 20.4% 31.5%
Lafayette 2,167 9.8% 15.0% 25.2% 16.0% 6.3% 15.8% 21.7%
Martinez 5,322 16.2% 10.1% 28.1% 15.8% 6.6% 16.1% 23.2%
Moraga 1,540 9.7% 12.3% 26.9% 14.5% 7.7% 21.1% 17.5%
Oakley 3,604 15.4% 8.5% 25.7% 16.2% 7.8% 18.4% 23.4%
Orinda 1,881 11.4% 11.9% 23.4% 15.1% 7.3% 21.1% 21.2%
Pinole 3,255 17.7% 11.7% 26.6% 14.7% 8.1% 21.5% 17.4%
Pleasant Hill 4,486 14.7% 11.5% 25.2% 13.7% 7.5% 20.0% 22.1%
San Pablo 6,915 25.5% 8.5% 17.6% 12.3% 7.0% 26.2% 28.4%
San Ramon 4,135 10.0% 9.9% 23.0% 13.0% 7.2% 20.3% 26.6%
Unincorporated County 23,268 16.6% 10.2% 23.1% 14.2% 7.4% 21.0% 24.1%
Urban County Total 71,604 15.0% 10.4% 23.5% 14.3% 7.4% 20.8% 23.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 13,488 16.3% 9.2% 24.6% 15.7% 6.8% 18.7% 25.0%
Concord 21,184 18.9% 9.6% 23.2% 13.1% 7.2% 20.5% 26.4%
Pittsburg 10,981 21.1% 7.5% 21.3% 12.5% 8.1% 22.6% 28.0%
Richmond 19,666 21.6% 8.8% 22.0% 14.0% 7.9% 21.9% 25.4%
Walnut Creek 10,649 17.4% 14.6% 27.3% 15.2% 8.5% 19.9% 14.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 147,572 16.8% 10.0% 23.5% 14.1% 7.5% 20.8% 24.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P41 and P42
*People may have reported more than one disability, resulting in numbers over 100 percent in this column.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
Page 32
Licensed Community Care Facilities
Certain groups may have more difficulty finding housing and may require specialized services
or assistance. Due to their special circumstances, these groups are more likely to have low or
moderate incomes. These groups include the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities,
large households, female-headed households, persons with substance abuse problems, the
homeless, victims of domestic violence, and persons with HIV/AIDS.
There are many different types of licensed care facilities in Antioch, Concord, Contra Costa
County, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek. Below is a description of the different types of
care facilities within these jurisdictions.
Adult Day Care Facilities (ADCF) provide programs for frail elderly and
developmentally disabled and/or mentally disabled adults in a day care setting.
Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-hour
nonmedical care for adults ages 18 through 59 who are unable to provide for their
own daily needs. Adults may be physically handicapped, developmentally disabled,
and/or mentally disabled.
Group homes are facilities of any capacity and provide 24-hour nonmedical care and
supervision to children in a structured environment.
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision, and
assistance with daily living activities to persons 60 years of age and over and persons
under 60 with compatible needs.
Small Family Homes (SFH) provide 24-hour-a-day care in the licensee’s family
residence for six or fewer children who are mentally disabled, developmentally
disabled, or physically handicapped and who require special care and supervision as
a result of such disabilities.
A Social Rehabilitation Facility is any facility that provides 24-hour-a-day
nonmedical care and supervision in a group setting to adults recovering from mental
illnesses who temporarily need assistance, guidance, or counseling.
The Transitional Housing Placement Program provides care and supervision for
children at least 17 years of age participating in an independent living arrangement.
Table 17 provides a summary of the number of licensed care facilities by type and their capacity
in the jurisdictions of Antioch, Concord, Contra Costa County (countywide), Pittsburg,
Richmond, and Walnut Creek.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
33
TABLE 17
LICENSED CARE FACILITIES BY JURISDICTION AND TYPE
Jurisdiction Adult Day
Care Facility
Adult
Residential
Facility
Group
Home
Residential
Care Facility
Small
Family
Home
Social
Rehabilitation
Facility
Transitional
Housing
Placement
Total
Antioch
Number of
Facilities 9 28 12 42 4 0 1 96
Capacity 354 166 74 550 19 0 12 1,175
Concord
Number of
Facilities 4 27 7 92 1 0 1 132
Capacity 221 178 56 928 6 0 15 1,404
Contra Costa County
(balance of County)
Number of
Facilities 14 57 24 194 7 2 0 298
Capacity 485 408 180 3,399 42 32 0 4,546
Pittsburg
Number of
Facilities 1 18 5 15 1 0 0 40
Capacity 72 105 30 101 2 0 0 310
Richmond
Number of
Facilities 6 21 6 18 1 1 0 53
Capacity 306 118 36 216 5 16 0 697
Walnut Creek
Number of
Facilities 2 6 0 79 0 0 0 87
Capacity 84 36 0 1,290 0 0 0 1,410
Total
Number of
Facilities 36 157 54 440 14 3 2 706
Capacity 1,522 1,011 376 6,484 74 48 27 9,542
Source: State of California Community Care Licensing Division, September 2009
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
34
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons who are related.
Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is a l imited supply
of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs.
Table 18 provides data for large households for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The
jurisdictions with the greatest share of large households (households with five or more persons)
were San Pablo (24.7 percent), Pittsburg (19.9 percent), and Oakley (19.2 percent). Walnut Creek
had the smallest share of large households (4.4 percent). Of all the jurisdictions in Contra Costa
County, the majority of large households own their homes, with the exception of San Pablo and
Richmond. As shown in Table 18, of all the housing units countywide with three or more
bedrooms, 77.3 percent were owner-occupied housing units and 24.4 percent were renter-
occupied housing units.
The supply of housing units with three or more bedrooms available for ownership and rental is
in excess of the number of large owner and rental households (please see table below). This
suggests that there is not a numerical shortage of available housing units to meet the needs of
large households. However, lower-income large households may be priced out of the larger
housing units.
Some service providers noted that there has been growth in large households as households
have been adversely financially impacted by job loss and reduction in work hours. Increasingly,
multigenerational family members are living together as large households to reduce housing
costs.16
Large households are also among several groups impacted by the increase in evictions during
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Large households find it more
difficult to find housing that can accommodate their household size and are more likely to fall
into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that meets their needs
and that they can afford.17
16 SHELTER, Inc., September 17, 2009.
17 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
35
TABLE 18
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Large
Households
% Large
Households
% of Total
Owner-
Occupied
Households
%of Total
Renter-
Occupied
Households
% of Total
Owner
Housing
Units w/3+
Bedrooms
% of Total
Renter
Housing
Units w/3+
Bedrooms
Urban County
Brentwood 1,368 17.1% 13.4% 3.7% 72.6% 34.0%
Clayton 403 9.7% 9.3% 0.4% 90.2% 72.4%
Danville 1,567 10.3% 9.3% 1.0% 91.1% 48.4%
El Cerrito 553 5.5% 4.2% 1.3% 69.1% 16.4%
Hercules 1,117 16.9% 14.0% 2.8% 70.5% 44.0%
Lafayette 729 7.9% 7.3% 0.6% 91.4% 22.4%
Martinez 1,123 7.1% 5.6% 1.5% 81.1% 21.6%
Moraga 465 8.5% 7.7% 0.8% 85.3% 33.5%
Oakley 1,552 19.2% 15.6% 3.6% 87.0% 51.5%
Orinda 522 8.4% 7.4% 1.0% 91.0% 43.0%
Pinole 868 12.2% 8.9% 3.3% 85.7% 28.2%
Pleasant Hill 851 6.3% 4.9% 1.4% 82.5% 21.3%
San Pablo 2,259 24.7% 12.4% 12.3% 42.4% 13.6%
San Ramon 1,480 8.6% 7.0% 1.7% 87.6% 22.8%
Unincorporated
County
6,725 12.3% 8.7% 3.5% 75.4% 26.7%
Urban County Total 43,359 11.3% 8.5% 2.8% 80.3% 25.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 5,173 17.6% 13.0% 4.6% 88.0% 30.8%
Concord 5,580 12.7% 6.8% 5.9% 78.0% 26.4%
Pittsburg 3,533 19.9% 12.5% 7.4% 79.7% 27.7%
Richmond 5,488 15.8% 7.8% 8.0% 60.9% 19.8%
Walnut Creek 1,330 4.4% 3.3% 1.1% 58.3% 15.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 42,355 12.3% 8.4% 3.9% 77.3% 24.4%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H16 and H42
* Numbers in this table do not include persons in group quarters.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
36
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
Nearly three-quarters of single-parent households in the state are headed by a female. As
shown in Table 19, the share of female-headed households is much larger than the share of
male-headed single-parent households for all jurisdictions in the County.
The share of female-headed households at or below the poverty level is also much greater than
male-headed households at or below the poverty level.18 The share of single-parent households
at or below the poverty level in the state (29.0 percent) is much higher than in the jurisdictions
in the Urban County and the entitlement jurisdictions.
TABLE 19
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Total Percentage
in Poverty
Female-
headed
% Female-
headed in
Poverty
Male-
headed
% Male-
headed in
Poverty
Antioch 5,250 17.7% 3,712 20.9% 1,538 9.9%
Concord 7,476 11.4% 5,305 13.9% 2,171 5.3%
Pittsburg 3,656 18.6% 2,626 21.3% 1,030 11.7%
Richmond 8,575 23.0% 6,674 24.8% 1,901 16.6%
Walnut Creek 2,508 6.8% 1,942 7.7% 566 2.9%
Urban County 51,891 14.8% 37,740 16.8% 14,151 9.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 43,682 14.5% 32,054 16.6% 11,628 8.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P12, P89
ALCOHOL/OTHER DRUG ABUSE
The Contra Costa County Department of Health Services Alcohol and Other Drugs Services
Division (AOD) reported in its 2007–2013 Strategic Plan19 that 41 percent of Contra Costa
County 11th grade students reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days and 18 percent
reported using marijuana in the past 30 days. The National Center for Health Statistics indicated
that 6.0 percent of persons 12 years of age and over who were surveyed said that they had used
marijuana within the past month, one-third the rate of 11th graders in Contra Costa County who
had used marijuana.
18 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau based on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
19 Strategic Plan for Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Prevention, 2007 – 2013, Contra Health Services,
Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Division (2007)
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
37
Higher percentages of Contra Costa County 7th, 9th, and 11th grade students reported using
alcohol in the past 30 days than did students statewide in the same grades (15 percent, 31
percent, and 41 percent in Contra Costa County vs. 10 percent, 25 percent, and 37 percent
respectively statewide).
AOD reported that the number of adults between the ages of 19 and 54 in treatment decr eased
dramatically between 2001 and 2005 in Contra Costa County. In 2001 a total of 8,436 clients in
this age range were admitted to publicly funded treatment in the County. By 2005, that total
had fallen to 5,595, a 33.6 percent decrease.
The percentage of adults over the age of 54 entering publicly funded treatment is increasing. A
total of 256 people 55 years of age or older entered treatment in 2001. In 2005, the number rose
to 291, an increase of 13.7 percent.20
SHELTER, Inc. reported 52 percent of their homeless service clients suffered from alcohol or
substance abuse and 63 percent were addicted to drugs in 2008–2009.21
The National Center for Health Statistics indicated that 8.1 percent of persons 12 years of age
and over who were surveyed said that they had used illegal drugs within the past month, 6.0
percent used marijuana and 2.6 percent used psychotherapeutic drugs.
PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS
The Contra Costa Public Health Division22 reported that as of December 31, 2008:
1,119 Contra Costa County residents were living with a diagnosis of AIDS
o 224 females
o 895 males
775 Contra Costa County residents were living with a positive HIV test
o 138 females
o 637 males
Broken down by jurisdiction, the following persons were living with HIV/AIDS as of
December 31, 2008:
Alamo: 10 persons
Antioch: 153 persons
Bay Point: 43 persons
Brentwood: 35 persons
Clayton: 14 persons
Moraga: 9 persons
North Richmond: 16 persons
Oakley: 38 persons
Orinda: 16 persons
Pacheco: 6 persons
20 Ibid.
21 SHELTER, Inc., September 17, 2009.
22 2009 HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Report, Contra Costa Health Services, August 2009
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
38
Concord: 256 persons
Crocket: 8 persons
Danville: 38 persons
El Cerrito: 45 persons
El Sobrante: 43 persons
Hercules: 34 persons
Kensington: 12 persons
Lafayette: 40 persons
Martinez: 103 persons
Pinole: 28 persons
Pittsburg: 158 persons
Pleasant Hill: 66 persons
Richmond: 358 persons
Rodeo: 19 persons
San Pablo: 120 persons
San Ramon: 32 persons
Walnut Creek: 168 persons
Other: 26 persons
Persons with HIV/AIDS are another group especially adversely impacted by decreases in public
benefits and public health services in 2008 and 2009. Reductions in funding for in-home support
services, meal delivery services, and bill paying assistance services, among others, have
increased the need among persons with HIV/AIDS for financial assistance, food banks, nursing
home care, emergency room visits, and paratransit services.23
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
In February 2000, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors declared a policy of “zero
tolerance for domestic violence.” This policy was established because the Board found that,
although the law enforcement and service provider communities had identified reducing
domestic/family violence and elder abuse as priorities and had devoted significant resources
and effort to reducing these crimes, domestic violence and elder abuse were on the rise. 24
Established in 2000, the “Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence” initiative is a multi-
jurisdictional partnership, created to help eliminate domestic and family violence and elder
abuse in Contra Costa County. County staff, local law enforcement, the courts , and community
service providers have banded together under the leadership of the Board of Supervisors to
offer a comprehensive, coordinated, community-wide response to break the progressive cycle of
domestic and family violence. 25
All domestic service providers interviewed in September 2009 indicated that they are
experiencing significant increases in demand for their domestic violence related services, which
they attribute to increased stress among people resulting from financial hardship. One
organization providing domestic violence related services, STAND! Against Domestic Violence
based in Concord, experienced a 65 percent increase in the number of phone calls to their crisis
line between 2008 and 2009 and a 25 percent increase in use of their domestic violence housing
shelter.26 Between 2004 and 2008, STAND! received the greatest number of calls to their crisis
23 Rainbow Community , September 17 and 18, 2009.
24 Contra Costa County Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative, September 18, 2009.
25 Ibid.
26 STAND! Against Domestic Violence, September 18, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
39
line from residents of Antioch, Concord, Richmond, unincorporated County areas, and
Pittsburg.
Bay Area Legal Aid in Contra Costa County also has seen a significant increase in demand for
domestic violence related services.27 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, based in Richmond,
reported significant increases in requests for elder abuse services, both physical and financial.28
Bay Area Legal Aid assisted over 750 low-income Contra Costa County domestic violence
survivors in 2008.29 There were 18 deaths in Contra Costa County resulting from domestic
violence in 2009 as of September, while there were a total of 3 such deaths in 2008.30 Domestic
violence related service providers reported that it was increasingly difficult to meet service
demands.31
In 2007 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), there were 3,950 domestic
violence calls for assistance to law enforcement in Contra Costa County (countywide), and 547
of those involved weapons.32 Between January and June 2009 (the most recent time period for
which statistics are available), there were 1,276 court protection orders requested in Contra
Costa County and 52 percent of these requests were granted by the court. In 2005, there were
3,241 domestic violence arrests reported via the Contra Costa Domestic Violence Tracking
System, and 3,585 in 2006.
Half of men who abuse their spouses also abuse their children. There were 5,290 reports of
suspected child abuse/neglect affecting 9,823 children in Contra Costa County during 2007.33
The statistics only tell part of the story: domestic violence is the most underreported crime in
the country and it is estimated that one in three adult women will experience at least one
physical assault in her lifetime by an intimate partner or family member.34 Abuse in
relationships exists among all classes, races, and cultural groups, although women between
ages 16 and 24 are nearly three times more vulnerable to intimate partner violence. Every year,
almost 6 percent of California’s women suffer physical injuries from domestic violence. Nearly
27 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
28 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18, 2009.
29 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 1 8, 2009.
30 Contra Costa County Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative, September 2009.
31 STAND! Against Domestic Violence, September 18, 2009; Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 18,
2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18, 2009; Contra Costa County Zero Tolerance for Domestic
Violence Initiative, September 18, 2009.
32 California Department of Justice, 2007.
33 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
34 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 2009; American Psychological Association, September 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
40
20 percent of women who went hungry because they couldn't afford to buy food were also a
victim of intimate partner violence.35
National statistics show that one in four girls and one in eight boys will be maltreated before the
age of 18. Child abuse/neglect affect children of all ages, races, and incomes. Children under the
age of 2 are at the greatest risk of abuse. Child abuse is the most common cause of brain injury
in children under 1 year of age. Children with disabilities are three to seven times more likely to
suffer from child maltreatment than children without disabilities. Parents abusing drugs or
alcohol are at a higher risk of neglecting/abusing their children. Circumstances that place
parents under substantial stress, for example, mental and physical illness, economic stress, drug
abuse, and isolation, are likely to increase the risk of child abuse. Overall, domestic violence
greatly impacts children in the home.36
HOMELESS
The Contra Costa Homeless Program conducted a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless
persons in the County in January 2009. Table 20 (unsheltered) and Table 21 (sheltered) provide
a summary of the count. Please note, because of recent anecdotal reports of changes in the
characteristics of the homeless population thought largely to be driven by the high level of
home foreclosures and job loss, and the limitations of the count methodology, certain groups
and/or persons may have been undercounted.
According to the count, Richmond had the largest share of unsheltered homeless persons in the
entire County (23.1 percent). Concord (15.7 percent) and Antioch (7.8 percent) had the second
and third largest share of unsheltered homeless individuals in the County. The five entitlement
cities of the Consortium accounted for the majority (56.6 percent) of all homeless individuals
identified in the count. The remaining jurisdictions in the County accounted for the remaining
43.4 percent.
The homeless count identified 1,958 sheltered homeless persons in the County. Table 21
provides a summary of the variety of services sheltered homeless persons were using at the
time of the count. According to the count, emergency and transitional housing were the most
widely used type of service throughout the County, especially for families and the
unaccompanied youth population.
In addition to the findings presented in Tables 20 and 21, the Contra Costa Homeless Program
reports the following findings from the 2009 count:
8 percent decrease from 2007 of homeless persons in the County.
57 percent of unsheltered homeless persons live in encampments.
35 STAND! Against Domestic Violence website, September 18, 2009.
36 Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
41
Single adults accessing services increased 20 percent over 2007.
The number of homeless persons in alcohol or drug treatment centers doubled from
2007.
Homeless persons accessing food programs increased over 2007.
TABLE 20
UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS
Jurisdiction Unsheltered Individuals % of Unsheltered Individuals
Contra Costa County (countywide) 1,872 100.0%
Antioch 146 7.8%
Concord 294 15.7%
Pittsburg 109 5.8%
Richmond 433 23.1%
Walnut Creek 78 4.2%
Source: Contra Costa Homeless Program, 2009 Homeless Count
TABLE 21
SHELTERED INDIVIDUALS
Couples
Families
with
Children
Individuals
in Families
Children in
Families
Individuals
without
Children
Unaccom-
panied
Youth
Alcohol/Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 189 0
Employment/Job Training 0 0 0 0 128 0
Emergency Housing 2 62 203 118 282 24
Food Programs/Soup
Kitchen 0 4 14 10 220 5
Medical Providers
(including hospitals) 0 0 0 0 42 0
Mental Health Treatment 0 0 0 0 10 0
Multiservice Center 0 5 16 9 396 0
Outreach/
Engagement 0 0 0 0 45 0
Transitional Housing* 1 54 181 112 161 36
Total 3 125 414 249 1,473 65
Source: Contra Costa Homeless Program, 2009 Homeless Count
* Permanent supportive housing not reported.
HOUSING MARKET PROFILE
Like most other jurisdictions throughout the state, the most significant trend in the Contra
Costa County housing market has been the decrease in single -family home sales prices and the
corresponding decrease in the value of single-family housing. Combined with an environment
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
42
of historically low interest rates, this has reduced the gap between the cost to buy a home and
the price which households at the lower end of the range of incomes can afford. Although this
“affordability gap” has been reduced when it comes to home purchase, the combination of
instability in the job market, stagnating real wages, and the general tightening of credit has not
necessarily made a home purchase easier for lower income households.
The rental market has seen continued low vacancy rates and rents have been stable and
trending upward.
The following discussion identifies housing characteristics, trends, and needs for County
jurisdictions.
HOUSING GROWTH
Between 2000 and 2009 the number of housing units in the state increased 10.78 percent.
Table 22 displays housing growth in all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. Of all the
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Brentwood had the largest i ncrease in housing units
(126.9 percent). Second to that was San Ramon with an increase of 43.1 percent. Of the
entitlement cities, Pittsburg had the largest increase with 13.9 percent.
TENURE
Housing tenure refers to whether a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied. Table 23
provides a summary of housing tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. As shown,
Clayton had the greatest share of owner-occupied households and San Pablo had the greatest
share of renter-occupied housing units. It is important to note that the level of single-family
foreclosures may have significantly shifted the owner/renter distribution.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
43
TABLE 22
HOUSING UNITS, 2000–2009
Jurisdiction 2000 Housing Units 2009 Housing Units Percentage Change
2000–2009
Urban County
Brentwood 7,788 17,671 126.9%
Clayton 3,924 4,006 2.1%
Danville 15,130 15,795 4.4%
El Cerrito 10,462 10,705 2.3%
Hercules 6,546 8,319 27.1%
Lafayette 9,334 9,511 1.9%
Martinez 14,597 14,972 2.6%
Moraga 5,760 5,791 0.5%
Oakley 7,946 10,987 38.3%
Orinda 6,744 6,849 1.6%
Pinole 6,828 7,032 3.0%
Pleasant Hill 14,034 14,505 3.4%
San Pablo 9,354 9,953 6.4%
San Ramon 17,552 25,113 43.1%
Unincorporated County 57,609 65,604 13.9%
Urban County Total 193,608 226,813 17.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 30,116 33,982 12.8%
Concord 45,084 46,638 3.4%
Pittsburg 18,300 20,848 13.9%
Richmond 36,044 38,433 6.6%
Walnut Creek 31,425 32,473 3.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 354,577 399,187 12.6%
Source: Department of Finance, 2000 and 2009 E-5 Report
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
44
TABLE 23
HOUSING TENURE
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Urban County
Brentwood 80.7% 19.3%
Clayton 94.1% 5.9%
Danville 89.4% 10.6%
El Cerrito 60.9% 39.1%
Hercules 84.2% 15.8%
Lafayette 75.8% 24.2%
Martinez 69.0% 31.0%
Moraga 84.5% 15.5%
Oakley 85.0% 15.0%
Orinda 91.6% 8.4%
Pinole 74.5% 25.5%
Pleasant Hill 63.7% 36.3%
San Pablo 49.8% 50.2%
San Ramon 71.1% 28.9%
Unincorporated County 73.5% 26.5%
Urban County Total 70.4% 29.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 70.9% 29.1%
Concord 62.6% 37.4%
Pittsburg 62.8% 37.2%
Richmond 53.4% 46.6%
Walnut Creek 68.1% 31.9%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 69.3% 30.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H7
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
45
HOUSING TYPE
Table 24 exhibits the percentage of housing units as a share of total housing units by the
number of units in the structure and tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County,
separating out the Urban County jurisdictions and entitlement jurisdictions. Demand for
owner-occupied housing is primarily met through the supply of single-family housing, while
renter-occupied housing demand is primarily met through a combination of single-family
housing and multi-family units.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
46
TABLE 24
TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Single-
family Units
Multi-family
(2–4 units)
Multi-family
(>5 units)
Mobile
Homes
Boat, RV,
Van, etc.
Single-
family Units
Multi-family
(2–4 units)
Multi-family
(>5 units)
Mobile
Homes
Boat, RV,
Van, etc.
Urban County
Brentwood 96.8% 0.4% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0% 52.4% 14.7% 29.6% 3.0% 0.4%
Clayton 99.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 91.5% 2.7% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Danville 98.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.8% 6.5% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0%
El Cerrito 97.7% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 38.7% 29.4% 31.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Hercules 94.2% 1.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.1% 13.5% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Lafayette 99.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.5% 12.8% 44.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Martinez 97.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 47.6% 17.0% 35.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Moraga 97.2% 1.2% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 40.3% 15.6% 44.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Oakley 98.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 84.4% 6.7% 2.7% 5.9% 0.2%
Orinda 99.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 68.3% 9.0% 21.3% 1.5% 0.0%
Pinole 98.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 43.6% 18.5% 37.7% 0.0% 0.2%
Pleasant Hill 97.3% 0.4% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 34.6% 12.6% 52.5% 0.2% 0.0%
San Pablo 83.6% 5.4% 4.7% 6.0% 0.2% 41.6% 22.3% 33.9% 2.1% 0.1%
San Ramon 96.6% 0.9% 2.3% 0.2% 0.0% 36.6% 13.1% 50.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Unincorporated County 93.7% 0.8% 0.9% 4.5% 0.2% 56.5% 11.3% 28.6% 3.4% 0.2%
Urban County Total 96.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.8% 0.1% 49.7% 14.9% 33.6% 1.7% 0.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 98.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 50.0% 17.0% 32.8% 0.1% 0.0%
Concord 91.0% 2.3% 3.8% 2.9% 0.1% 35.5% 12.8% 51.0% 0.7% 0.1%
Pittsburg 96.1% 0.6% 0.3% 3.0% 0.0% 48.8% 17.8% 32.6% 0.8% 0.0%
Richmond 95.2% 3.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% 40.5% 27.6% 31.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Walnut Creek 79.9% 7.0% 12.9% 0.1% 0.0% 29.6% 16.2% 54.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 94.5% 1.6% 2.2% 1.6% 0.1% 44.3% 17.2% 37.5% 0.9% 0.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H33
Due to rounding, total percentages of renter and owner housing types for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
47
VACANCY RATE
Vacancy trends in housing are analyzed using a “vacancy rate” which establishes the
relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is
greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate is low and the price of housing will
most likely increase. Additionally, the vacancy rate indicates whether or not the community has
an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility. HUD standards indicate that a
vacancy rate of 5 percent is sufficient to provide choice and mobility.
Table 25 provides the total number of vacant housing units as well as the percentage of vacant
housing units in 2009 for all of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, separating out the
Urban County jurisdictions and the entitlement jurisdictions. Please note the state Department
of Finance (DOF) estimate is for all housing unit types and does not exclude seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use and all other vacant units. The DOF also does not provide
vacancy by tenure. To provide vacancy by reason for vacancy, 2000 Census data was used (see
Table 26).
Overall, the 2009 data (Table 25) indicate that the County has a very low vacancy rate. Several
communities in the Urban County have vacancy rates below 5 percent, which is extremely low.
Historical data from the 2000 Census (Table 26) indicate that in several communities
(Brentwood, Clayton, and Moraga) the share of vacant units that are for rent is well below the
overall County share (30.5%). These communities also have a very low share of renter -occupied
units. The data would suggest that renters might be challenged to find affordable housing in
these communities.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
48
TABLE 25
VACANCY STATUS, 2009
Jurisdiction Total Vacant Housing Units % of Total Housing Units Vacant
Urban County
Brentwood 649 3.67%
Clayton 41 1.02%
Danville 328 2.08%
El Cerrito 259 2.42%
Hercules 156 1.88%
Lafayette 185 1.95%
Martinez 304 2.03%
Moraga 98 1.69%
Oakley 322 2.93%
Orinda 149 2.18%
Pinole 86 1.22%
Pleasant Hill 291 2.01%
San Pablo 308 3.09%
San Ramon 868 3.46%
Unincorporated County 2,711 4.13%
Urban County Total 6,755 2.98%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 878 2.58%
Concord 1,098 2.35%
Pittsburg 634 3.04%
Richmond 1,514 3.94%
Walnut Creek 1,161 3.58%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 12,040 3.02%
Source: Department of Finance, 2009 E-5 Report
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
49
TABLE 26
VACANCY STATUS, 2000
Jurisdiction
Total
Vacant
Housing
Units
% of Total
Housing
Units
Vacant
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for
Rent
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for
Sale
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are
Rented/
Sold, Not
Occupied
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are Vacant
for Other
Reasons
Urban County
Brentwood 239 3.2% 4.2% 30.5% 31.8% 33.5%
Clayton 46 1.2% 2.3% 26.1% 56.5% 13.0%
Danville 309 2.1% 15.9% 29.4% 23.6% 31.1%
El Cerrito 260 2.5% 23.1% 35.8% 28.8% 12.3%
Hercules 124 1.9% 14.5% 77.4% 0.8% 7.3%
Lafayette 183 2.0% 29.5% 35.0% 12.0% 23.5%
Martinez 278 1.9% 34.5% 30.2% 8.3% 27.0%
Moraga 105 1.8% 4.8% 21.0% 31.4% 42.9%
Oakley 128 1.6% 15.6% 62.5% 0.0% 21.9%
Orinda 155 2.3% 11.0% 20.6% 18.7% 49.7%
Pinole 78 1.1% 38.5% 48.7% 3.8% 9.0%
Pleasant Hill 274 2.0% 29.9% 17.2% 13.1% 39.8%
San Pablo 282 3.1% 29.4% 20.6% 14.2% 35.8%
San Ramon 620 3.7% 38.2% 9.5% 20.8% 31.5%
Unincorporated County 2,376 4.3% 17.5% 18.0% 15.7% 48.8%
Urban County Total 5,457 1.3% 21.6% 23.4% 17.2% 37.8%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 800 2.7% 41.6% 38.8% 3.5% 16.1%
Concord 1,018 2.3% 44.2% 21.7% 8.2% 25.9%
Pittsburg 587 3.2% 46.5% 21.0% 17.4% 15.2%
Richmond 1,446 4.0% 43.8% 23.8% 11.6% 20.8%
Walnut Creek 1,140 3.6% 27.5% 23.3% 15.7% 33.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 10,448 3.0% 30.5% 24.3% 14.4% 30.9%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H8
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK
Table 27 displays the share of housing units constructed by age and tenure for the state and for
all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. With the exception of El Cerrito, Lafayette and Orinda
most housing in each jurisdiction was built after 1960.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
50
TABLE 27
AGE OF HOUSING BY TENURE
Jurisdiction
1939 or earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1994 1995 to March 2000
Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner
State of California 9.5% 4.6% 4.9% 23.5% 9.6% 13.9% 37.2% 17.5% 19.7% 24.1% 9.7% 14.4% 5.7% 1.6% 4.1%
Urban County
Brentwood 1.8% 1.0% 0.8% 6.9% 2.9% 4.0% 15.2% 4.7% 10.4% 29.2% 4.7% 24.5% 47.0% 6.0% 41.0%
Clayton 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 42.7% 2.0% 40.7% 29.7% 2.4% 27.3% 22.8% 0.7% 22.1%
Danville 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 10.0% 0.9% 9.1% 44.4% 4.5% 39.9% 32.3% 4.0% 28.3% 12.9% 1.1% 11.8%
El Cerrito 12.9% 3.4% 9.5% 52.6% 15.3% 37.3% 25.4% 15.2% 10.3% 7.9% 4.7% 3.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.6%
Hercules 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 24.6% 4.1% 20.6% 70.2% 9.6% 60.6% 3.8% 1.6% 2.2%
Lafayette 4.7% 1.2% 3.5% 47.6% 8.7% 38.8% 37.6% 11.9% 25.7% 8.4% 1.9% 6.5% 1.7% 0.5% 1.2%
Martinez 10.5% 5.3% 5.2% 16.7% 6.0% 10.7% 38.1% 10.4% 27.6% 31.5% 9.0% 22.5% 3.3% 0.3% 3.0%
Moraga 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 8.0% 1.7% 6.3% 74.7% 12.1% 62.6% 16.3% 1.5% 14.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%
Oakley 2.6% 0.8% 1.7% 6.1% 1.9% 4.3% 15.7% 4.2% 11.4% 60.6% 5.8% 54.8% 15.0% 2.2% 12.8%
Orinda 7.9% 0.6% 7.3% 48.0% 2.3% 45.7% 31.5% 2.4% 29.1% 10.0% 2.1% 7.9% 2.5% 0.9% 1.6%
Pinole 3.8% 1.4% 2.4% 18.8% 3.5% 15.3% 48.9% 12.6% 36.3% 27.0% 7.9% 19.1% 1.6% 0.1% 1.4%
Pleasant Hill 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 32.8% 5.3% 27.5% 34.6% 17.4% 17.2% 28.1% 11.3% 16.8% 3.1% 1.4% 1.7%
San Pablo 4.8% 1.8% 2.9% 33.5% 14.3% 19.2% 36.3% 23.3% 13.0% 22.2% 8.6% 13.6% 3.3% 2.2% 1.1%
San Ramon 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 37.0% 6.2% 30.8% 47.2% 18.6% 28.6% 14.8% 3.7% 11.1%
Unincorporated County 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 27.5% 6.5% 21.0% 29.8% 8.3% 21.5% 29.1% 7.8% 21.3% 5.8% 1.3% 4.5%
Urban County 3.9% 1.4% 2.5% 20.6% 4.7% 15.8% 35.8% 9.8% 26.0% 30.6% 7.7% 22.9% 9.1% 1.6% 7.4%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 2.9% 1.4% 1.5% 14.3% 5.6% 8.7% 30.9% 11.1% 19.8% 38.0% 9.8% 28.2% 13.9% 1.3% 12.6%
Concord 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 25.7% 7.3% 18.3% 54.9% 21.1% 33.8% 16.3% 7.9% 8.5% 1.6% 0.4% 1.2%
Pittsburg 3.6% 1.6% 2.0% 17.7% 7.2% 10.4% 37.6% 11.2% 26.3% 34.0% 14.3% 19.6% 7.2% 2.8% 4.5%
Richmond 10.7% 3.8% 7.0% 37.8% 14.7% 23.1% 28.6% 16.3% 12.3% 20.0% 10.7% 9.3% 2.9% 1.2% 1.7%
Walnut Creek 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 15.0% 4.9% 10.1% 62.1% 18.9% 43.2% 19.1% 6.9% 12.2% 2.1% 0.5% 1.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) 4.6% 1.7% 2.9% 22.9% 6.6% 16.3% 38.6% 12.7% 25.9% 27.3% 8.5% 18.8% 6.7% 1.3% 5.4%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H36
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
51
HOUSING CONDITIONS
Housing age is an important indicator of housing condition in a community because housing is
subject to gradual physical deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained,
housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values,
and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Thus, maintaining and improving
housing quality is an important goal for a community. Structures older than 30 years typically
begin to show signs of deterioration and require reinvestment to maintain their quality. Unless
properly maintained, homes older than 50 years require major renovations to remain in good
working order.
Housing condition data was gathered from each jurisdiction’s Housing Element, and where
housing condition survey information was not available, housing conditions were determined
by age (structural deficiencies and standards) and the lack of infrastructure and utilities.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED COUNTY)
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 65 percent of the unincorporated County’s housing stock is
older than 30 years. This percentage means it is safe to assume that more than half of the homes
in the unincorporated County are beginning to show signs of deterioration and will require
reinvestment to maintain their quality.
Based on the fact that 65 percent of the housing stock is older than 30 years, there is a strong
likelihood that many homes will require reinvestment or renovations to ensure the housing
stock is maintained in good working order. Both the County Redevelopment Agency and the
Building Inspection Division have identified areas of the County that may be in need of
rehabilitation assistance, including Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Clyde, Crockett, El
Sobrante, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, Rodeo, and Vine Hill (near Martinez).
ANTIOCH
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 42.4 percent of owner-occupied housing units in Antioch
were built before 1980 and 14.4 percent were built before 1960. Of the renter -occupied units,
61.9 percent were built before 1980 and 23.9 percent were built before 1960. Overall, 48.1 percent
of housing units were built before 1980 and 17.2 percent were built before 1960.
Of the total occupied units in Antioch, 101 units lacked complete plumbing facilities. Fifty-four
of the units were owner-occupied and 47 of the units were renter-occupied. A total of 189 of the
occupied units lacked complete kitchen facilities, of which 36 were owner-occupied and 153
were renter-occupied units. It should be noted that there may be some overlap in the number of
substandard housing units, as some units may lack both complete plumbing and kitchen
facilities.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
52
CONCORD
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 82.1 percent (36,097 units) of the city’s housing stock was
built over 30 years ago (prior to 1980). Of the 36,097 units built, 64.5 percent were owner-
occupied units and 35.5 percent were renter-occupied units. In 2007, more than half of the
existing homes in Concord were more than 38 years old and 25.2 percent were more than 48
years old, with the majority of the older units being owner-occupied units.
City staff regularly conducts windshield surveys (which is a visual assessment based on
predetermined criteria) to assess the age and condition of Concord’s housing stock. Housing in
the Monument Corridor is an area of particular concern, especially with respect to the condition
of multi-family units. Rehabilitation efforts in the last few years included staff visits through the
City’s Neighborhood Code Enforcement and Multifamily Housing Inspection Program
(MFHIP) and loans through the Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Program. According to the
City’s Building & Neighborhood Services annual reports, Monument Corridor Partnership
Housing Task Force Projects have included quarterly tenant rental education and certific ation
workshops called “How to Be a Good Tenant” to highlight the importance of maintenance. The
City also promotes rehabilitation through its Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program
geared toward providing necessary funds for repairs to single-family owner-occupied units to
avert deterioration and extend the life and quality of existing homes and neighborhoods.
Monument Community Partnership and Housing Rights assists the City in outreach to
residents and stakeholders to promote the City’s various programs. For example, Housing
Rights hosts a Tenants’ Rights Clinic at the Mt. Diablo Housing Opportunity Center once per
month. The City also has funds for a Multi-Family Rehabilitation Program to provide low
interest loans to assist property owners with major repair work, targeted at residential
properties of 2 to 6 units.
PITTSBURG
In August 2008 a housing conditions survey was conducted to better understand the city’s
housing rehabilitation and replacement needs. Housing Element project staff surveyed
approximately 5 percent of the total housing stock (487 addresses; 1,023 units) within selected
U.S. Census block groups containing a concentration of 50 percent or more of housing units
built prior to 1970. Census block groups having a preponderance of units built before 1970 are
likely to have higher concentrations of units in need of rehabilitation or replacement.
The windshield survey analyzed the exterior condition of existing housing units, reviewing
each unit’s (1) foundation; (2) roof and chimney; (3) electrical; (4) windows; (5) siding, stucco,
and other exterior surfaces; and (6) overall site drainage and external conditions. Residential
structures scored into the following housing condition categories: “sound,” “minor,”
“moderate,” “substantial,” or “dilapidated.” Units defined as sound are in generally good
condition and do not require rehabilitation. Units defined as in minor condition require
nonstructural repairs but are otherwise in sound condition. Units defined as in moderate
condition require some structural improvements as well as major façade improvements. Units
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
53
defined as substantial would require significant structural and façade improvements at a cost
nearing the improved value of the home. Finally, units defined as dilapidated are homes where
the cost to rehabilitate the home is more than the cost to demolish and rebuild a comparable
unit on the same site.
Overall Housing Conditions Findings
In total, the survey evaluated 362 single-family addresses, 4 live-work addresses, 76 duplex
addresses, 43 multi-family (3–50+ units per structure) addresses, and two mobile home parks.
Approximately 84 percent of addresses were in sound condition, 9 percent in minor condition,
and 7 percent in moderate condition. Although no dilapidated units or units requiring
substantial rehabilitation were recorded in the windshield survey, it should be noted that some
units classified as moderate could possibly be categorized as needing substantial rehabilitation
if continued inattention to the property or structure ensues.
Areas in Need of Housing Rehabilitation
Four of the selected census tract block groups contained 26 percent or more units that were in
minor or moderate condition. Among those, three had units where 10 percent or more were in
moderate condition. The specific neighborhoods in question are Tenth Street (on both sides of
Railroad Avenue), Central Addition (west of Harbor Street), Heights/West Boulevard, and the
southern half of Willow Cove. High School Village had more than 10 percent of units in
moderate condition and should equally be an area of concern.
RICHMOND
The largest percentage of Richmond’s housing stock, 25.1 percent (7,135 units), was built
between 1950 and 1959, while approximately 25.0 percent was built since 1980. The majority of
housing was built before 1970 and three-quarters of the city’s housing stock was constructed
prior to 1980. According to the 2000 Census, the median year built for the housing stock in the
city was 1961, which indicates an older housing stock, possibly in need of rehabilitation.
Another measure of housing condition is the number of housing units lacking complete
plumbing and kitchen facilities. The 2000 Census reported 264 occupied housing units lacking
complete plumbing facilities and 161 housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities in the
city. In both areas (lacking complete plumbing and kitchen facilities), a slightly higher
percentage of rental units lacked these facilities than did owner-occupied units.
WALNUT CREEK
As of 2008, 76 percent of the total housing units (30,700) in Walnut Creek were over 38 years old
and approximately 14 percent were over 50 years old. Most of the housing stock (62 percent)
was built between 1960 and 1980.
In January 2009 the City completed a windshield survey as part of the Housing Needs
Assessment of the 2009 Housing Element Update. The survey consisted of an assessment of six
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
54
areas in the city that have a high occurrence of multi -family housing identified by code
enforcement as having maintenance issues. The survey found the need to be the highest in the
following areas: Creekside Drive Area, Mt Pisgah Road, Sierra Drive, Ygnacio Valley Road,
Sunnyvale Avenue, and Second and Third Avenues.
HOUSING COST
Table 28 provides a summary of home sales prices for all jurisdict ions. The County has
experienced a sharp decrease in the median sales price for homes with the exception of
Hercules, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill, which have all seen a year -to-year increase in median
sales price. It is important to note that as a measure of central tendency median sales price is
sensitive to sales volume in market sub-sectors as much as it is to overall price trends. An
increase in the volume of sales of higher priced homes relative to overall sales volume can lead
to an increase in median sales price even though overall prices remain low.
As shown, as of February 2010, San Pablo had the lowest median sales price ($152,344) and
Orinda the highest ($829,500). San Ramon, San Pablo, and Brentwood experienced the sharpest
declines in the median sales price of homes from November 2008 to November 2009.
In December 2009, a survey of local Contra Costa newspapers and online rental listings was
conducted for both single-family homes and multi-family units for all jurisdictions in the
County. The results are presented in Table 29. According to the results of the survey, average
rental rates in San Ramon are the most expensive at $1,662, followed by Lafayette at $1,533 and
Walnut Creek at $1,518. These cities are the most expensive for all unit sizes and housing types.
The most expensive rents occur in the central portion of Contra Costa County, with the least
expensive in the east. The west has considerably lower rents than the central part of the County.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes annual Fair Market Rents
(FMR), which include an estimated utility cost, and the annual income required to afford them.
Table 30 shows the Fair Market Rents for 2009 for Contra Costa County.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
55
TABLE 28
MEDIAN HOME SALE LISTINGS
Jurisdiction
Three Month Median Sales
Price
(Sep – Nov 2009)
Year-to-Year Change
(Nov 2008 – Nov 2009) Number of Homes
for Sale (Jan 2010) Dollars Percentage
Urban County
Brentwood $290,000 $-50,000 -14.7% 189
Clayton 525,000 -72,500 -12.1% 26
Danville 807,500 -30,000 -3.6% 195
El Cerrito 539,500 -28,500 -5.0% 21
Hercules 325,000 -25,000 8.3% 54
Lafayette 805,000 -55,000 -6.4% 76
Martinez 333,000 5,750 1.8% 90
Moraga 810,000 -40,000 -4.7% 34
Oakley 232,850 -17,100 -6.8% 119
Orinda 829,500 -109,500 -11.7% 49
Pinole 267,354 -27,646 -9.4% 32
Pleasant Hill 439,500 -30,500 7.5% 54
San Pablo 152,344 -27,360 -15.2% 45
San Ramon 559,500 -155,500 -21.7% 169
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 199,000 -18,150 -8.4% 208
Concord 246,000 -9,000 -3.5% 173
Pittsburg 180,000 -15,000 -7.7% 112
Richmond 157,000 -17,500 -10.0% 177
Walnut Creek 447,500 -64,500 -12.6% 202
Source: Trulia.com, February 2010
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
56
TABLE 29
MEDIAN RENTAL LISTINGS
Place/Community Type: Bedroom (BR)/Bath (BA) Overall
Average Rent Studio 1BR/1 BA 2 BR/1 BA 2 BR/1+ BA 3 BR/1+ BA
East
Antioch $762 $750 $1,178 $1,167 $1,512 $1,074
Bay Point $595 $650 $1,183 $1,391 $1,400 $1,045
Pittsburg $762 $750 $941 $1,039 $1,512 $1,001
Central
Concord none $875 $1,073 $1,369 $1,725 $1,261
Lafayette $950 $1,359 $1,303 $2,034 $2,020 $1,533
Martinez $723 $1,137 $1,204 $1,512 $1,860 $1,287
Pleasant Hill $989 $1,202 $1,236 $1,478 $2,004 $1,382
San Ramon $1,448 $1,908 $1,307 $1,728 $1,921 $1,662
Walnut Creek $1,122 $1,075 $1090 $1,578 $2,725 $1,518
West
El Cerrito $756 $1,217 $1,260 $1,515 $1,387 $1,227
El Sobrante $1,256 $1,247 $1,264 $1,639 $1,406 $1,362
Pinole $800 $944 $1,082 $1,793 $1,610 $1,246
Richmond $985 $888 $1,026 $1,510 $2,450 $1,372
San Pablo $870 $899 $1,247 $1,908 $1,751 $1,335
Countywide Average $952 $1,096 $1,170 $1,559 $1,837 $1,323
Source: PMC Rental Survey, December 2009
TABLE 30
FAIR MARKET RENTS, 2009
Unit Size FMR Annual Income to Afford
Studio $905 $36,200
1-bedroom $1,093 $43,720
2-bedroom $1,295 $51,800
3-bedroom $1,756 $70,240
4-bedroom $2,174 $86,960
Source: U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, 2009 FMR; 2009 “Out of Reach” Report
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY BY TENURE AND HOUSEHOLD TYPE
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of U.S.
Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the “CHAS”
tables obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System” (SOCDS). These data are
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
57
presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing problems” by households and the other
presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing units. Tables 31 and 32 provide a summary,
and the full tables can be found in Appendix 4. The needs of renter and owner households are
examined separately.
(Tables are provided for the State of California, Contra Costa County, the Urban County area,
and the five entitlement communities. Because of the nature of the Consortium, data tables were
acquired according to the CDBG geography. Although this best approximates the jurisdictional
boundaries within the Consortium, it does introduce a significant level of rounding in the
data.37)
The CHAS housing problems table presents the number of households paying more than 30
percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type, and income
category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to as the housing “cost
burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost burden over 30 percent has
a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over 50 percent have a “severe” cost
burden.
Overpayment is a concern for low-income households since they may be forced to live in
overcrowded situations or cut other necessary expenditures, such as health care, in order to
afford housing. The HUD definition of housing cost includes not only monthly rent and
mortgage payments but an estimate of utilities.
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
Household Type
Overall, approximately 40 percent of renter households in the County have a high cost burden.
Less than 18 percent have a severe cost burden. This is roughly consistent in all jurisdictions
with the exception of Walnut Creek which has 34 percent of renter households with high cost
burdens.
Elderly one- and two-person renter households tend to experience a higher degree of high cost
burden (58 percent) and severe cost burden (32 percent) countywide. Antioch is alone with a
significantly higher number experiencing severe cost burden (41 percent). Both Pittsburg and
Richmond have a lower number experiencing severe cost burden (21 percent and 24 percent,
respectively).
Large renter households (five or more persons) experience cost burdens at roughly the same
rate as all renter households as do small related (two to four persons) and th e balance of renter
households.
37 Please see http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
58
Income Groups
The rate of high cost burden for renter households with incomes above low income (>80 percent
AMI) is 9 percent. Low-income renter households (>50 to ≤80 percent area median income
[AMI]) experience a high cost burden at close to the same rate (44 percent) as do all renter
households countywide. The severe cost burden is significantly lower (6 percent). Very low -
income (>30 percent to ≤50 percent AMI) and extremely low-income renter households (≤30
percent AMI) experience cost burdens much higher than all renters (71 percent and 76 percent,
respectively). The rate of severe cost burden for the very low-income population (25 percent) is
slightly higher than all renters. The extremely low-income population has a rate of severe cost
burden (58 percent) more than three times that of all renters.
The Urban County and Concord have cost burden rates among the income groups very similar
to the County as a whole. Notable exceptions are a higher rate of severe cost burden for low-
income households in the Urban County (9 percent); a lower rate of severe cost burden for low -
income households in Concord (3 percent); and a higher rate of high cost burden for very low -
income households in Concord (78 percent).
Antioch is similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high cost
burden for low-income (32 percent) and lower rates of severe cost burden for very low-income
households (17 percent). Antioch also has a generally lower cost burden for households wi th
incomes above low income (4.6 percent).
Much like its neighbor Antioch, Pittsburg is more affordable for lower-income households than
the County as a whole, with 2.8 percent of low-income households experiencing a severe cost
burden (43 percent high cost burden) and virtually no above low-income renter households
experiencing a significant cost burden.
Richmond has much lower rates of cost burden for lower-income renter households across all
income categories: 54 percent high and 13 percent severe for ve ry low-income; 33 percent high
and 2 percent severe for low-income. Cost burden rates for the extremely low-income are
comparable to the County as a whole.
Although the cost burden for extremely low-income households is consistently high across the
County as a whole, Walnut Creek stands out with a rate of 68 percent. It is similarly higher for
cost burden rates of very low-income (85 percent high, 53 percent severe), low-income (60
percent and 10 percent), and above low-income (12 percent high) households.
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
Household Type
Approximately one-third (29 percent) of owner households in the County have a high cost
burden. Approximately 10 percent have a severe cost burden. This is consistent across all
jurisdictions.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
59
Elderly one- and two-person owner households tend to experience a slightly higher degree of
severe cost burden (12 percent) countywide, although this rate is the same as the rate of all
households. The rate of high cost burden is 26 percent.
Large owner households (five or more persons) experience a cost burden at roughly the same
rate as all owner households as do small related (two to four persons). Antioch, and Walnut
Creek have lower rates of severe cost burden for large owner households (5.5 and 3.5 percent,
respectively) than other jurisdictions. Pittsburg is notable for its higher rate of severe cost
burden for owner households (12.9 percent).
Income Groups
Low-income owner households (>50 to ≤80 percent AMI) experience a high cost burden at a
higher rate (52 percent) than do all households countywide (29 percent). The severe cost burden
is nearly twice as high for low-income owners (19 percent) as for all owners (10 percent). Very
low-income owners (>30 percent to ≤50 percent AMI) experience high and severe cost burdens
much higher than the general population (59 percent and 36 percent). Extremely low -income
households (≤30 percent AMI) are even more cost burdened (72 percent high, 56 percent
severe). The rate of cost burden for owner households with incomes above low income (>80
percent AMI) is lower than the overall population (20 percent high, 3 percent severe).
The Urban County area has cost burden rates by income roughly the same as the County as a
whole.
Antioch has among the highest overall cost burden rates for lower-income owner households,
with 58 percent of low-income homeowners experiencing a high cost burden and 14 percent
severe. Very low-income homeowners in Antioch have a 66 percent high cost burden rate and a
43 percent severe rate. Extremely low-income owner households in Antioch have rates similar
to the County as a whole.
Concord has a pattern similar to the County as a whole with the exception of low-income
households having a lower rate of severe cost burden (15 percent).
Pittsburg has a pattern similar to Concord. It also has a lower rate of cost burden for above low-
income households (16 percent high, 1 percent severe).
Richmond has a generally lower rate of cost burden for low-income owner households (46
percent high, 12 percent severe). It is otherwise similar to the County as a whole.
Walnut Creek is also similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high
cost burden for low-income owners (39 percent).
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
60
TABLE 31
COST BURDEN SUMMARY, RENTERS
Jurisdiction
All Renters Elderly Large Above low-
income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-
income
High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe
Antioch 43.8% 20.4% 58.6% 40.6% 41.9% 19.0% 4.6% 0.4% 31.5% 5.5% 72.8% 17.0% 77.4% 58.0%
Concord 39.8% 16.4% 61.2% 30.8% 33.4% 14.7% 5.6% 0.1% 43.6% 3.0% 78.2% 22.2% 78.0% 62.4%
Pittsburg 41.5% 18.5% 53.2% 21.4% 32.2% 15.3% 3.2% 0.0% 42.8% 2.8% 73.4% 22.2% 72.3% 54.6%
Richmond 40.6% 19.3% 52.3% 24.2% 40.3% 18.0% 6.2% 0.2% 33.2% 1.9% 53.8% 13.0% 77.4% 55.2%
Walnut Creek 33.8% 16.4% 56.2% 35.3% 34.5% 12.0% 11.8% 2.2% 59.8% 10.1% 85.2% 53.3% 76.9% 67.7%
Urban County 36.0% 16.3% 58.5% 32.9% 32.9% 13.0% 10.7% 1.4% 46.6% 9.4% 72.7% 29.0% 74.1% 56.7%
Countywide 38.4% 17.4% 57.5% 32.1% 35.6% 15.3% 9.1% 1.0% 43.5% 6.4% 70.9% 24.48% 75.7% 57.6%
Source: 2000 CHAS data
TABLE 32
COST BURDEN SUMMARY, OWNERS
Jurisdiction All Owners Elderly Large Above low-
income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-
income
High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe
Antioch 29.3% 8.0% 28.3% 14.4% 28.5% 5.5% 19.7% 1.5% 57.8% 13.9% 65.6% 42.8% 67.3% 54.5%
Concord 27.9% 8.8% 28.6% 13.9% 26.9% 6.1% 17.9% 1.6% 50.4% 15.2% 56.9% 35.0% 76.6% 57.4%
Pittsburg 29.4% 11.0% 28.6% 12.6% 32.7% 12.9% 15.7% 1.0% 51.2% 14.7% 60.9% 36.8% 70.7% 60.9%
Richmond 30.7% 11.3% 25.1% 13.6% 28.5% 7.0% 17.2% 2.2% 45.7% 11.2% 56.3% 27.9% 67.6% 51.4%
Walnut Creek 26.2% 9.8% 26.5% 11.2% 26.6% 3.5% 17.0% 3.4% 38.7% 18.6% 63.9% 32.2% 76.3% 60.9%
Urban County 28.1% 9.4% 23.9% 11.0% 30.0% 8.5% 21.0% 3.4% 54.7% 23.7% 57.1% 37.9% 71.7% 55.9%
Countywide 28.6% 9.7% 25.9% 12.0% 29.7% 8.2% 19.8% 2.8% 51.9% 19.3% 58.8% 35.7% 71.7% 56.0%
Source: 2000 CHAS data
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
61
OVERCROWDING
Table 33 illustrates the share of households by person per room for owners and renters in the
state and entitlement cities. Households with more than 1 person per room are considered
overcrowded. Households with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely
overcrowded. As shown in Table 33, renter-occupied households have a higher incidence of
overcrowding than owner-occupied households. In both categories (owner and renter), Walnut
Creek has the smallest share of overcrowded households.
TABLE 33
PERSONS PER ROOM
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
<1.0
persons
1.01 to 1.5
persons
>1.5
persons
<1.0
persons
1.01 to 1.5
persons
>1.5
persons
State of California 91.4% 4.3% 4.3% 76.1% 8.5% 15.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) 95.8% 2.5% 1.7% 85.3% 6.7% 8.0%
Antioch 96.1% 2.2% 1.8% 85.0% 9.3% 5.7%
Concord 96.0% 2.3% 1.7% 81.9% 7.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 89.9% 6.2% 3.9% 77.3% 9.8% 12.9%
Richmond 90.0% 5.6% 4.4% 78.7% 9.1% 12.1%
Walnut Creek 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 92.5% 3.7% 3.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H20
Note: Due to rounding errors, the total percentage for owner or renter occupied may not total 100.
FORECLOSURES
A foreclosure is a term used to describe the procedure followed in enforcing a creditor’s rights
when a debt secured by any lien on property is in default. According to DataQuick, in Contra
Costa County (countywide) there were 5,017 households with a notice of default (first stage in
the foreclosure process) in the second quarter of 2009, a decrease of 0.6 percent over the same
quarter in 2008. In the second quarter of 2009 there were 2,048 homes lost to foreclosure,
representing a decrease of 30.9 percent from the same quarter in 2008.
The Contra Costa County Recorder keeps an inventory of notices of defaults, notices of trustee
sales, and trustee’s deed upon sale (see definitions of each below). Table 34 provides the
number of homes with each status for the entire year. Please note that one housing unit may be
counted more than once per year.
Notice of Default: A written document that gives constructive notice of a trustor’s
failure to perform his/her obligation under a deed of trust. This document must be
recorded.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
62
Notice of Trustee’s Sale: A written document that sets forth the day, date, and time
of the trustee’s sale and describes the property to be sold. This document is prepared
by the trustee and must be recorded with the county recorder in the county in which
the property is located at least 14 days prior to the scheduled sale date.
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale: A written document which is prepared and signed by the
trustee when the secured property is sold at a trustee’s sale. This document transfers
ownership to the successful bidder at the sale and must be recorded with the county
recorder in the county in which the property is located.
TABLE 34
FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY
Year Total Notices
of Defaults
Total Notices
of Trustee Sales
Total Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale
2009 18,323 14,623 8,360
2008 17,714 14,932 11,679
2007 11,837 6,666 4,189
2006 4,380 1,479 502
2005 2,519 777 131
2004 2,413 864 163
2003 2,713 1,020 205
2002 2,815 1,076 190
2001 2,351 881 209
2000 2,207 1,034 398
Source: Contra Costa County Recorder, 2009
One of the most significant increases in demand for a range of services has come as a result of
low-income tenants being evicted from their homes because the property owner has been
foreclosed upon. Most often the tenants are unaware that the foreclosure is under way and find
themselves without housing. Due to the costs of moving, security deposit requirements, and the
rent qualification process, they find it difficult or impossible to find new housing, particularly if
they have experienced a job loss and have little or no income to qualify for a new rental and
little in the way of savings. Seniors, disabled persons, and large families are especially adversely
impacted when evicted. There is little legal recourse for tenants who a re evicted as a result of
foreclosures.38
38 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
63
LEAD-BASED PAINT
Lead-based paint in residential units can pose severe health risks for children. California
requires public health agencies to identify children at risk of lead poisoning and requires that all
children up to 6 years of age be evaluated.
HUD provides a standard method to estimate the community-wide risk of lead poisoning
resulting from lead-based paint in residential structures. The method assumes that a certain
percentage of homes built before the sale of lead-based paint was banned in 1979 constitute a
lead poisoning hazard. The older the home, the more likely it is to constitute a lead poisoning
hazard. The method also assumes that low-income households are more likely to be at risk of
lead poisoning. Applying the percentage of low-income households by tenure to the age of
homes by tenure and multiplying by the presumed lead hazard percentage results in the
estimated number of households at risk of lead poisoning. The Lead Hazard Assessment tables
in Appendix 5 provide estimates for the County and for each entitlement city.
As shown in the Lead Hazard Assessment tables, renter-occupied households have a higher risk
of lead poisoning than owner-occupied households. Nearly 8 percent of renter-occupied
households in the County are at risk of lead poisoning and roughly 7 percent of owner -
occupied households are at risk.
PUBLIC HOUSING AND PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES
There are three housing authorities in the County that provide affordability assistance: th e
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, the of the Pittsburg Housing Authority, and the
Richmond Housing Authority. The County Housing Authority has jurisdiction throughout the
County with the exception of the cities of Pittsburg and Richmond, while th e Pittsburg and
Richmond authorities provide assistance to residents within those cities.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The County Housing Authority provides housing assistance to low-income County residents
through three programs:
Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) – Approximately 7,000 households
are aided through voucher assistance. Table 35 provides a summary of the needs of
households on the County’s waiting list.
Public Housing – The Housing Authority administers 1,168 public housing units in
nine cities: Antioch (3 developments), Brentwood (1 development), Oakley (2
developments), Richmond (1 development), San Pablo (2 developments), Bay Point
(1 development), Martinez (2 developments), Pittsburg (1 development), and Rodeo
(1 development).
Family Self-Sufficiency – Voluntary program for Section 8 participants interested in
becoming independent of public assistance.
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
64
TABLE 35
NEEDS OF FAMILIES ON THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY WAITING LIST,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Families Percentage of Total
Total
By Family Income
Very low income
Low income
By Family Type
Families with children
Elderly
Families with disabilities
PITTSBURG HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Pittsburg Housing Authority manages the Section 8 voucher program for the City. The
authority provides voucher assistance to 948 households. Table 36 provides a summary of the
needs of families on the City’s Section 8 waiting list.
TABLE 36
NEEDS OF FAMILIES ON THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY WAITING LIST, PITTSBURG
Families Percentage of Total
Total 1,526 100.0%
By Family Income
Extremely low income 1,109 72.6%
Very low income 298 19.5%
Low income 119 7.8%
By Family Type
Families with children 1,045 68.5%
Elderly 47 3.1%
Families with disabilities 260 17.0%
Source: 2009 PHA Annual Plan, Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg.
RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY
The Richmond Housing Authority uses HUD funding to provide rental assistance to lower-
income households through the following programs:
Public Housing – Available to lower-income residents that are either elderly,
disabled, or a family. According to the City’s 2008–2009 PHA plan, the Housing
COMMUNITY NEEDS
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
65
Authority manages 678 public housing units. In addition, the plan identifies that
there are 713 families on the public housing waiting list, of which 99 percent are
extremely low-income households.
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) – The Housing Authority manages the City’s
Section 8 program. According to the PHA plan, there are 1,375 Section 8 units in the
City. Table 37 provides a summary of the needs of families on the City’s Section 8
waiting list.
TABLE 37
NEEDS OF FAMILIES ON THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY WAITING LIST, RICHMOND
Families Percentage of Total
Total 2,241 100%
By Family Income
Extremely low income 2,197 98%
Very low income 33 1.5%
Low income 11 0.5%
By Family Type
Families with children 962 42.9%
Elderly 1,096 48.9%
Families with disabilities 183 8.2%
Source: 2009 PHA Annual Plan, Housing Authority of the City of Richmond
COMMUNITY NEEDS
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
66
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
67
STRATEGIC PLAN
PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan discusses the priority housing and community development needs of Contra
Costa County as a whole and establishes objectives intended to meet those needs as well as
strategies to implement the objectives.
Priority needs have been determined as the result of the needs assessment process. Assessment
consisted of an analysis of the community setting including housing and population
characteristics, consultations, public workshops, and an online survey.
A priority need is one that has a demonstrated level of need and will have a preference for
funding. A higher level of priority can be established as the result of a high absolute level of
need or a high level of need in relation to resources available to meet that need.
The discussion of priority needs is grouped into three major categories: housing, homeless and
non-housing community development. Housing needs are further divided into affordab le
housing and special needs housing. Non-housing community development is divided into
public services, economic development, infrastructure/public facilities, and administration.
Each category begins with a summary of priority needs. Following the summary are one or
more short objective statements intended to meet the identified priority needs. Finally there are
summaries of strategies that are intended to implement the objectives. Each strategy is
identified with one or more objectives that it advances.
Following the discussion of strategies is a description of how the resources estimated to be
available over the planning period will be targeted by priority need, by income category, and by
geography.
A section is devoted to a description of the public housing strategies within the County and
another briefly describes barriers to affordable housing and actions Consortium members will
take to reduce them.
There is also a final category of implementation strategies that address the general
implementation requirements of the Consortium’s housing and community development
programs covered by this Strategic Plan. These strategies include:
Meeting underserved needs,
Reducing lead poisoning hazards,
Reducing the level of poverty,
Assuring adequate institutional structure to implement the plan,
Affirmatively furthering fair housing,
Monitoring, and
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
68
Meeting the needs of persons with limited English proficiency.
The strategies are intended to guide the implementation of the Consolidated Plan. They serve as
a framework for individual projects, programs, and activities undertaken over the five -year
planning period. The annual Action Plan for each program year will identify the objective(s)
which the undertaking is meeting and the strategy(ies) being pursued for each undertaking.
Strategies may be revised or additional strategies may be adopted during the term of this
Strategic Plan provided they are consistent with the priority needs identified in this Plan and
fulfill Plan objectives.
The discussion of funding sources and lead agencies follows this section. The association of the
following strategies with The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
Community Planning and Development (CPD) Performance Measurement System
outcome/objective categories, specific objectives, and performance indicators is shown in the
tables appended to this Plan.
HOUSING STRATEGY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Priority Needs
The generally high cost of housing in the County relative to household income continues to
indicate a high priority need for affordable housing. The cost and availability of housing varies
significantly across the County; however low-income households (<80% area median income
[AMI]) continue to be challenged finding affordable housing in any part of the County. Very
low-income households (<50% AMI) have an even more significant challenge. Providing
affordable housing to those income groups is a high priority need.
There is also a priority need for an increase in housing types that are more affordable, such as
mixed use and higher-density housing.
Energy costs have a significant impact on housing affordability. New housing construction and
housing rehabilitation should have energy efficiency as a goal.
Housing conditions are also varied across the County. In general there is a significant amount of
housing in need of repair. Preservation of existing rental housing is seen as key to preserving
housing affordability for renters, either by preserving rent-restricted housing or rehabilitating
housing that is currently occupied by lower-income households.
Ownership is expensive for low-income and prohibitively expensive for very low-income and
extremely low-income households. The level of subsidy required to construct or rehabilitate
ownership housing for these income groups is also prohibitive. In order to create the greatest
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
69
number of homes with the limited resources available, efforts to improve housing for these
income groups is focused on rental housing.
The recent collapse of home values in combination with the high level of foreclosures has led to
a shift in housing needs. These new needs include preventing foreclosures through homeowner
counseling, providing incentives for the purchase and “re-occupancy” of foreclosed homes, and
an increase in the need for affordable rental housing. The need for blight prevention has also
increased as the high number of foreclosures results in a high number of vacant properties.
Objectives
AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-
income, and moderate-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe,
and affordable rental housing and rental assistance.
AH-2: Increase homeownership opportunities.
AH-3: Maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
AH-4: Reduce the number and impact of home foreclosures.
Strategies
Please note that housing activities that benefit households with incomes above low income will
be assisted using funds other than CDBG or HOME. These funds may include local
redevelopment area tax increment funds.
Land Acquisition for New Construction (AH-1, 2)
Land acquisition for the purpose of constructing new affordable housing units. Housing
constructed on the land may be rental or ownership. Ownership housing to target very low -
income, low-income, and moderate-income households; rental housing to target extremely low-
income and very low-income households.
Construction and Development of New Affordable Housing (AH-1, 2)
New affordable housing production. Housing may be rental or ownership. Ownership housing
to target very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households; rental housing to
target extremely low-income and very low-income households.
Acquisition and Rehabilitation (AH-1, 2, 3, 4)
Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing. Housing may be used for rental or
ownership and may include foreclosed housing. Dilapidated properties and/or properties that
have a blighting influence on the surrounding area will be targeted for acquisition. Ownership
housing to target very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income households; rental
housing to target extremely low-income and very low-income households.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
70
Owner-Occupied Single-Family Rehabilitation (AH-3)
Assistance to extremely low-income to moderate-income owner-occupant households to make
repairs to their homes. Repairs will be to correct health and safety deficiencies, to repair or
replace major building systems that are beyond their useful life, and to improve energy
efficiency.
Rental Rehabilitation (AH-1, 3)
Assistance to owners of rental properties to improve properties currently occupied by
extremely low-income and very low-income households. Repairs will be to correct health and
safety deficiencies, to repair or replace major building systems that are beyond their use ful life,
and to improve energy efficiency.
First-Time Homebuyer (AH-2)
Assistance to very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income first-time homebuyers to
subsidize the purchase of a home. Assistance may be targeted to areas harder hit by vacant
foreclosed homes and/or targeted to buyers of vacant foreclosed homes.
Homebuyer Foreclosure Counseling (AH-4)
Counseling of homeowners in danger of foreclosure.
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Priority Needs
There are several groups that have a higher need for affordable housing and have special
housing needs. These groups have been identified as:
The elderly and frail elderly
Persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental)
Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families
Victims of domestic violence
Persons with alcohol or other drug addiction
Large households (more than 5 persons)
Youth (in general and aging-out foster youth)
Persons discharged from institutions (prison, jail, mental hospital)
Note that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require an
analysis of large households but the Consortium believes this group falls into the special needs
category.
Seniors and the disabled are more likely to face housing problems and have difficulty affording
housing. Seniors and the disabled also have a need for accessible housing, whether it be new
housing, rehabilitated existing housing, or the adaptation of the housing they currently occupy.
In addition to general challenges, seniors may have supportive needs resulting from dementia.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
71
A specific need was identified for senior housing that allows the elderly to care for school-aged
children, presumably grandchildren.
A need for housing with supportive services was identified for seniors, the disabled, mentally
ill persons, those with developmental disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic
violence, persons with alcohol and other drug addiction, aging-out foster youth, and persons
discharged from institutions.
Objectives
AH-5: Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs
populations.
AH-6: Preserve existing special needs housing.
AH-7: Adapt or modify existing housing to meet the needs of special needs populations.
AH-8: Improve access to services for those in special needs housing.
Strategies
All affordable housing programs will target special needs populations as appropriate.
Supportive and Special Needs Housing Production (AH-5)
The development and construction of special needs and supportive housing. May include the
purchase of land for the construction of housing. Services should be integral to the housing.
Supportive and Special Needs Housing Preservation (AH-6)
Preserve supportive and special needs housing through subsidy of operations, services, and
rehabilitation. Assistance must result in the creation of new special needs housing units or the
extension of present restrictions on existing special needs units.
Housing Accessibility Modifications (AH-7)
Modifications and improvements to homes occupied by the frail elderly and persons with
permanent physical disabilities. These modifications and improvements will be focused on
improving the safety and accessibility of the home.
Housing and Supportive Services Coordination (AH-8)
Where possible, housing intended for special needs groups will be located in proximity to
public transportation and services required by the special needs group occupying the housing.
Supportive services will be provided as a resident service on site if they are not readily
accessible to residents. This strategy would apply to site acquisition, new construction, and
rehabilitation.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
72
HOMELESS STRATEGY
Priority Needs
Homeless persons and families have both housing and services needs. The immediate housing
need is for shelter. Medium and long-term housing needs are for transitional housing and
permanent supportive housing. Homeless results from a combination of factors related to the
persons and families who are homeless and the socioeconomic systems that support them.
Personal factors include generational poverty, weak or absent family and social networks,
inadequate education or job skills, family break-up resulting from violence or divorce,
catastrophic illness, mental illness, and substance abuse/addiction. Socioeconomic factors
include an inadequate supply of affordable housing, reduction in health and human services,
the high cost of child care and transportation, and the lack of jobs that pay living wages. The
affordable housing strategies address this need.
The homeless population is very diverse in nature and need. It varies by type of homelessness
and family type. There are three types of homelessness: the chronically homeless, those
discharged into homelessness, and the transitionally homeless.39
The chronically homeless, most often individuals, have been homeless for a year or longer and
have experienced at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years.40 They typically
have significant untreated or undertreated mental illness or social disorders in addition to
substance abuse issues and physical health problems. The chronically homeless are the most
visible and have the most service demands.
Those discharged into homelessness are released from public institutions such as prisons, jails,
and hospitals; from time-limited treatment programs for mental illness and substance abuse;
and from custodial care such as the foster care system. Without appropriate planning for
permanent housing, these homeless can become part of the chronic homeless population.
The transitional homeless are those who experience homelessness perhaps once or twice in a
lifetime and for periods of less than a year. They are often families, including families with
children, and are often homeless because of a particular crisis such as loss of income, eviction,
foreclosure, illness, disaster, or calamity (fire, flood, condemnation of unsafe housing). The
greatest challenge for this segment is finding affordable housing.
The homeless may be single persons or families. Families may or may not have school -aged
children.
39 Ending Homelessness in Ten Years: A County-Wide Plan for the Communities of Contra Costa County, Spring
2004.
40 Defining Chronic Homelessness: A Technical Guide for HUD Programs, September 2007
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
73
A moderate level of need was indicated for new shelter and housing for the homeless, including
transitional and permanent supportive housing. Shelter and housing that serves homeless
families with children under 18 years of age was indicated as a high priority need, as was
shelter and housing for aging-out and emancipated foster youth.
Priority need services for the homeless are those services that are in highest need and lowest
availability. Priority need services include mental health services and services for homeless
children including day care. Homeless housing should include services.
The homeless also have a priority need for services on discharge from an institution. Many have
recently been incarcerated or committed in a mental institution.
Prevention of homelessness is also a high need. Specific priority needs were for housing crisis
intervention/housing placement, foreclosure prevention, tenants’ rights/counseling, and short-
term assistance with rent and utilities.
Contra Costa County’s ten-year plan to end homelessness lays out a set of priorities and an
action plan to end homelessness in the County, including within individual jurisdictions.41 The
plan establishes the following five priorities to address homelessness:
Help homeless people (re)gain housing as soon as possible.
Provide integrated, wraparound services to facilitate long-term residential stability.
Help people to access employment that pays a “housing wage.”
Conduct outreach to link chronically homeless people with housing, treatment, and
services.
Prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place.
The ten-year plan further establishes an action plan to help achieve these specific priorities. This
Strategic Plan adopts those five priorities as objectives and the proposed actions as strategies.
Objectives
H-1: Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency,
transitional, and permanent affordable housing with appropriate supportive services.
H-2: Reduce the incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the
homeless.
In addition to these objectives, the affordable housing and human services objectives of this
Plan also address the needs of the homeless and the problem of homelessness.
41 Ending Homelessness in Ten Years: A County-Wide Plan for the Communities of Contra Costa County, 2004.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
74
Strategies
Affordable Housing Production (H-1)
Use the following strategies described under affordable housing to produce new transitional or
permanent supportive housing units. These units can be stand-alone developments dedicated to
housing the homeless or units dedicated to the homeless integrated into larger developments.
Land acquisition
Construction and development
Acquisition and rehabilitation
Emergency Shelter Programs (H-1)
Provide operational support for existing emergency shelters. Assist existing emergency shelters
with the capital costs of repair, maintenance, or expansion of capacity.
Crisis Intervention (H-2)
Support housing crisis intervention services which prevent homelessness.
Family Shelter and Homeless Housing (H-1)
Support the increase of shelter beds and housing for homeless families with children.
Where new housing for the homeless is being created, assure that beds or units are created that
meet the needs of homeless families with children.
Services to the Homeless (H-2)
Services will be provided to the homeless in three ways:
In coordination with shelter and housing.
Directly to the homeless.
By facilitating access to existing programs.
Services to the homeless will meet the following objectives.
Help homeless people (re)gain housing as soon as possible.
Provide integrated, wraparound services to facilitate long-term residential stability.
Help people to access employment that pays a “housing wage.”
Conduct outreach to link chronically homeless people with housing, treatment, and
services.
Prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place.
Increase permanent supportive housing opportunities for the homeless.
Homeless services provided will be comprehensive. Priority will be given to those services
identified in this Strategic Plan as priority needs.
Coordinated Services: Support services provided where the homeless are sheltered and/or
housed. Where new shelter or housing is created for the homeless, services will be provided.
The focus will be on the transition to permanent housing.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
75
Direct Services: Support services that are provided directly to homeless persons. These
programs would serve sheltered and unsheltered homeless, and the chronically homeless.
Homeless Access to Services: Human services programs will be open to homeless persons and
families that are sheltered or unsheltered. Programs that meet the needs of a special needs
population targeted under this Plan will be made available to homeless persons with special
needs.
NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
PUBLIC SERVICES
Priority Needs
High priority services needs are for nutrition (home delivery and food bank), health care,
mental health care, transportation, in-home support, crisis intervention, violence prevention,
child care, recreation/social programs, and fair housing. Moderate priority needs are for
substance abuse treatment, employment, case management, and emergency shelter (non -
homeless).
Priority need populations identified were youth, seniors, children, emancipated youth, victims
of domestic violence, the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) community, and persons
recently released from jail or on parole.
Seniors have priority needs for food, in-home support, transportation, protective services
(physical and financial), dementia care, and assistance with access to existing services. Services
targeted to the elderly homeless are needed as are services that support family caregivers to the
elderly. Elderly who care for school-age youth (grandchildren) also have special needs,
including child care. Services to the elderly should focus on independent living.
Persons with disabilities have priority needs for transportation, food, in-home support, and
assistance with access to existing services. In general, all services should be made accessible to
the blind.
The mentally ill have priority needs for mental health treatment and treatment of substance
abuse.
Persons with HIV/AIDS need in-home support, transportation, food, and interim financial
assistance.
Children and families with children have priority needs for child care, health care, and after -
school programs.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
76
A specific need exists for programs that serve teens. These programs include enrichment
programs, prenatal care, parenting, basic life skills, and preparation for higher education and
employment.
The coordination of existing services is important to overall efficac y. Services should be equally
available and accessible to all residents of the County without regard to where they reside. The
current concentration of services in large population centers is a barrier to serving all those in
need. Services should also be made available in languages other than English as appropriate to
the population being served.
Objectives
CD-1 General Public Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to
improve the quality of life and independence for lower-income persons, and ensure access to
programs that promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social
concerns such as substance abuse, hunger, and other issues.
CD-2 Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and frail elderly, and enable
them to maintain independence.
CD-3 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school, and
prepare for productive adulthood.
CD-4 Non-Homeless Special Needs: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to
improve the quality of life and independence for persons with special needs, such as
disabled persons, battered spouses, abused children, persons with HIV/AIDS, illiterate
adults, and migrant farmworkers.
CD-5 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further
fair housing.
Strategies
Social Services Programs – General (CD-1, 2, 3, 5)
Support social services programs that meet the basic human needs of low-income persons with
an emphasis on serving priority needs populations and meeting priority needs. (“Low income”
includes those presumed to be low income under CDBG regulations.)
Emergency Shelter – Non-Homeless (CD-4)
Support the operation of emergency shelters that serve non-homeless populations such as
victims of domestic violence and aging-out foster youth. Funding may also be provided for
capital improvements to increase capacity.
Crisis Intervention (CD-1, 2, 3, 4)
Support crisis intervention services including those that serve victims of domestic violence, the
elderly, and youth.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
77
Information and Referral, and Outreach (CD-1)
Support efforts to provide information on existing services to those in need of services and to
refer individuals in need of services. Encourage subrecipients to have an information, referral,
and outreach plan.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Priority Needs
Given the rates of unemployment in most of the Consortium jurisdictions, the downturn in the
economy and other equally important factors, economic development (specifically training and
re-training), job development/creation, and small business lending is considered of moderate
priority. The target population for economic development programs are the unemployed,
under-employed, disabled and homeless.
Objectives
CD-6 Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons with incomes below the
poverty level, expand economic opportunities for very low- and low-income residents, and
increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas.
Strategies
Job Training (CD-6)
Support job training, retraining, and employment search services for low-income persons.
Small Business Assistance (CD-6)
Provide technical assistance and capital (loan or grant) to small businesses/micro-enterprises to
develop and/or expand capacity and produce jobs for low-income persons.
INFRASTRUCTURE/PUBLIC FACILITIES
Priority Needs
Improvements to infrastructure range from a low to high priority need. Identified needs were
accessibility improvements in the right-of-way, street lighting, and general improvements to the
right-of-way to improve its appearance.
Improvements to infrastructure which enhance accessibility (including right-of-way and street
lighting) are a high priority need. Such improvements ensure that disabled members of the
public have full and complete access to public facilities, sidewalks and thoroughfares.
Priority need public facilities are those that serve youth, meet recreation and social needs,
provide child care and after-school programs, are specific to a neighborhood (small scale), and
serve as a source of information on available services. Public facility nee ds represent both
physical improvements and structures that meet the needs of the identified populations, as well
as programming and services available at those facilities.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
78
Types of facilities include centers, gymnasiums, sports facilities, and playfields. Both new
facilities and improvements to existing facilities such as lighting are priority needs.
Improvements were cited as needed to enhance safety and to increase utilization.
Public facilities were identified as having an underutilized but potentially significant role in
facilitating the provision of information and services to those in need. There is a need for
multilingual/multicultural services and access to new technologies.
Public facilities can be owned and operated by a public entity or a private nonprofit entity that
primarily serves the residents of the County.
Objectives
CD-7 Infrastructure and Accessibility: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate
infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility-impaired by addressing physical access
barriers to public facilities.
Strategies
Construct or Improve Public Facilities (CD-7)
Construct or improve public facilities including, but not limited to, providing and improving
access to facilities for disabled persons. This may include directly improving or constructing
facilities or providing assistance to nonprofit agencies that serve low-income populations.
Removal of Barriers (CD-7)
Remove barriers to the safe travel of persons with disabilities that exist in the public right-of-
way.
Right-of-Way Improvements (CD-7)
Make improvements to the public right-of-way to enhance public safety and accessibility, and
to improve public health, and to promote the provision of a “complete streets program.”
Improvements will be targeted to areas where the current level of improvements is less than the
current standard.
ADMINISTRATION
Objective
CD-8 Administration: 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.
Strategies
Collaboration and Standardization (CD-8)
Consortium member jurisdictions will continue the collaborative administration of the County’s
housing and community development programs undertaken under this Strategic Plan. This
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
79
effort will include common policies and procedures for requests for the use of funds,
subrecipient reporting, record-keeping, and monitoring.
Support of Inter-Jurisdictional Efforts (CD-8)
Consortium member jurisdictions will support the efforts of the housing authorities of the City
of Pittsburg, City of Richmond, and Contra Costa County. Members will also cooperatively
further the efforts of the Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on Homelessness (formerly
known as the Continuum of Care Board).
TARGETING OF ESTIMATED RESOURCES
The resources available under this Strategic Plan are limited. By necessity, they are targeted
according to the priority of need within each jurisdiction. Needs also vary by income group and
geography. Resources are targeted appropriately.
The following total resources are estimated to be available over the five-year planning period:
FEDERAL FUNDS
Community Development Block Grant $37,612,290
HOME Investment Partnerships Program $20,366,895
Emergency Shelter Grants $761,980
LOCAL FUNDS
Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside $34,200,000
These estimates are based on the current (FY 2009) allocations.
Please see the tables located in Appendix 6 for estimated resources by priority need and income
group.
GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
Depending on the type of need being addressed, resources may or may not be geographically
targeted.
Affordable housing, including special needs housing, will be dispersed throughout the County
to avoid concentrating low-income populations. However, affordable housing and housing for
the homeless will be located so services will be accessible to residents.
Assistance to improve or construct public facilities or infrastructure will generally be targeted to
low-income areas. Low-income areas are indicated on the maps in Appendix 3. Assistance to
improve public facilities may also be provided outside of low-income areas if they primarily
benefit low-income households or persons or those groups presumed to be low-income.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
80
Services are not geographically targeted. Services will be provided in such a manner as to
provide the greatest level of availability to the widest area possible.
There are several targeted efforts described below.
Iron Triangle NRSA (City of Richmond)
The City of Richmond has a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) in the Iron
Triangle and Woods neighborhoods. This area has been an officially designated NRSA since
1996. The majority of work in this neighborhood will continue to be steered by two major
plans, the Macdonald Avenue Economic Revitalization Plan and the Central Richmond
Revitalization Initiative. This NRSA is comprised of (year 2000) Census Tracts 3750, 3760 and
3770.
City of Richmond Target Neighborhoods
The City of Richmond will target assistance to the following neighborhoods based on
historically high levels of poverty and unemployment, high housing density, and the poor
condition of the housing stock.
Easter Hill – Census Tract 3800
Santa Fe – Census Tract 3790
Pullman Plaza – Census Tract 3810;
Parchester – Block Group 1 of Census Tract 3650.01.
North Richmond (City of Richmond/ Contra Costa County)
The City of Richmond and Contra Costa County will continue to participate in partnerships and
collaboratives with the County and other agencies to better coordinate improvements in North
Richmond. This target area is comprised of (year 2000) Census Tract 3650.02.
PUBLIC HOUSING STRATEGY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITIES
There are three housing authorities that serve Contra Costa County. The Pittsburg Housing
Authority serves the City of Pittsburg. The Richmond Housing Authority serves the City of
Richmond. The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County serves the balance of the County.
The summaries of public housing strategies that follow are taken from each individual housing
authority’s current five-year Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan and most recent annual PHA
Plan.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
81
City of Pittsburg Housing Authority
Meeting Needs by Income
The City of Pittsburg Housing Authority (PHA) only administers the Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) Program. HUD has awarded the PHA with 948 vouchers and the PHA is currently 102%
leased-up.
Families served by the PHA are 71 percent extremely low-income and 29 percent very low-
income.
The City of Pittsburg Housing Authority is a High Performing Housing Authority and as a
result of its performance HUD awarded it with 35 rental vouchers to administer the Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) Program. The PHA works closely with the Department of
Veterans Affairs to serve homeless veterans with special needs. Presently the PHA has housed
thirty veterans with the assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The PHA’s waiting list has been closed since December 2006. The PHA currently has 1,527
applicants on the waiting list. The waiting list consists of applicants with extremely low income
(72.63%); very low income (19.52%) and low income (7.85%). Families with children are 68.43%,
elderly families are 3.21% and single families are 11.33%.
The PHA has a First Time Homeownership Program. To date two (2) Section 8 participants
have purchased homes and two (2) are in escrow and due to close in the next 30 days. We
continue to work with families to determine eligibility.
The PHA has also acquired three single family homes which are being rented to low income
families.
Physical Needs of Public Housing
The Pittsburg Housing Authority does not own or operate any public housing.
Management and Operation of Public Housing
The Pittsburg Housing Authority does not own or operate any public housing.
Improving Living Environment of Public Housing Residents
The Pittsburg Housing Authority does not own or operate any public housing.
City of Richmond Housing Authority
Meeting Needs by Income
The Richmond Housing Authority has adopted the following strategies by income group.
Target available assistance to families at or below 30 percent of AMI.
o Exceed HUD federal targeting requirements for families at or be low 30
percent AMI in public housing.
o Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work.
Target available assistance to families at or below 50 percent of AMI.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
82
o Employ admissions preferences aimed at families who are working.
o Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work.
Physical Needs of Public Housing
The Richmond Housing Authority has a significant capital improvement program to meet the
physical needs of public housing. The details of those efforts and the amount of funding for
specific efforts are included in the annual PHA Plan. Capital needs exceed three million dollars.
The Richmond Housing Authority has adopted the following strategies to meet the physical
needs of public housing.
Renovate or modernize public housing units. (See capital improvement plan.)
Demolish or dispose of obsolete public housing units. (Nystrom Village and
Hacienda)
Provide replacement public housing. (Nystrom Village and Hacienda)
Provide replacement vouchers.
Continue to find facilities able to accommodate expansion.
Management and Operation of Public Housing
The Richmond Housing Authority has adopted the following strategies to improve the
management and operation of public housing.
Expand the supply of assisted housing.
o Reduce public housing vacancies: develop management and maintenance
policies minimizing turnaround time.
Improve the quality of assisted housing.
o Improve public housing management.
o Improve voucher management.
o Increase customer satisfaction. RHA has processes and procedures in place to
better serve the housing community.
o Concentrate on efforts to improve specific management functions. RHA has
adopted asset management policies and procedures including budgeting and
accounting requirements.
Other
o RHA will maintain at least three months operating reserve.
o RHA will establish revenue generating policies.
o RHA will continue to find facilities to accommodate expansion.
Improving Living Environment of Public Housing Residents
The Richmond Housing Authority has adopted the following strategies to improve the living
environment of public housing residents.
Increase assisted housing choices.
o Implement voucher homeownership programs.
o Partner with agencies assisting in areas of counseling and lending.
o Establish foster care “timing out” in the housing choice voucher program.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
83
Improve community quality of life and economic vitality.
o Implement measures to de-concentrate poverty by bringing higher-income
households into lower-income developments.
o Implement measures to promote income mixing by assuring access for lower-
income families into higher-income developments.
o Implement public housing security measures.
Promote self-sufficiency and asset development of assisted households.
o Increase the number and percentage of employed persons in assisted
families. RHA will refer families to employment and training agencies.
o Provide or attract supportive services to improve assistance recipients’
employability.
o Provide or attract supportive services to increase independence for the
elderly or families with disabilities.
o Support the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and Homeownership Program.
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING
The member jurisdictions of the Consortium will meet the needs of public housing by
coordinating the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing with the County’s housing
authorities. Member jurisdictions will also coordinate housing programs such as
homeownership with the housing authorities.
BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
As defined by the Consolidated Plan regulations, a barrier to affordable housing is a public
policy such as land use controls, property taxes, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and
charges, growth limits, and other policies.
The State of California requires each city and county to prepare a Housing Element to its
General Plan every five years. The Housing Element includes an analysis of constraints to
housing and strategies to reduce or remove those constraints. Constraints that must be
addressed include public policies and regulations that limit the availability of housing,
particularly affordable housing.
The member jurisdictions’ Housing Elements have identified the following barriers to
affordable housing and actions to address those barriers.
Infrastructure constraints – Affordable housing developments are located in infill
locations in areas already served by existing infrastructure. Such infill sites are
beneficial in that they provide housing near public transit and jobs, encourage
economic growth in urban areas, and don’t require the extension of services, thereby
promoting “smart growth” development principles.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
84
Fees and exactions – To facilitate affordable housing development, member
jurisdictions may defer, reduce, or waive a portion of the planning fees for nonprofit
housing developers.
Potential constraints for persons with disabilities – In order to facilitate the
development of appropriate housing for persons with special needs, member
jurisdictions may remove development constraints and provide reasonable
accommodations in the development of such housing as requests are made.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
OBSTACLES TO MEETING UNDERSERVED NEEDS
Phone interviews with a wide range of social, health, and housing service providers in the
Consortium jurisdictions consistently indicated that the current economic conditions has had a
disproportionate impact on low-income persons. The demand for these services increased
substantially in 2009 while at the same time funding decreased substantially, resulting in the
decrease or elimination of some services. Service providers are struggling to meet the demand
for increased services with smaller budgets. They sometimes have to turn away clients or refer
them to other service providers. The challenge of making services accessible to those who need
them remains. Those in need of services most often do not own a car and are low-income,
disabled, or seniors. Poor public transportation options make it difficult for people in need of
services to physically get to the service providers in many of the Consortium jurisdictions.
Increase in demand was linked to four factors:
1) Tenants being evicted as a result of foreclosures.
2) Job losses and reductions in work hours.
3) Reduction in supportive services and public benefits for seniors, disabled persons, and
persons with HIV/AIDS.
4) Family stressors leading to an increase in domestic violence.
Several obstacles were identified to meeting underserved needs. In no particular order, they
were:
Accessibility of services
Awareness of services
Coordination of services
Resources appropriate to the level of need
Language barriers
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
85
Accessibility
Lack of accessibility to services can be the result of lack of transportation for those in need,
services that are not delivered in a culturally appropriate manner or in the appropriate
language, burdensome prerequisites to accessing services (“red tape”), and services that are not
provided in proximity to those in need.
Lack of transportation is a particular challenge for those who do not drive, do not have a car, or
are elderly and for persons with disabilities. Transportation to services must be appropriate for
the population in need, such as “door-to-door” transit for the elderly and persons with
disabilities.
Services should be made available in the many languages and in a manner that is sensitive to
the cultural context of all those being served. Several comments were made that some services
appear to only be available to certain language or cultural groups.
Services should be offered in a manner that minimizes the burden of providing information
prior to accessing services. Interactions with different agencies and different persons within
those agencies should be minimized. The process involved to access services should be made as
clear as possible to those being served.
In smaller County communities, in the unincorporated areas, and in the eastern region of the
County, local access to a full range of services is limited. An effort will be made to encourage
the provision of services countywide, with an emphasis on outreach to smaller communities
and the use of local facilities to provide services. Services should be provided in safe and
accessible facilities.
Awareness of Services
The lack of awareness of the availability of services by those in need and a lack of knowledge
about how to access services are significant obstacles to the provision of services. Outreach to
those in need should be significant and culturally appropriate.
Coordination of Services
Those in need must often access services from several points; similar services may also be
provided by more than one agency. Those being served by one agency may have needs that are
not being addressed by the particular agency currently serving that person or family. Services
should be coordinated to avoid duplication. Collaboration among agencies is encouraged.
Efforts should be made to reduce the number of contacts a person or family must make to
receive a full range of services. Every agency providing services should assess the complete
needs of those being served and make referrals as needed.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
86
Resources
Resources are generally less than required to meet the level of need and include funding, staff,
staff with the appropriate skills and knowledge, facilities, and leadership. Those funds that are
available will be prioritized to the highest priority needs. Funding wil l also be prioritized to
those undertakings that represent the most efficient use of funds, are delivered by the most
qualified persons, and serve the broadest geography.
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Each jurisdiction under this Strategic Plan is responsible for complying with the Residential
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 as implemented in 24 CFR 35 Subpart B.
Compliance includes the following strategies.
Housing Rehabilitation
All housing rehabilitation activities funded under this Plan will asse ss lead hazard risk before
proceeding. This applies to any work on structures constructed prior to January 1, 1978. The
work will comply with the appropriate level of protection indicated in 24 CFR 35.100.
All work on homes constructed prior to January 1, 1978, will have a lead hazard risk assessment
conducted as described at 24 CFR 35.110.
At the completion of any prescribed lead hazard reduction activities, a clearance examination is
required as described at 24 CFR 35.110.
Each jurisdiction undertaking housing rehabilitation activities will be required to have a lead
hazard reduction plan.
Information and Education
Households that participate in housing activities under this Plan, including home purchase,
rental assistance, or rehabilitation, will be given educational material regarding the hazards of
lead-based paint, signs of lead poisoning, and strategies to reduce exposure. Materials will
include the use of HUD/EPA publications such as “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your
Home.” Information will be provided in multiple languages.
Testing
Blood testing of children occupying housing constructed prior to January 1, 1978. Testing can be
in conjunction with housing programs, public health programs, or other programs conducted
under this Plan.
Monitoring
Annual monitoring of reporting of cases of child lead poisoning by the County Health
Department. The results may be used to modify the current strategies and/or develop new
programs.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
87
ANTI-POVERTY
Reduction of Number of Families in Poverty
The objectives and strategies of this Strategic Plan are generally focused on reducing the
number of families in poverty, improving the quality of life for the poorest of families, and
lessening the impacts of poverty. Strategies include those addressing affordable housing,
special needs housing, homelessness, public facilities, public improvements, and economic
development.
The movement of people above the poverty line involves a variety of policies and programs that
extend beyond providing opportunities for employment at a living wage. Access to education,
transportation, childcare, and housing are key components that can assist persons to secure and
retain economically self-sustaining employment. The Consortium will employ a variety of
strategies to help alleviate poverty in the County, including efforts to stimulate economic
growth and job opportunities, and to provide Urban County residents with the skills and
abilities required to take advantage of those opportunities.
Cal WORKS, California’s response to the Workforce Development Act of 1998, has altered the
structure and function of the public social service delivery system. The new system emphasizes
outcomes, the value of work and the duty of government to support its citizens in their self-
sufficiency efforts.
The County’s implementation of Cal WORKS has been constructed with the purpose of going
beyond “welfare reform” to building models that integrate services, leverage funding and share
expertise across agencies. Contra Costa County, in partnership with the Workforce Investment
Boards from the City of Richmond, Alameda, and Oakland has formed a collaborative known
as “Eastbay Works”. Presently there are 14 East Bay One Stop and Career Centers, more
commonly known as One Stops; six of which specifically serve the needs of Contra Costa
residents. One Stops are located in Richmond, Hilltop Mall (also in the City of Richmond),
Concord, Pittsburg, Brentwood and San Pablo. The North Richmond Employment
Collaborative opened in November of 1998 and provides employment service s primarily to
residents of North Richmond and surrounding communities, and is electronically linked to the
One Stop facilities. In addition, Bay Point Works Community Career Center provides
employment services to residents of Bay Point.
The East Bay One Stop and Career Centers offer services to the universal population that
include targeted services for those who are presently receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) funds. In addition to Job Training Partnership Act funds, the Workforce
Investment Board receive Welfare to Work formula grants and have secured competitive grants
to provide enhanced services and expanded training options for this population. Services are
available for eligible individuals and include in-depth assessment, team case management,
training, job placement assistance, and development of skills leading to higher wage earnings.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
88
Opportunities for microenterprise and small business development are facilitated through a
Small Business and Microenterprise Loan Program sponsored by the County’s CDBG Program.
The purpose of the program is to stimulate local economic growth by providing loans and
technical assistance to microenterprises and small businesses.
Childcare training programs assist low-income persons in establishing themselves as in-home
childcare providers to achieve economic self-sufficiency through self-employment.
To the greatest extent possible, residents of housing rehabilitated or constructed under this Plan
will have access to anti-poverty programs. Owners and operators of such housing will be
required to have a plan for resident services. Providers of services under this Strategic Plan will
be required to inform and educate the residents of affordable housing and to facilitate access to
services to the extent possible.
A significant number of affordable housing units produced under this Plan will be affordable to
extremely low- and very low-income households as well as to low income-households. Units
will also be made available to low- and very low-income special needs households including
seniors, persons with disabilities, homeless individuals and families, and persons with mental
illness.
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
The Consortium members coordinate Consolidated Planning efforts., Each entitlement
jurisdiction in the Consortium completes its own annual planning and allocation process as well
as its annual report (CAPER). These planning efforts have a high degree of coordination. Where
appropriate, countywide services and efforts that have a countywide impact are coordinated.
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) is responsible
for the administration and management of the CDBG, HOME, ESG and Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). The Department is responsible for the County’s lead
administrative duties as well as for the Urban County programs and projects. The County is
also the lead agency for the Contra Costa HOME Consortium. The County’s Redevelopment
Agency also provides support, as do various County departments and divisions including
Building Inspection Division, Department Employment and Human Services, and Department
of Health Services. The County is served by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County.
Antioch’s Community Development Department has responsibility for activities carried out
under this Strategic Plan. The City also has a redevelopment agency with several active project
areas.
The Community and Recreation Services Department of the City of Concord implements the
CDBG program.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
89
In Pittsburg, programs are implemented by the Community Access Department. Pittsburg also
has active redevelopment project areas. Pittsburg has one of two stand-alone housing
authorities in the County.
In Richmond, the programs are overseen by the Housing and Commun ity Development
division of the Development Services Department. Like Pittsburg, Richmond also has its own
autonomous public housing authority.
Walnut Creek’s Community Development Department implements its programs, primarily
through the Housing division.
The Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on Homelessness (formerly known as the
Continuum of Care Board) implements the County’s Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness.
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Please see the Contra Costa Consortium 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
MONITORING
Each member jurisdiction is responsible for monitoring the use of funds it awards.
Prior to funding consideration, all applications are reviewed for consistency with federal
regulation, Consolidated Plan and local policy. Following funding approval, new subrecipients
are required to attend a mandatory meeting to become familiar with program standards,
County requirements, and federal regulations. Project sponsors are also required to enter into
agreements that specify objectives, scope of work, applicable timelines and performance targets,
budget, federal, state, and local regulatory requirements, and monitoring and reporting
requirements.
During project implementation, project sponsors are required to submit periodic progress
reports detailing project progress toward objectives, problems and/or resolution to meeting
goals, and quantitative participation data by ethnicity, income, and household status. In
addition, project sponsors are also required to provide updated sources and uses budgets
subsequent to the completion of the second quarter. Projects are also subject to an on-site
performance and financial audit review on a selective basis. Priority is given to high-risk
programs for on-site performance and/or audit review.
Periodic reports and payment requests are reviewed for compliance with the project agreement,
budget consistency, and documentation of expenditures. Project sponsors are advised of any
procedural errors and/or ineligible activities, and provided with technical assistance as needed.
Upon project completion, project sponsors are required to submit completion reports
identifying program/project accomplishments, quantitative data, including number of persons
or households served, ethnicity, and income level, and a final sources and uses budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
90
In the Public Services category, the County seeks to coordinate activities for the efficient
provision of services in the following ways:
Where applicable, the County and other Consortium members have developed standardized
forms, including reporting forms and applications, in order to streamline and minimize
paperwork.
The County follows a strategy of supporting programs that provide a variety of complementary
and integrated services to targeted areas, and ensures that service providers are aware of other
organizations that may augment their program.
The County also participates with other County departments and nonprofit organizations
efforts to collaborate on the provision of services.
Affordable housing development projects must also submit annual compliance reports
throughout the period of required affordability. These reports are designed to ensure continued
compliance with federal regulations, affordability and use restrictions, and other requirements
as specified in project loan documents. In addition, all HOME and CDBG-assisted projects will
be subject to periodic on-site inspections to ensure continued compliance with federal housing
quality standards.
Concurrent with on-site inspections, DCD staff inspects tenant files to ensure the management
company complies with HOME program and County requirements. The review includes
confirming proper income certifications, correct rent and utility allowance calculations, and
appropriate tenant lease provisions. The County has a licensing agreement with U.S.
Communities for their FOCUS program. HUD’s income and rent limits are embedded in the
program. The program allows for immediate feedback to asset managers on whether or not the
unit is in compliance.
The County and the other entitlement jurisdictions within the County work together to refine
and implement the Performance Outcome Measurement System framework. The effort is in
response to HUD’s consolidated planning guidelines for the measurement of outcomes for
HUD’s four major community development formula grant programs. The system includes
objectives, outcomes, and indicators for each type of activity undertaken with funds made
available from these programs.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
In order to better serve Contra Costa County’s limited-English-proficient (LEP) residents,
Contra Costa County (County) has developed a Language Assistance Plan (LAP). The
implementation of the LAP is consistent with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s Final Guidance (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 13, January 22, 2007) and
Executive Order 13166 (August 11, 2000) to ensure that programs receiving federal financial
assistance provide meaningful access to LEP persons. Failure to ensure that LEP persons can
STRATEGIC PLAN
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
March 23, 2010
91
effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs may violate Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination based on national origin.
Implementation of the LAP will enable the County to better serve its beneficiaries by ensuring
access to language assistance for its various housing and community development programs
funded with federal funds. Although the County may have limited resources at a given time,
the LAP ensures that access to language assistance for LEP residents will be provided in some
form.
Goals of the LAP
The three major goals of the Contra Costa County Language Assistance Plan are as follows:
1) To provide meaningful access for the County’s LEP residents through the provision of
free language assistance for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs;
2) To provide an appropriate means to ensure the involvement of LEP residents that are
most likely to be affected by the programs and to ensure the continuity of their
involvement;
3) To ensure that the County’s CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA staff will assist the
County’s LEP population in obtaining the necessary services and/or assistance
requested.
Each jurisdiction has adopted its own individual version of the LAP that implements these
goals.
Monitoring and Updating the LAP
Given that the demographics and the needs of Contra Costa County residents are in constant
flux, the County will periodically monitor and update the Language Assistance Plan. In order to
consider changes to demographics, types of services, or other needs, the evaluation of the LAP
shall be conducted annually in conjunction with the development of the County’s Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) of the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA
programs. In addition, the LAP shall be reevaluated in conjunction with the development of the
County’s 5-year Consolidated Plan for the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs.
Areas that shall be considered during the evaluation and assessment of the LAP shall include
the following:
Current LEP populations in the jurisdiction’s geographic area or population affected
or encountered;
Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups;
The nature and importance of activities/services/programs to LEP persons;
The availability of resources, including technological advances and sources of
additional resources, and the costs imposed;
STRATEGIC PLAN
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
March 23, 2010
92
Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP persons;
Whether staff knows and understands the LAP and how to implement it; and
Whether identified sources for assistance are still available and viable.
APPENDIX 1.
AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 1
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_NON-WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:23:28 PM2 0 2
MILES Minority Concentration - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 2
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:21:30 PM2,600 0 2,600
FEET Minority Concentration - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 3
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:22:31 PM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Minority Concentration - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 4
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:25:19 PM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Minority Concentration - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 5
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_NON-WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:26:32 PM2,900 0 2,900
FEET Minority Concentration - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
APPENDIX 2.
AREAS OF HISPANIC CONCENTRATION
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 6
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:01:19 AM2 0 2
MILES Hispanic Concentration - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 7
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 9:58:20 AM2,700 0 2,700
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 8
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:00:14 AM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 9
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:03:37 AM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 10
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:05:06 AM2,900 0 2,900
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
APPENDIX 3.
AREAS OF LOW-INCOME AND
VERY LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 11
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_CDBG_TARGET_AREA.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:15:02 PM2 0 2
MILES Low Income Areas - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Contra Costa County is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 42.60%
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 12
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:12:22 PM2,600 0 2,600
FEET Low Income Areas - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups thathave a concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod incomepopulation.
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 13
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:14:03 PM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Low Income Areas - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Concord is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 47.90%.
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 14
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_CDBG_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:16:05 PM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Low Income Areas - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups thathave a concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod incomepopulation.
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 15
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_LOW_MOD.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:17:05 PM2,750 0 2,750
FEET Low Income Areas - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups that havea concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod income population.
355303
347000
346102
346201352101
355301
351200
348000
346101
351100
350000
355302
340002
352201
338302
343003
342000
345201
338202
337300
341000
338201
355304
349000
339000
343002
356002
325000
355305
340001
343001
324000
338100
326000
338301
337200
344000
352202
323000 334003 334004
355104352102352102
337100
353001
354002
353001
354002
355104
336200
353002
Map 16
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\WALNUT_CREEK_TARGET_AREA_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:19:44 PM2,100 0 2,100
FEET Low Income Areas - Walnut Creek
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Walnut Creek is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 32.50%.
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 17
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_VERY_LOW_INCOME.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:24:17 PM2 0 2
MILES Very Low Income Areas - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Very Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are very low income. Contra Costa County is an exception grantee and its very lowincome threshold is 42.60%
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 18
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_VERY_LOW_MOD.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 1:07:05 PM2,800 0 2,800
FEET Very Low Income Areas - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Very Low Income Area Very Low income areas are defined as census block groups that havea concentration of 51 percent or more very low income population.
APPENDIX 4.
“CHAS” TABLES
Page | 1
Appendix 4 - CHAS Housing Problems Tables
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of
U.S. Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the
“CHAS” tables. They are obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System”
(SOCDS). These data are presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing
problems” by households and the other presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing
units. The needs of renter and owner households are examined separately.
The following are the housing problems tables for the State of California, Contra Costa
County, the Urban County area, and the five entitlement communities. Because of the
nature of the Consortium, data tables were acquired according to the CDBG geography.
Although this best approximates the jurisdictional boundaries within the Consortium, it
does introduce a significant level of rounding in the data.1
The CHAS housing problems tables present the number of households paying more
than 30 percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type,
and income category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to
as the housing “cost burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost
burden over 30 percent has a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over
50 percent have a “severe” cost burden.
1 Please see http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 344,660 646,560 335,000 486,800 1,813,020 411,249 210,095 114,040 120,730 856,114 2,669,134
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 209,065 332,745 161,320 297,120 1,000,250 180,589 92,950 40,400 70,075 384,014 1,384,264
3. % with any housing problems 70.9 87.8 97 74.9 81.9 68.1 79.1 92.6 70.1 73.7 79.6
4. % Cost Burden >30%68.6 81.5 85.6 72.2 76.7 67.6 75.9 80.9 68.8 71.3 75.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 51.7 69.7 65.1 64.7 63.7 48.9 68.1 72.1 59.8 58 62.1
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 135,595 313,815 173,680 189,680 812,770 230,660 117,145 73,640 50,655 472,100 1,284,870
7. % with any housing problems 74.8 87.2 95.3 87.5 86.9 46.3 78.7 93.1 73.6 64.6 78.7
8. % Cost Burden >30%71.7 77.3 63.2 84.7 75.1 46 74.7 77.9 72.6 60.9 69.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 27.3 13.8 43.9 30 25.3 55 47.1 54.5 39.2 33.4
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 102,155 410,305 200,510 288,425 1,001,395 314,849 271,170 163,865 91,565 841,449 1,842,844
11. % with any housing problems 58.5 63.2 87.2 59.9 66.6 30.9 70.4 86.2 67.5 58.4 62.8
12.% Cost Burden >30%54.8 41.3 22.2 54.8 42.8 30.6 65.8 59.2 66.4 51.4 46.7
13. % Cost Burden >50% 15.6 4.9 1.7 9.6 6.7 14.1 29.7 16.9 34.9 22 13.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 146,954 908,040 259,900 822,215 2,137,109 932,389 2,556,075 736,380 623,820 4,848,664 6,985,773
15. % with any housing problems 22.1 24.1 66.3 14.6 25.4 14.1 23.7 46.3 29.8 26.1 25.9
16.% Cost Burden >30%18.6 7.3 3.7 10.3 8.8 13.9 20.8 18.4 28.9 20.1 16.7
17. % Cost Burden >50%4.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 3.5 3.3 2.4 5.7 3.5 2.7
18. Total Households 593,769 1,964,905 795,410 1,597,440 4,951,524 1,658,487 3,037,340 1,014,285 836,115 6,546,227 11,497,751
19. % with any housing problems 57.6 53.1 84.1 42.7 55.3 27.7 31.7 58 40 35.8 44.2
20. % Cost Burden >30 54.6 38.2 38 38.7 40.3 27.4 28.6 31.8 39 30.1 34.5
21. % Cost Burden >50 30.6 17.4 16.7 19.4 19.5 13.5 9.7 10.8 16.4 11.7 15
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 8,060 14,650 6,045 9,715 38,470 15,035 7,060 2,779 4,470 29,344 67,814
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 5,333 7,845 2,945 5,770 21,893 6,897 3,015 989 2,480 13,381 35,274
3. % with any housing problems 70.7 81.3 94.6 75.5 79 63.8 85.2 93.9 75.6 73.1 76.7
4. % Cost Burden >30%69 77.9 84.6 74.3 75.7 63.2 83.7 86.9 74.6 71.7 74.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 60.7 55.9 62.4 57.6 43 74.5 76.8 61.3 56 57
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 2,727 6,805 3,100 3,945 16,577 8,138 4,045 1,790 1,990 15,963 32,540
7. % with any housing problems 76 79.5 88.9 85.7 82.1 43 78.4 89.9 71.6 60.8 71.7
8. % Cost Burden >30%75.7 72.4 46.3 84.3 70.9 42.9 75.4 79.1 71.6 58.8 64.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 39.2 19 10.3 36.1 24.8 22.7 50.4 41.3 54 35.7 30.1
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 1,918 7,413 2,445 5,879 17,655 8,968 8,785 3,520 3,108 24,381 42,036
11. % with any housing problems 57.5 51.4 80.8 54.8 57.3 29.9 71 80.3 66.1 56.6 56.9
12.% Cost Burden >30%56.5 38.9 26 52.3 43.5 29.8 67.8 55.7 66.1 51.9 48.3
13. % Cost Burden >50% 17.9 4.3 2.5 7 6.4 12.3 26.2 11.6 28.4 19.3 13.9
14. Household Income >80% MFI 3,399 22,535 4,749 18,760 49,443 32,594 105,105 22,354 24,614 184,667 234,110
15. % with any housing problems 29.1 17.9 53.3 11.4 19.6 12.9 21.7 35 28.8 22.7 22
16.% Cost Burden >30%25.6 8.2 3.3 8.6 9.1 12.7 20.1 19.2 28.4 19.8 17.5
17. % Cost Burden >50%7.9 0.4 0 0.8 1 2.8 2.8 1.9 3.9 2.8 2.4
18. Total Households 13,377 44,598 13,239 34,354 105,568 56,597 120,950 28,653 32,192 238,392 343,960
19. % with any housing problems 59.3 44 75.9 38.1 48 26.1 28.8 46 38.6 31.5 36.6
20. % Cost Burden >30 57.5 35.4 35.6 35.8 38.4 25.9 27 29.7 38.2 28.6 31.6
21. % Cost Burden >50 32.1 14.5 15.3 16.2 17.4 12 7.9 8.2 13.8 9.7 12.1
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Contra Costa County, California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 768 1,831 668 789 4,056 1,013 658 299 237 2,207 6,263
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 542 934 350 433 2,259 507 309 125 122 1,063 3,322
3. % with any housing problems 65.3 81.5 97.1 76.2 79 55.6 78.3 100 77 69.9 76.1
4. % Cost Burden >30%64.6 78.9 94.9 76.2 77.4 54.8 78.3 80.8 77 67.3 74.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 61.6 60.9 59.6 58 38.7 72.5 80.8 47.5 54.5 56.9
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 226 897 318 356 1,797 506 349 174 115 1,144 2,941
7. % with any housing problems 65.5 89.4 88.7 86 85.6 40.9 90.5 86.2 79.1 66.8 78.3
8. % Cost Burden >30%65.5 83.2 41.8 78.9 72.8 40.9 90.5 78.2 79.1 65.6 70
9. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 13.3 8.8 20.5 17 30 59.6 35.1 60 42.8 27
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 120 851 206 342 1,519 620 1,178 528 163 2,489 4,008
11. % with any housing problems 52.5 41.8 77.7 32.2 45.4 30 70.5 78.8 60.7 61.5 55.4
12.% Cost Burden >30%52.5 30.9 25.2 29.2 31.5 30 69.3 63.8 60.7 57.8 47.8
13. % Cost Burden >50% 45.8 1.6 0 4.1 5.5 4.5 20.6 5.9 26.4 13.9 10.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 135 1,565 392 698 2,790 1,245 9,862 2,938 1,803 15,848 18,638
15. % with any housing problems 28.1 10 50 6.3 15.6 11.5 21.6 27.8 25 22.4 21.3
16.% Cost Burden >30%28.1 3.6 3.6 2.9 4.6 11.5 20.5 17 25 19.7 17.4
17. % Cost Burden >50%7.4 0 0 0 0.4 3.1 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.5 1.3
18. Total Households 1,023 4,247 1,266 1,829 8,365 2,878 11,698 3,765 2,203 20,544 28,909
19. % with any housing problems 58.9 48.9 77.3 43.2 53.2 28.4 30.1 40.1 33.4 32 38.2
20. % Cost Burden >30 58.6 42.5 41.9 40 43.8 28.3 29 28.5 33.4 29.3 33.5
21. % Cost Burden >50 40.6 16.7 19 18.9 20.4 14.4 7 5.5 9.2 8 11.6
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Antioch(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 1,159 2,302 991 1,480 5,932 1,823 719 244 716 3,502 9,434
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 773 1,011 380 897 3,061 888 313 51 421 1,673 4,734
3. % with any housing problems 68.4 85.1 98.9 80.9 81.4 76.4 86.9 92.2 68.4 76.8 79.8
4. % Cost Burden >30%65.2 79.2 97.9 79.3 78 76.4 85.6 92.2 68.4 76.6 77.5
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.1 63.1 78.7 67.1 62.4 51.4 74.8 84.3 53.9 57.4 60.6
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 386 1,291 611 583 2,871 935 406 193 295 1,829 4,700
7. % with any housing problems 77.2 89.1 97.1 94.2 90.2 41.1 75.1 91.7 63.7 57.6 77.5
8. % Cost Burden >30%77.2 85.3 49.4 93.5 78.2 41.1 75.1 84.5 63.7 56.9 69.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 30.1 21.8 8.2 32.2 22.2 22.7 50 48.7 44.4 35 27.1
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 251 1,381 545 1,078 3,255 1,127 1,056 360 591 3,134 6,389
11. % with any housing problems 59 51.4 86.2 61.5 61.2 30.2 67.3 86.9 58.7 54.6 57.9
12.% Cost Burden >30%57.4 37.2 27.3 56.9 43.6 30.2 66 54.2 58.7 50.4 46.9
13. % Cost Burden >50% 4 1.6 3.5 4.3 3 12.3 19.5 5.6 18.6 15.2 9
14. Household Income >80% MFI 207 3,417 961 2,403 6,988 3,347 11,666 2,357 3,235 20,605 27,593
15. % with any housing problems 21.3 18 48.3 10.2 19.6 12.1 18.3 34.7 28.5 20.8 20.5
16.% Cost Burden >30%21.3 4.8 1.2 7 5.6 12 17 16.6 28.2 17.9 14.8
17. % Cost Burden >50%0 0 0 0.2 0.1 2 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2
18. Total Households 1,617 7,100 2,497 4,961 16,175 6,297 13,441 2,961 4,542 27,241 43,416
19. % with any housing problems 63 47 76.2 44 52.2 28.7 25.5 45.7 38.4 30.6 38.6
20. % Cost Burden >30 61.2 36.3 33.4 41.1 39.8 28.6 24.2 26.9 38.2 27.9 32.3
21. % Cost Burden >50 30.8 13.3 14.7 16.9 16.4 13.9 6.2 6.1 11.3 8.8 11.6
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Concord(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 510 1,229 542 563 2,844 803 532 327 244 1,906 4,750
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 379 643 272 328 1,622 352 210 127 104 793 2,415
3. % with any housing problems 68.6 84.4 97.1 70.1 80 53.1 89 93.7 78.8 72.5 77.5
4. % Cost Burden >30%59.6 74.7 90.4 67.1 72.3 50.3 89 90.6 78.8 70.7 71.8
5. % Cost Burden >50% 31.4 64.7 66.9 51.5 54.6 32.7 83.3 90.6 75 60.9 56.7
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 131 586 270 235 1,222 451 322 200 140 1,113 2,335
7. % with any housing problems 70.2 84 96.3 92.3 86.8 39.7 73.3 100 60.7 62.9 75.4
8. % Cost Burden >30%70.2 79.4 45.6 92.3 73.4 39.7 70.2 94 60.7 60.9 67.5
9. % Cost Burden >50% 26 25.6 1.5 35.3 22.2 20.4 40.7 55 55 36.8 29.2
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 102 569 178 387 1,236 292 760 439 105 1,596 2,832
11. % with any housing problems 51 56.9 79.8 55 59.1 25.3 62.5 71.8 82.9 59.6 59.4
12.% Cost Burden >30%51 43.8 10.7 54 42.8 25.3 56.8 51 82.9 51.2 47.5
13. % Cost Burden >50% 0 0.7 0 7.8 2.8 7.5 16.4 7.5 51.4 14.7 9.5
14. Household Income >80% MFI 102 1,042 498 721 2,363 749 4,349 1,390 958 7,446 9,809
15. % with any housing problems 9.8 10.3 52.4 8.5 18.6 13 17.8 41.8 30.5 23.4 22.3
16.% Cost Burden >30%9.8 2.6 0.8 4.7 3.2 13 14.1 12.9 29 15.7 12.7
17. % Cost Burden >50%0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 1.4 4.1 1 0.8
18. Total Households 714 2,840 1,218 1,671 6,443 1,844 5,641 2,156 1,307 10,948 17,391
19. % with any housing problems 58 51.6 76.1 43.1 54.8 29.1 29.7 56.4 41.8 36.3 43.1
20. % Cost Burden >30 53.2 43 32.2 40.7 41.5 28.6 25.8 32.7 40.7 29.4 33.9
21. % Cost Burden >50 21.4 20.1 15.3 16.9 18.5 12.6 7.9 12.9 19 11 13.8
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Pittsburg(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 953 3,246 1,648 1,822 7,669 1,686 1,054 486 556 3,782 11,451
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 726 1,974 877 1,218 4,795 868 495 182 344 1,889 6,684
3. % with any housing problems 72.7 82 92 78.2 81.5 57.6 78.4 100 76.7 70.6 78.4
4. % Cost Burden >30%72.7 78.2 79.4 77.3 77.4 57.6 74.7 78.6 76.7 67.6 74.6
5. % Cost Burden >50% 41 56 50.2 65.8 55.2 35.7 67.1 51.6 68.3 51.4 54.1
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 227 1,272 771 604 2,874 818 559 304 212 1,893 4,767
7. % with any housing problems 63 62.7 83.7 70.7 70 30.3 75.8 92.1 81.1 59.4 65.8
8. % Cost Burden >30%61.2 55.4 37.6 68.4 53.8 30.3 71.6 80.9 81.1 56.3 54.8
9. % Cost Burden >50% 20.3 10.9 6.7 22.5 13 22 29.5 18.1 60.8 27.9 18.9
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 196 1,056 471 849 2,572 829 1,031 538 320 2,718 5,290
11. % with any housing problems 28.6 44.4 85.8 49.6 52.5 23.6 71.5 81.6 60 57.5 55.1
12.% Cost Burden >30%28.6 27.7 21.9 47.2 33.2 23.6 64.5 35.1 60 45.7 39.6
13. % Cost Burden >50% 0 1.7 0 3.5 1.9 8.6 15.1 4.5 16.6 11.2 6.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 311 2,455 607 2,300 5,673 1,909 5,973 1,570 2,260 11,712 17,385
15. % with any housing problems 12.9 18.3 71.2 12.2 21.2 9.9 21.6 43.9 28.5 24 23.1
16.% Cost Burden >30%12.9 3.8 1.6 9 6.2 8.6 17.5 10.2 28.4 17.2 13.6
17. % Cost Burden >50%3.2 0 0 0 0.2 2 2.3 0.5 3 2.2 1.5
18. Total Households 1,460 6,757 2,726 4,971 15,914 4,424 8,058 2,594 3,136 18,212 34,126
19. % with any housing problems 52.5 49.3 83.9 41.9 53.2 25.6 35.2 61.3 40.6 37.5 44.9
20. % Cost Burden >30 52.3 39 40.3 39.5 40.6 25.1 30.8 28.5 40.5 30.7 35.3
21. % Cost Burden >50 24.2 18.7 18 19.5 19.3 13.6 9.8 7 15.4 11.3 15
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Richmond(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 3,643 5,228 1,926 4,077 14,874 7,093 3,517 1,282 2,150 14,042 28,916
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 2,315 2,860 956 2,425 8,556 3,111 1,416 438 1,170 6,135 14,691
3. % with any housing problems 73.1 78.3 92.9 72.7 76.9 61.8 88.1 90.6 75 72.5 75.1
4. % Cost Burden >30%71.7 76.6 78.8 71.5 74.1 61 87.3 90.6 74.2 71.7 73.1
5. % Cost Burden >50% 53.3 60 46.5 60.1 56.7 40.6 77.5 80.1 61.2 55.9 56.4
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 1,328 2,368 970 1,652 6,318 3,982 2,101 844 980 7,907 14,225
7. % with any housing problems 80.4 77.7 86.1 85.8 81.7 40 80.3 88.3 69.8 59.5 69.4
8. % Cost Burden >30%80.1 68.8 50.5 85.2 72.7 39.9 76.2 75.7 69.8 57.1 64
9. % Cost Burden >50% 38.8 21.6 15.7 39.7 29 21.9 57.1 47.4 53.9 37.9 34
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 870 3,073 920 2,522 7,385 4,266 4,338 1,485 1,523 11,612 18,997
11. % with any housing problems 59.2 52.2 75.9 54.8 56.8 29.1 74.6 82 69.9 58.2 57.7
12.% Cost Burden >30%58.7 41.8 32.9 53.3 46.6 29 71.9 62.5 69.9 54.7 51.5
13. % Cost Burden >50% 22.2 6.5 4.8 10.3 9.4 13.3 32.5 17.8 33.6 23.7 18.2
14. Household Income >80% MFI 1,880 11,511 2,078 9,702 25,171 19,134 66,362 12,993 14,283 112,772 137,943
15. % with any housing problems 32.6 17.5 48.7 12.7 19.4 13.6 22.7 34.5 29.6 23.4 22.7
16.% Cost Burden >30%26.8 9.9 3.6 10 10.7 13.4 21.3 21.3 29.3 21 19.1
17. % Cost Burden >50%8.7 0.5 0 1.2 1.4 3.4 3.3 2.5 4.6 3.4 3
18. Total Households 6,393 19,812 4,924 16,301 47,430 30,493 74,217 15,760 17,956 138,426 185,856
19. % with any housing problems 60.8 38.8 69.7 35.6 43.9 24.1 28.6 43.4 38.2 30.6 34
20. % Cost Burden >30 58.5 31.5 32.9 33.5 36 23.9 27 30 37.8 28.1 30.1
21. % Cost Burden >50 32.9 12.6 13 15.3 16.3 11 7.9 8.5 13.4 9.4 11.1
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Contra Costa County(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 840 451 91 774 2,156 2,182 219 18 331 2,750 4,906
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 461 242 34 358 1,095 885 74 18 197 1,174 2,269
3. % with any housing problems 66.6 92.6 100 78.5 77.3 73.6 100 100 82.7 77.2 77.2
4. % Cost Burden >30%66.6 92.6 88.2 78.5 76.9 73.6 100 100 77.7 76.3 76.6
5. % Cost Burden >50% 52.1 82.6 58.8 78.5 67.7 56.9 86.5 77.8 67.5 60.9 64.2
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 379 209 57 416 1,061 1,297 145 0 134 1,576 2,637
7. % with any housing problems 77 88.5 82.5 95.7 86.9 60.7 82.8 N/A 82.1 64.5 73.5
8. % Cost Burden >30%77 83.7 68.4 95.7 85.2 59.9 82.8 N/A 82.1 63.9 72.5
9. % Cost Burden >50% 58.8 37.3 26.3 60.1 53.3 24.3 69 N/A 68.7 32.2 40.7
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 300 316 72 603 1,291 1,599 257 34 265 2,155 3,446
11. % with any housing problems 71 68 100 63 68.2 30.6 66.1 58.8 66.4 39.7 50.3
12.% Cost Burden >30%67.7 63.6 11.1 59.7 59.8 30.6 62.3 29.4 66.4 38.7 46.6
13. % Cost Burden >50% 26 8.9 5.6 3.3 10.1 12.3 47.5 29.4 27.2 18.6 15.4
14. Household Income >80% MFI 674 2,399 162 2,907 6,142 6,006 6,702 914 1,997 15,619 21,761
15. % with any housing problems 34.4 22.8 75.3 7.7 18.3 11.3 19.3 30.9 26.1 17.8 17.9
16.% Cost Burden >30%32.3 12 21.6 6.2 11.8 11.3 18.3 25.1 25.6 17 15.5
17. % Cost Burden >50%14.7 1 0 0.4 2.2 1.3 2.9 1.1 5.1 2.5 2.4
18. Total Households 1,814 3,166 325 4,284 9,589 9,787 7,178 966 2,593 20,524 30,113
19. % with any housing problems 57.6 37 84.6 29.9 39.3 26.6 23.1 33.1 37.4 27.1 31
20. % Cost Burden >30 56.2 28.1 34.5 28.5 33.8 26.5 22 26.6 36.6 26.2 28.7
21. % Cost Burden >50 35.3 10.5 12 13.1 16.4 11.2 6.7 3.5 15.4 9.8 11.9
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Walnut Creek(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
APPENDIX 5.
LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
A5-1
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 83,104 0
1960 to 1979 62% 89,185 55,295
1940 to 1959 80% 56,158 44,926
1939 or earlier 90% 9,966 8,969
Total owner-occupied units 238,413
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 109,191
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
15.62%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 17,055
Renter occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 33,699 0
1960 to 1979 62% 43,578 27,018
1940 to 1959 80% 22,584 18,067
1939 or earlier 90% 5,855 5,270
Total renter-occupied units 105,716
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP = “ C” 50,355
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI = “D” 16.32%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households = “C*D” 8,217
Total at-risk households 25,272
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
A5-2
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CITY OF ANTIOCH
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 11,975 0
1960 to 1979 62% 5,824 3,611
1940 to 1959 80% 2,565 2,052
1939 or earlier 90% 444 400
Total owner-occupied units 20,808
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 6,062
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
16.54%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 1,003
Renter occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 3,260 0
1960 to 1979 62% 3,249 2,014
1940 to 1959 80% 1,633 1,306
1939 or earlier 90% 416 374
Total renter-occupied units 8,558
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP = “ C” 3,695
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI = “D” 19.46%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households = “C*D” 719
Total at-risk households 1,722
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
A5-3
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CITY OF CONCORD
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 4,226 0
1960 to 1979 62% 14,871 9,220
1940 to1959 80% 8,058 6,446
1939 or earlier 90% 363 327
Total owner-occupied units 27,518
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 15,993
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
15.61%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 2,497
Renter-occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 3,626 0
1960 to 1979 62% 9,259 5,741
1940 to 1959 80% 3,214 2,571
1939 or earlier 90% 332 299
Total renter-occupied units 16,431
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP = “ C” 8,611
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI = “D” 21.39%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households = “C*D” 1,842
Total at-risk households 4,338
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
A5-4
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CITY OF PITTSBURG
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 4,287 0
1960 to 1979 62% 4,686 2,905
1940 to 1959 80% 1858 1,486
1939 or earlier 90% 350 315
Total owner-occupied units 11,181
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 4,707
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
20.64%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 971
Renter occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 3,041 0
1960 to 1979 62% 1,997 1,238
1940 to 1959 80% 1,287 1,030
1939 or earlier 90% 286 257
Total renter-occupied units 6,611
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP = “ C” 2,525
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI = “D” 23.64%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households = “C*D” 597
Total at-risk households 1,568
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
Contra Costa Consortium 2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan
A5-5
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CITY OF RICHMOND
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 3,812 0
1960 to 1979 62% 4,274 2,650
1940 to 1959 80% 8,024 6,419
1939 or earlier 90% 2,418 2,176
Total owner-occupied units 18,528
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 11,245
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
19.45%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 2,187
Renter occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 4,125 0
1960 to 1979 62% 5,658 3,508
1940 to 1959 80% 5,084 4,067
1939 or earlier 90% 1,310 1,179
Total renter-occupied units 16,177
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP (c) 8,754
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI (d) 30.12%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households (c*d) 2,636
Total at-risk households 4,823
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 5. LEAD HAZARD ESTIMATE TABLES
2010–2015 Draft Consolidated Plan Contra Costa Consortium
A5-6
ESTIMATE OF UNITS WITH LEAD-BASED PAINT, CITY OF WALNUT CREEK
Year Built Presumed Percentage with
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Presumed Number with
Lead-Based Paint
Owner occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 4,203 0
1960 to 1979 62% 13,111 8,129
1940 to 1959 80% 3071 2,457
1939 or earlier 90% 269 242
Total owner-occupied units 20,654
Total owner-occupied presumed LBP = “A” 10,828
Percentage owner-occupied households at or below 80% of the area median income =
“B”
16.62%
Total at-risk owner-occupied households = “A * B” 1,800
Renter occupied
1980 to March 2000 0% 2,218 0
1960 to 1979 62% 5,742 3,560
1940 to 1959 80% 1,491 1,193
1939 or earlier 90% 235 212
Total renter-occupied units 9,686
Total renter-occupied presumed LBP (c) 4,964
Percentage renter-occupied households at or below 80% AMI (d) 11.53%
Total at-risk renter-occupied households (c*d) 572
Total at-risk households 2,372
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 and 2000 CHAS Housing Problems
APPENDIX 6.
PRIORITY NEED TABLES (1B, 2A, 2B)
Priority Needs Tables
Special Needs (Non Homeless) Populations (Table "1B")
SPECIAL NEEDS SUBPOPULATIONS
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to
Address
Unmet Need
Multi Year
Goals Annual Goals
City of Antioch
Elderly H 1,300 31,000$ 1,300 260
Frail Elderly H 300 15,000 300 60
Severe Mental Illness M
Developmentally Disabled M
Physically Disabled M 1,740 5,000 1,740 348
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions M 500 10,000 500 100
Persons w/HIV/AIDS L 100 5,000 100 20
Victims of Domestic Violence H 50 15,000 50 10
Other
Total 3,990 81,000$ 3,990 798
City of Concord
Elderly (Housing)H 743 6,262,600$ 743 129
Elderly (Services)H 1,500 150,000 1,500 300
Frail Elderly (Services)H 4,000 50,000 4,000 800
Severe Mental Illness M
Developmentally Disabled M
Physically Disabled (Housing)H 56 871,613 56 11
Physically Disabled (Services)H 60 25,000 60 12
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions (Services)H 200 50,000 200 40
Persons w/HIV/AIDS M
Victims of Domestic Violence H 50 50,000 50 10
Other M
Total 6,609 7,459,213$ 6,609 1,302
City of Pittsburg
Elderly H 1,250 100,000$ 1,250 250
Frail Elderly M 10 2,000 10 2
Severe Mental Illness L
Developmentally Disabled L
Physically Disabled H 130 13,000 130 26
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions M 985 147,750 985 197
Persons w/HIV/AIDS H 200 50,000 200 40
Victims of Domestic Violence H 100 25,000 100 20
Other
Total 2,675 337,750$ 2,675 535
City of Richmond
Elderly M 1,500 1,500$ 1,500 300
Frail Elderly M 1,500 1,500 1,500 300
Severe Mental Illness M 750 750 750 150
Developmentally Disabled M 500 500 500 100
Physically Disabled M 1,500 1,500 1,500 300
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions M 1,500 1,500 1,500 300
Persons w/HIV/AIDS M 52 52 52 10
Victims of Domestic Violence M 52 52 52 10
Other
Total 7,354 7,354$ 7,354 1,470
Contra Costa Consortium 1 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
SPECIAL NEEDS SUBPOPULATIONS
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to
Address
Unmet Need
Multi Year
Goals Annual Goals
City of Walnut Creek
Elderly H 9,070 6,500$ 420 84
Frail Elderly H 8,606 40,000 6,035 1,207
Severe Mental Illness M 1,741
Developmentally Disabled H 1,673 12,000 20 4
Physically Disabled H 1,535 35,000 50 10
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions H 2,692 40,000 200 40
Persons w/HIV/AIDS H 154 25,000 100 20
Victims of Domestic Violence H 250 40,000 250 50
Other
Total 25,721 198,500$ 7,075 1,415
Urban County
Elderly H 4,500 375,000$ 4,500 900
Frail Elderly H 1,575 130,000 1,575 315
Severe Mental Illness H 670 70,000 670 134
Developmentally Disabled H 262 21,000 262 52
Physically Disabled H 750 77,000 750 150
Persons w/ Alcohol/Other Drug Addictions H 700 130,000 700 140
Persons w/HIV/AIDS H 350 100,000 350 70
Victims of Domestic Violence H 205 155,000 205 41
Other
Total 9,012 1,058,000$ 9,012 1,802
Contra Costa Consortium 2 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Goals (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Sub-population
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr. Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Antioch
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI H 250,000$ 25 5 5 5 5 5
31 - 50% of MFI H 600,000 150 80 70
51 - 80% of MFI H 100,000 5 1 1 1 1 1
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI M
31 - 50 of MFI H 250,000 30 6 6 6 6 6
51 - 80% of MFI H 550,000 80 16 16 16 16 16
Homeless*
Individuals H 44,000 250 50 50 50 50 50
Families H
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly H 450,000 75 75
Frail Elderly H 400,000 75 75
Severe Mental Illness M 50,000 3 3
Physical Disability M 150,000 10 5 5
Developmental Disability M
Alcohol/Drug Abuse M
HIV/AIDS L
Victims of Domestic Violence L
Total Special Needs 1,050,000$ 163 80 83 - - -
Total Section 215
215 Renter 950,000$ 180 86 76 6 6 6
215 Owner 800,000$ 110 22 22 22 22 22
City of Concord
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI H 224,000$ 8 8
31 - 50% of MFI H 4,248,000 146 40 26 80
51 - 80% of MFI H 2,043,000 526 96 96 96 122 116
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI H 2,700,200 174 37 35 34 34 34
31 - 50 of MFI H 2,352,800 153 36 30 29 29 29
51 - 80% of MFI H 1,737,000 110 22 22 22 22 22
Homeless*
Individuals M
Families M
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly H 6,262,600 743 131 128 128 128 228
Frail Elderly M
Severe Mental Illness M
Physical Disability H 871,613 56 12 11 11 11 11
Developmental Disability M
Alcohol/Drug Abuse M
HIV/AIDS M
Victims of Domestic Violence M
Total Special Needs 7,134,213$ 799 143 139 139 139 239
Total Section 215 6,515,000$ 680 96 96 144 148 196
215 Renter 6,515,000$ 680 96 96 144 148 196
215 Owner
Contra Costa Consortium 3 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Goals (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Sub-population
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr. Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Pittsburg
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI N/A
31 - 50% of MFI N/A
51 - 80% of MFI N/A
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI H 500,000$ 25 5 5 5 5 5
31 - 50 of MFI H 500,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
51 - 80% of MFI H 500,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Homeless*
Individuals H 75,000 150 30 30 30 30 30
Families H 25,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly H 5,000 1,250 250 250 250 250 250
Frail Elderly M 2,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Severe Mental Illness L
Physical Disability H 62,500 125 25 25 25 25 25
Developmental Disability H 2,400 80 16 16 16 16 16
Alcohol/Drug Abuse L
HIV/AIDS H 2,000 200 40 40 40 40 40
Victims of Domestic Violence H 1,200 40 8 8 8 8 8
Total Special Needs 75,100$ 1,705 341 341 341 341 341
Total Section 215 - 25 5 5 5 5 5
215 Renter
215 Owner 25 5 5 5 5 5
City of Richmond
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI H 1,750$ 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
31 - 50% of MFI M 1,000 1,000 200 200 200 200 200
51 - 80% of MFI M 500,000 800 160 160 160 160 160
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI H 800,000 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
31 - 50 of MFI M 500,000 1,000 200 200 200 200 200
51 - 80% of MFI M 250,000 800 160 160 160 160 160
Homeless*
Individuals M 50,000 500 100 100 100 100 100
Families M 50,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly M 50,000 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
Frail Elderly M 10,000 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
Severe Mental Illness M 5,000 750 150 150 150 150 150
Physical Disability M 10,000 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
Developmental Disability M 2,000 500 100 100 100 100 100
Alcohol/Drug Abuse M 5,000 1,500 300 300 300 300 300
HIV/AIDS M 1,000 52 12 10 10 10 10
Victims of Domestic Violence M 1,000 52 12 10 10 10 10
Total Special Needs 84,000$ 7,354 1,474 1,470 1,470 1,470 1,470
Total Section 215 40 8 8 8 8 8
215 Renter 20 4 4 4 4 4
215 Owner 20 4 4 4 4 4
Contra Costa Consortium 4 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Goals (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Sub-population
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr. Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Walnut Creek
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI H 700,000$ 20 4 4 4 4 4
31 - 50% of MFI M 700,000 18 4 3 4 3 4
51 - 80% of MFI M TBD 60 12 12 12 12 12
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI M
31 - 50 of MFI H 829,300 10 2 2 2 2 2
51 - 80% of MFI H TBD 15 3 3 3 3 3
Homeless*
Individuals M
Families M
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly M 325,000 7 1 1 2 1 2
Frail Elderly M 325,000 7 1 1 2 1 2
Severe Mental Illness M
Physical Disability M
Developmental Disability H 350,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Alcohol/Drug Abuse M
HIV/AIDS M
Victims of Domestic Violence M
Total Special Needs 1,000,000$ 24 4 4 6 4 6
Total Section 215
215 Renter
215 Owner
Note: Funds "TBD" are anticipated impact fees.
Urban County
Renters
0 - 30 of MFI H 1,450,000$ 90 18 18 18 18 18
31 - 50% of MFI H 5,690,000 355 71 71 71 71 71
51 - 80% of MFI M 208,400,000 380 76 76 76 76 76
Owners
0 - 30 of MFI L 960,000 35 7 7 7 7 7
31 - 50 of MFI H 5,630,000 120 24 24 24 24 24
51 - 80% of MFI H 15,714,000 135 27 27 27 27 27
Homeless*
Individuals M 100 20 20 20 20 20
Families M 150 30 30 30 30 30
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Elderly H 43,000,000 210 42 42 42 42 42
Frail Elderly M 21,000,000 100 20 20 20 20 20
Severe Mental Illness M 3,750,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Physical Disability M 20 4 4 4 4 4
Developmental Disability M 5 1 1 1 1 1
Alcohol/Drug Abuse L
HIV/AIDS M 1,550,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Victims of Domestic Violence L
Total Special Needs 69,300,000$ 385 77 77 77 77 77
Total Section 215 675 135 135 135 135 135
215 Renter 625 125 125 125 125 125
215 Owner 50 10 10 10 10 10
Contra Costa Consortium 5 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Antioch
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services
RDA Set-Aside
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 800,000$ 110 22 22 22 22 22
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 950,000 315 150 150 5 5 5
Contra Costa Consortium 6 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Concord
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units $1,000,000 64 14 14 12 12 12
Homeownership assistance
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services
RDA Set-Aside
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units $3,000,000 100 100
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 2,800,000 100 48 52
Rental assistance 715,000 480 96 96 96 96 96
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 5,040,000 348 76 68 68 68 68
Homeownership assistance 750,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Inclusionary Funds
Production of New owner units (up to 120%)635,760 4 2 2
Contra Costa Consortium 7 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Pittsburg
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance $500,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 8 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Richmond
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units $100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Production of new rental units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Rental assistance 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Acquisition of existing owner units 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Production of new owner units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Homeownership assistance 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Production of new rental units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 100,000 50 10 10 10 10 10
Rental assistance 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Acquisition of existing owner units 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Production of new owner units 100,000 5 1 1 1 1 1
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 100,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
Homeownership assistance 25,000 10 2 2 2 2 2
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 9 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
City of Walnut Creek
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units (acq)$1,750,000 68 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance 750,000 15 3 3 3 3 3
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments
Facility based housing development
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 10 2010-03-15
Priority Needs
Priority Housing Activities (Table "2A")
Housing Goals by Funding Source and Activity Type
Priority Need
Dollars to
Address
5-Yr.
Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 1 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 2 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 3 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 4 Goal
Plan/Act
Yr. 5 Goal
Plan/Act
Urban County
CDBG
Acquisition of existing rental units $1,550,000 200 40 40 40 40 40
Production of new rental units
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 2,000,000 250 50 50 50 50 50
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units 750,000 100 20 20 20 20 20
Production of new owner units
Rehabilitation of existing owner units 3,000,000 125 25 25 25 25 25
Homeownership assistance 200,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
HOME
Acquisition of existing rental units 3,840,000 200 40 40 40 40 40
Production of new rental units 7,130,000 375 75 75 75 75 75
Rehabilitation of existing rental units 1,125,000 250 50 50 50 50 50
Rental assistance
Acquisition of existing owner units
Production of new owner units 200,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Rehabilitation of existing owner units
Homeownership assistance 200,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
HOPWA
Rental assistance
Short term rent/mortgage utility payments 100,000
Facility based housing development 1,550,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Facility based housing operations
Supportive services 450,000 625 125 125 125 125 125
Other
Mortgage Credit Certificates 8,750,000 150 30 30 30 30 30
Tax Exempt Bonds 265,000,000 475 95 95 95 95 95
MHSA 3,750,000 25 5 5 5 5 5
Redevelopment Agency funds 20,900,000 215 43 43 43 43 43
*These numbers/goals are not additive. We frequently use multiple sources of funds for a single project. A single project my fit under
multiple categories. For example, a single project may receive for CDBG acquisition of the land, and HOME and HOPWA for the new
construction.
Contra Costa Consortium 11 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
City of Antioch
Acquisition of Real Property L
Disposition L
Clearance and Demolition L
Clearance of Contaminated Sites L
Code Enforcement H 5 240,000$ 5 1
Public Facility (General)M
Senior Centers L
Handicapped Centers L
Homeless Facilities M
Youth Centers L
Neighborhood Facilities L
Child Care Centers L
Health Facilities L
Mental Health Facilities L
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities L
Parking Facilities L
Tree Planting L
Fire Stations/Equipment L
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities L
Asbestos Removal L
Non-Residential Historic Preservation L
Other Public Facility Needs L
Infrastructure (General)M
Water/Sewer Improvements L
Street Improvements M
Sidewalks M
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L
Flood Drainage Improvements L
Other Infrastructure M
Public Services (General)H 10,000 600,000 10,000 2,000
Senior Services H 5,000 205,000 5,000 1,000
Handicapped Services M
Legal Services H 600 15,000 600 120
Youth Services H 705 75,000 705 141
Child Care Services M
Transportation Services L
Substance Abuse Services M
Employment/Training Services M
Health Services M
Lead Hazard Screening L
Crime Awareness L
Fair Housing Activities H 90 50,000 90 18
Tenant Landlord Counseling H 900 100,000 900 180
Other Services M
Economic Development (General)M
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition L
C/I Infrastructure Development M
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab M
Other C/I L
ED Assistance to For-Profit L
ED Technical Assistance M
Micro-enterprise Assistance M
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 12 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
City of Concord
Acquisition of Real Property L
Disposition L
Clearance and Demolition L
Clearance of Contaminated Sites L
Code Enforcement H 5,000 $520,000 5,000 1000
Public Facility (General)L
Senior Centers L
Handicapped Centers L
Homeless Facilities L
Youth Centers L
Neighborhood Facilities L
Child Care Centers M
Health Facilities L
Mental Health Facilities L
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities M
Parking Facilities L
Tree Planting L
Fire Stations/Equipment L
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities L
Asbestos Removal L
Non-Residential Historic Preservation L
Other Public Facility Needs L
Infrastructure (General)M
Water/Sewer Improvements L
Street Improvements M
Sidewalks H 50,000 1,232,000 50,000 10000
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L
Flood Drainage Improvements M
Other Infrastructure M
Public Services (General)H 3,000 315,000 3,000 600
Senior Services H 600 200,000 600 120
Handicapped Services H 60 50,000 60 12
Legal Services M
Youth Services M
Child Care Services H 2,500 150,000 2,500 500
Transportation Services L
Substance Abuse Services M 250 50,000 250 50
Employment/Training Services L
Health Services L
Lead Hazard Screening L
Crime Awareness L
Fair Housing Activities H 120 375,000 120 24
Tenant Landlord Counseling H 900 300,000 900 180
Other Services H 2,050 250,000 2,050 410
Economic Development (General)L
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition L
C/I Infrastructure Development L
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab L
Other C/I L
ED Assistance to For-Profit L
ED Technical Assistance M
Micro-enterprise Assistance M
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 13 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
City of Pittsburg
Acquisition of Real Property L
Disposition L
Clearance and Demolition L
Clearance of Contaminated Sites L
Code Enforcement H 20,000 $692,740 20,000 4,000
Public Facility (General)
Senior Centers M
Handicapped Centers M
Homeless Facilities M
Youth Centers M
Neighborhood Facilities M
Child Care Centers M
Health Facilities M
Mental Health Facilities M
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities L
Parking Facilities M
Tree Planting L
Fire Stations/Equipment L
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities M
Asbestos Removal M
Non-Residential Historic Preservation M
Other Public Facility Needs
Infrastructure (General)
Water/Sewer Improvements H
Street Improvements H
Sidewalks H 5 625,000 5 1
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements M
Flood Drainage Improvements M
Other Infrastructure -- Accesibility M
Public Services (General)
Senior Services H 1,350 50,000 1,350 270
Handicapped Services M
Legal Services H 625 10,000 625 125
Youth Services H 6,760 30,000 6,760 1,352
Child Care Services M
Transportation Services M
Substance Abuse Services H 500 5,000 500 100
Employment/Training Services M
Health Services M
Lead Hazard Screening M
Crime Awareness M
Fair Housing Activities M
Tenant Landlord Counseling M
Other Services M
Economic Development (General)
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition
C/I Infrastructure Development
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab
Other C/I
ED Assistance to For-Profit M
ED Technical Assistance M
Micro-enterprise Assistance H 50 300,000 50 10
Job Training & Placement Program M 25 150,000 25 5
Contra Costa Consortium 14 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
City of Richmond
Acquisition of Real Property M 500,000 100,000$ 500,000 100,000
Disposition M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Clearance and Demolition M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Clearance of Contaminated Sites M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Code Enforcement M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Public Facility (General)M
Senior Centers M
Handicapped Centers M
Homeless Facilities M
Youth Centers M
Neighborhood Facilities M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Child Care Centers M
Health Facilities M
Mental Health Facilities M
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Parking Facilities M
Tree Planting M
Fire Stations/Equipment M
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Asbestos Removal M
Non-Residential Historic Preservation M
Other Public Facility Needs M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Infrastructure (General)M
Water/Sewer Improvements M
Street Improvements M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Sidewalks M
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements M
Flood Drainage Improvements M
Other Infrastructure M
Public Services (General)M
Senior Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Handicapped Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Legal Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Youth Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Child Care Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Transportation Services M
Substance Abuse Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Employment/Training Services H 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Health Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Lead Hazard Screening M
Crime Awareness H 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Fair Housing Activities H 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Tenant Landlord Counseling M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Other Services M 50,000 10,000 50,000 10,000
Economic Development (General)M
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition M
C/I Infrastructure Development M
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab M
Other C/I M
ED Assistance to For-Profit M
ED Technical Assistance M
Micro-enterprise Assistance M
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 15 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
City of Walnut Creek
Acquisition of Real Property L
Disposition L
Clearance and Demolition M
Clearance of Contaminated Sites M
Code Enforcement L
Public Facility (General)H 10 90,000$ 3 1
Senior Centers M
Handicapped Centers M
Homeless Facilities M
Youth Centers M
Neighborhood Facilities M
Child Care Centers M
Health Facilities M
Mental Health Facilities M
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities M
Parking Facilities L
Tree Planting M
Fire Stations/Equipment L
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities M
Asbestos Removal M
Non-Residential Historic Preservation M
Other Public Facility Needs
Infrastructure (General)H 10 450,000 1 0
Water/Sewer Improvements M
Street Improvements H
Sidewalks H
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements M
Flood Drainage Improvements M
Other Infrastructure
Public Services (General)631,500
Senior Services H 17,676 6,455 1,291
Handicapped Services M
Legal Services H 500 495 99
Youth Services H 125 125 25
Child Care Services M
Transportation Services M
Substance Abuse Services H 2,692 225 45
Employment/Training Services H
Health Services M
Lead Hazard Screening M
Crime Awareness M
Fair Housing Activities H 150 125 25
Tenant Landlord Counseling H 350 300 60
Other Services
Economic Development (General)
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition
C/I Infrastructure Development
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab
Other C/I
ED Assistance to For-Profit M
ED Technical Assistance M
Micro-enterprise Assistance H 100 150,000 75 15
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 16 2010-03-15
Priority Needs Tables
Priority Community Development Needs (Table "2B")
Priority Need
Priority
Need
Level Unmet Need
Dollars to Address
Unmet Need
Multi-Year
Goals
Annual
Goals
Urban County
Acquisition of Real Property L
Disposition L
Clearance and Demolition L
Clearance of Contaminated Sites L
Code Enforcement L
Public Facility (General)H 10 417,500$ 10 2
Senior Centers M 2 83,500 2 1
Handicapped Centers H 1 41,750 1 1
Homeless Facilities H 1 41,750 1 1
Youth Centers M
Neighborhood Facilities H 4 167,000 4 1
Child Care Centers M
Health Facilities M
Mental Health Facilities M
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities H 2 83,500 1
Parking Facilities L
Tree Planting L
Fire Stations/Equipment L
Abused/Neglected Children Facilities M
Asbestos Removal L
Non-Residential Historic Preservation L
Other Public Facility Needs L
Infrastructure (General)H 5 250,000 5 1
Water/Sewer Improvements L
Street Improvements H 2 100,000 2 1
Sidewalks H 3 150,000 3 1
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L
Flood Drainage Improvements L
Other Infrastructure M
Public Services (General)H 25,000 2,567,000 25,000 5,000
Senior Services H 4,500 462,000 4,500 900
Handicapped Services H 750 77,000 750 150
Legal Services M
Youth Services H 12,200 1,250,000 12,200 2,440
Child Care Services L
Transportation Services L
Substance Abuse Services H 700 77,000 700 140
Employment/Training Services H 300 1,200,000 300 60
Health Services M
Lead Hazard Screening L
Crime Awareness L
Fair Housing Activities H 1,000 513,400 1,000 200
Tenant Landlord Counseling H 2,500 256,700 2,500 500
Other Services H 670 70,000 670 134
Economic Development (General)H 1,145 2,395,000 1,145 229
C/I Land Acquisition/Disposition L
C/I Infrastructure Development L 1,195,000
C/I Building Acq/Const/Rehab L
Other C/I L
ED Assistance to For-Profit H 20 195,000 20 4
ED Technical Assistance H 700 600,000 700 140
Micro-enterprise Assistance H 425 400,000 425 85
Other
Contra Costa Consortium 17 2010-03-15
CONSOLIDATED PLAN PRIORITIES ATTACHMENT A-1
• AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, and
moderate-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe, and affordable rental
housing and rental assistance.
• AH-2: Increase homeownership opportunities.
• AH-3: Maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
• AH-4: Reduce the number and impact of home foreclosures.
• AH-5: Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations.
• AH-6: Preserve existing special needs housing.
• AH-7: Adapt or modify existing housing to meet the needs of special needs populations.
• AH-8: Improve access to services for those in special needs housing.
• H-1: Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by providing emergency, transitional,
and permanent affordable housing with appropriate supportive services.
• H-2: Reduce the incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the needs of the homeless.
• CD-1 General Public Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve the
quality of life and independence for lower-income persons, and ensure access to programs that promote
prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social concerns such as substance abuse,
hunger, and other issues.
• CD-2 Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and frail elderly, and enable them to
maintain independence.
• CD-3 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school, and prepare for
productive adulthood.
• CD-4 Non-Homeless Special Needs: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve the
quality of life and independence for persons with special needs, such as disabled persons, battered
spouses, abused children, persons with HIV/AIDS, illiterate adults, and migrant farmworkers.
• CD-5 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing.
• CD-6 Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons with incomes below the poverty level,
expand economic opportunities for very low- and low-income residents, and increase the viability of
neighborhood commercial areas.
• CD-7 Infrastructure and Accessibility: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate infrastructure,
and ensure access for the mobility-impaired by addressing physical access barriers to public facilities.
• CD-8 Administration: 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.
City of Antioch, City of Concord, City of Pisburg, City of Richmond,
City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
tioch, Ci
C
March, 2010
Contra Costa Consortium
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ES-1
What Is an Impediment to Fair Housing Choice? ....................................................................... ES-1
Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments ...................................................................................... ES-2
Impediments Identified ................................................................................................................... ES-3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Geographic Terms ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
What Is Fair Housing? ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
What Is an Impediment to Fair Housing Choice? .......................................................................... 1-2
Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments ......................................................................................... 1-3
Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan ................................................................................. 1-4
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Population ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1
Population by Age ............................................................................................................................... 2-3
Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Income ................................................................................................................................................... 2-8
Poverty ................................................................................................................................................ 2-11
Education ............................................................................................................................................ 2-13
Employment ....................................................................................................................................... 2-15
Households ......................................................................................................................................... 2-18
Special Needs Populations – Non-Homeless ................................................................................ 2-21
Housing Characteristics.................................................................................................................... 2-27
Mortgage Lending (HMDA Data) ....................................................................................................... 3-1
Lending Action Volume by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 3-1
Lending Action Rates by Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................. 3-4
Mortgage Lending by Area .............................................................................................................. 3-16
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 3-20
Private Sector Practices ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
Real Estate Sales Practices .................................................................................................................. 4-1
Rental and Property Management .................................................................................................... 4-2
Advertisement ..................................................................................................................................... 4-3
Use of Restrictive Covenants ............................................................................................................. 4-3
Fair Housing Complaints and Enforcement .................................................................................... 4-4
Summary of Private Sector Practices ................................................................................................ 4-8
Government Barriers to Fair Housing ................................................................................................ 5-1
Housing Element Law and Compliance .......................................................................................... 5-1
Housing for Persons with Special Needs ......................................................................................... 5-1
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
March 23, 2010 Contra Costa Consortium
ii
Housing for the Homeless .................................................................................................................. 5-3
Building Code ...................................................................................................................................... 5-4
Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing ......................................................................... 5-4
Identification of Impediments and Actions to Address ................................................................. 6-1
Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
Mortgage Lending ............................................................................................................................... 6-2
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement ...................................................................................... 6-4
Government Barriers ........................................................................................................................... 6-5
AI Appendices
1. Areas of Minority Concentration (Maps)
2. Areas of Hispanic Concentration (Maps)
3. Areas of Low-Income and Very Low-income Concentration (Maps)
4. “CHAS” Tables
5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
6. Mortgage Lending Patterns (Maps)
7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
8. Fair Housing Complaints Reports
9. Licensed Community Care Facilities
10. Permitted Housing Types
11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
List of Tables
Table 1 Current and Projected Population ....................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2 Rate of Change in Current and Projected Population ...................................................... 2-3
Table 3 Population by Age ................................................................................................................. 2-4
Table 4 Race as a Percentage of Total Population ........................................................................... 2-6
Table 5 Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population ....................................................... 2-7
Table 6 Income Categories ................................................................................................................. 2-8
Table 7 Income Characteristics for Incorporated Jurisdictions ..................................................... 2-9
Table 8 Income Characteristics for Unincorporated Areas .......................................................... 2-10
Table 9 Share of Population Below Poverty .................................................................................. 2-12
Table 10 Educational Attainment for Persons Aged 25 Years and Older .................................. 2-14
Table 11 Employment Statistics ....................................................................................................... 2-16
Table 12 Occupation as a Percentage of the Workforce ............................................................... 2-17
Table 13 Household Composition, 2009 ......................................................................................... 2-18
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
iii
Table 14 Family Household Composition ..................................................................................... 2-20
Table 15 Senior Households ............................................................................................................. 2-22
Table 16 Disability Status and Types .............................................................................................. 2-24
Table 17 Large Households .............................................................................................................. 2-26
Table 18 Single-Parent Households ................................................................................................ 2-27
Table 19 Housing Units, 2000–2009 ................................................................................................ 2-29
Table 20 Housing Tenure ................................................................................................................. 2-30
Table 21 Tenure by Units in Structure ............................................................................................ 2-31
Table 22 Vacancy Status, 2009 ......................................................................................................... 2-33
Table 23 Vacancy Status, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 2-34
Table 24 Age of Housing by Tenure ............................................................................................... 2-36
Table 25 Median Home Sale Listings.............................................................................................. 2-38
Table 26 Median Rental Listings ..................................................................................................... 2-39
Table 27 Fair Market Rents, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 2-39
Table 28 Cost Burden Summary, Renters ...................................................................................... 2-43
Table 29 Cost Burden Summary, Owners ...................................................................................... 2-43
Table 30 Persons per Room .............................................................................................................. 2-44
Table 31 Foreclosure Activity .......................................................................................................... 2-45
Table 3-1 Lending Action by Race, Contra Costa County ............................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2 Lending Action by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County ..................................................... 3-2
Table 3-3 Lending Action for American Indian or Alaskan Native by Area, Contra Costa
County ................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-4 Lending Action for Hawaiian or Pacific Islander by Area, Contra Costa County .... 3-7
Table 3-5 Lending Action for Black or African American by Area, Contra Costa County ....... 3-9
Table 3-6 Lending Action for Other or No Information by Area, Contra Costa County ........ 3-10
Table 3-7 Lending Action for Asian by Area, Contra Costa County ......................................... 3-12
Table 3-8 Lending Action for White by Area, Contra Costa County ......................................... 3-13
Table 3-9 Lending Action for Hispanic by Area, Contra Costa County .................................... 3-16
Table 3-10 Lending Action for Census Tracts with Less than 50 Percent Origination Rate,
Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................................ 3-18
Table 3-11 High Priced Loans for Consortium Jurisdictions, Contra Costa County ............... 3-20
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As recipients of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the members of the Contra Costa Consortium are required to conduct an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and to periodically review that
analysis and update it as necessary. This AI is being completed in concert with the 2010–
2015 Consolidated Plan. The AI will be reassessed and reevaluated with each
Consolidated Plan.
Together, the CDBG entitlement communities of Contra Costa County and the Urban
County have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to jointly plan for the housing and
community development needs of the County. The Consortium develops a single five-
year Consolidated Plan and has an established process to request funding and to
evaluate requests for funds. The Consortium maximizes the impact of available
resources and assures a more efficient distribution of funds. This is most notable in the
provision of countywide services and the ability to fund large housing projects (using
HOME funds) that would be beyond the capacity of any single member.
This AI is one of several ways in which Consortium members are fulfilling their
obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This document includes an analysis of
local factors that may impact fair housing choice, the identification of specific
impediments to fair housing choice, and a plan to address those impediments. The
Consortium must also assure equal access to services and programs it provides or
assists.
Please note that each member jurisdiction prepares its own Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). These CAPERs include a description of the
efforts made each year to affirmatively further fair housing. These documents may be
consulted for an evaluation of actions taken by individual jurisdictions.
WHAT IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE?
As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair
Housing Planning Guide (1996), impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color,
ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial
status, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the
availability of housing choices; or
Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race,
color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status,
familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-2
To affirmatively further fair housing, a community must work to remove impediments
to fair housing choice.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
The purpose of an AI is to review conditions in the jurisdiction that may impact the
ability of households to freely choose housing and to be treated without regard to race,
ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, source of income, age, disability, or other
protected status. The AI reviews the general state of fair housing, the enforcement of fair
housing law, efforts to promote fair housing, access to credit for the purpose of housing,
and general constraints to the availability of a full range of housing types.
An AI examines the affordability of housing in the jurisdiction with an emphasis on
housing affordable to households with annual incomes classified as low income and
less. (Low income is defined as equal to or less than 80 percent of the adjusted Area
Median Income as most recently published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.)
The document has three major goals:
To provide an overview of the Consortium and current conditions as they
impact fair housing choice.
To review the policies and practices of the Consortium as they impact fair
housing choice and the provision of housing, specifically affordable housing
and housing for special needs households.
To identify impediments to fair housing choice and actions the Consortium
will take to remove those impediments or to mitigate the impact those
impediments have on fair housing choice.
Fulfilling these goals includes the following:
A review of the laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and
practices of the Consortium.
An assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and
accessibility of housing.
An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing
choice.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-3
IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED
This analysis has identified the following impediments and actions to address those
impediments. Section 6 of this document “Identification of Impediments and Actions to
Address” includes a summary of findings.
IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
Affordable Housing
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create
new affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated
Plan programs of the Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG,
HOME, and HOPWA.
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus”
provisions. (See housing element programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of
affordable housing. (See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County,
Richmond and Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of
Housing Choice Vouchers, and will monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers
to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative
resources may be given to projects and programs which expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable
housing in relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of
low-income, poverty and minority concentration.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-4
Mortgage Lending
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and
location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending
by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in
local programs, member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of “Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may
exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or “Substantial
Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition,
member jurisdictions may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA
reporting as most recently published by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders
and the mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower
income and minority households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home
buyer education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households.
Minority households include Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market loan products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and
minority households. Minority households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration
and low-income concentration.
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination
rates under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market loan products to households who wish to purchase homes in Census
Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent according to the most
recently published HMDA data.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-5
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to
persons who have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against
persons based on sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with
disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation.
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to
reasonable accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities
who have been refused reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing
discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report
trends annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination
complaints. All agencies who provide this information should do so in the same
format with the same level of detail. Information should be available by the
quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based
on sexual orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-6
Government Barriers
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and
procedures for persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations
to local planning and development standards.
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a
residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential
uses of the same type in the same zone, and is not explicitly permitted in the
zoning code.
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
treat transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only
to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone, and to explicitly permit both transitional and supportive housing
types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least
one appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
permit transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential
zoning district.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-1
INTRODUCTION
As recipients of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the members of the Contra Costa Consortium are required to conduct an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and to periodically review that
analysis and update it as necessary. This AI is being completed in concert with the 2010–
2015 Consolidated Plan. The AI will be reassessed and reevaluated with each
Consolidated Plan.
Together, the CDBG entitlement communities of Contra Costa County and the Urban
County have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to jointly plan for the housing and
community development needs of the County. The Consortium develops an established
five-year Consolidated Plan and has a single process to request funding and to evaluate
requests for funds. The Consortium maximizes the impact of available resources and
assures a more efficient distribution of funds. This is most notable in the provision of
countywide services and the ability to fund large housing projects (using HOME funds)
that would be beyond the capacity of any single member.
This AI is one of several ways in which Consortium members are fulfilling their
obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This AI includes an analysis of local
factors that may impact fair housing choice, the identification of specific impediments to
fair housing choice, and a plan to address those impediments. The Consortium must
also assure equal access to services and programs it provides or assists.
Please note that each member jurisdiction prepares its own Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). These CAPERs include a description of the
efforts made each year to affirmatively further fair housing. These documents may be
consulted for an evaluation of actions taken by individual jurisdictions.
GEOGRAPHIC TERMS
Throughout this document the following geographic terms will be used. To assist the
reader, below is an explanation of each.
Contra Costa County “County” (countywide): Includes all 19 jurisdictions
within the County as well as the unincorporated area of the County (Antioch,
Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette,
Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, Richmond,
San Pablo, San Ramon, the unincorporated area of the County, and Walnut
Creek).
Urban County: Includes all jurisdictions which are not entitlement jurisdictions
(Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez,
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-2
Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, San Ramon, and the
unincorporated area of the County).
Unincorporated County: Includes unincorporated area of the County (this area
is not a part of any municipality).
Entitlement Cities: The CDBG entitlement cities in the County are Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and Walnut Creek.
HOME Consortium: The members of the HOME Consortium are Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek.
WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?
Federal law prohibits discrimination in the provision of housing or access to housing
based on membership in certain protected classes of persons or personal status. These
protections apply to race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, religion, familial status,
and mental and physical handicap (disability).
California state law codifies the federal protections and adds sexual orientation, marital
status, use of language, source of income, HIV/AIDS, and medical condition. State law
also prohibits discrimination based on any arbitrary status (the Unruh Act).
Equal access to housing is fundamental to each person in meeting essential needs and
pursuing personal, education, employment, or other goals. Federal and state fair
housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real
property based on a person’s protected status.
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same
housing market have a like range of choice available to them, regardless of personal
status.
WHAT IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE?
As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair
Housing Planning Guide (1996), impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color,
ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial
status, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the
availability of housing choices; or
Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race,
color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status,
familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-3
To affirmatively further fair housing, a community must work to remove impediments
to fair housing choice.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
The purpose of an AI is to review conditions in the jurisdiction that may impact the
ability of households to freely choose housing and to be treated without regard to race,
ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, source of income, age, disability, or other
protected status. The AI reviews the general state of fair housing, the enforcement of fair
housing law, efforts to promote fair housing, access to credit for the purpose of housing,
and general constraints to the availability of a full range of housing types.
An AI examines the affordability of housing in the jurisdiction with an emphasis on
housing affordable to households with annual incomes classified as low income and
less. (Low income is defined as equal to or less than 80 percent of the adjusted Area
Median Income as most recently published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.)
The document has three major goals:
To provide an overview of the Consortium and current conditions as they
impact fair housing choice.
To review the policies and practices of the Consortium as they impact fair
housing choice and the provision of housing, specifically affordable housing
and housing for special needs households.
To identify impediments to fair housing choice and actions the Consortium
will take to remove those impediments or to mitigate the impact those
impediments have on fair housing choice.
Fulfilling these goals includes the following:
A review of the laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and
practices of the Consortium.
An assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and
accessibility of housing.
An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing
choice.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-4
CONTRA COSTA CONSORTIUM CONSOLIDATED PLAN
This AI has been prepared in coordination with the 2010–2015 Consolidated Plan for the
Contra Costa Consortium. The Consolidated Plan outlines the Consortium’s priority
housing and community development needs, as well as the objectives and strategies for
meeting those needs. The Consolidated Plan is a requirement of recipients of housing
and community development funds from HUD.
One of the major focuses of the Consolidated Plan is the provision of affordable housing
opportunities for lower-income households and persons with special needs, many of
whom may be victims of housing discrimination. As part of the Consolidated Plan, the
County and member jurisdictions must certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair
housing choice for all residents by:
Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice;
Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments
identified through the analysis; and
Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken.
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) constitutes the Consortium
members’ effort to identify impediments to fair housing and actions to overcome the
effects of the identified impediments. Through the annual planning process, Consortium
members will incorporate specific actions to be undertaken to remove impediments and
to further fair housing choice.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-1
BACKGROUND
This section presents a summary of the demographic profile, economic, income distribution,
and housing characteristics for the County of Contra Costa.
POPULATION
Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate a few notable growth trends in the Bay Area and in Contra Costa
County and its cities. The estimated annual percentage growth rate from 2000 to 2010 decreased
with respect to the actual annual growth percentage rate from 1990 to 2000 for the County and
cities.
From 1990 to 2000, the actual growth percentage rate in the County (18.1 percent), Antioch (46.0
percent), Pittsburg (19.5 percent), and Richmond (14.1 percent) exceeds the percentage growth
for the Bay Area (12.6 percent) as a whole.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2007, the
population in Contra Costa County is expected to reach 1,061,900 by 2010 and grow to 1,105,600
by 2015. Between 2010 and 2015 the County’s population is estimated to grow by 4.3 percent.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-2
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction 1990 1 2000 1 2010 2 2015 2 2020 2
Bay Area 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,412,500 7,730,000 8,069,700
Urban County
Brentwood 7,563 23,284 51,300 56,900 67,400
Clayton 7,317 10,792 11,300 11,700 12,000
Danville 31,306 42,127 44,000 44,400 45,000
El Cerrito 22,869 23,179 23,600 23,900 24,500
Hercules 16,829 19,299 23,900 25,200 26,400
Lafayette 23,501 23,463 24,500 24,700 25,300
Martinez 32,038 36,167 37,600 38,600 39,600
Moraga 15,852 16,642 16,700 16,900 17,500
Oakley 3 18,225 25,465 31,950 34,050 35,850
Orinda 16,642 17,446 18,000 18,200 18,500
Pinole 17,460 19,394 20,100 20,300 20,700
Pleasant Hill 31,585 32,847 33,900 34,400 34,900
San Pablo 25,158 30,121 31,400 31,700 32,100
San Ramon 35,303 44,477 58,200 64,400 70,300
Unincorporated County 151,690 159,650 165,550 173,050 179,050
Urban County Subtotal 377,247 427,978 592,000 618,400 649,100
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 62,195 90,814 106,000 111,400 115,000
Concord 111,348 121,710 125,800 129,400 135,400
Pittsburg 47,564 56,820 65,900 67,900 71,000
Richmond 87,425 99,716 104,700 109,800 115,600
Walnut Creek 60,569 64,583 67,500 68,700 70,900
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 746,348 861,621 1,061,900 1,105,600 1,157,000
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equal 100.
1 Data provided by the 1990 and 2000 Census.
2 Data provided by ABAG.
3 Oakley was incorporated as a city July 1, 1999; therefore, the data under 1990 is from the Oakley Census Designated Place
(CDP).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-3
TABLE 2
RATE OF CHANGE IN CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction
1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2015
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Urban County
Brentwood 20.8% 207.9% 12.0% 120.2% 3.2% 16.2%
Clayton 4.7% 47.5% 0.5% 5.0% 0.7% 3.5%
Danville 3.5% 34.6% 0.6% 5.5% 0.2% 0.9%
El Cerrito 0.1% 1.4% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.3%
Hercules 1.5% 14.7% 2.3% 22.7% 1.1% 5.4%
Lafayette 0.0% -0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 0.1% 0.8%
Martinez 1.3% 12.9% 0.4% 4.8% 0.5% 2.7%
Moraga 0.5% 5.0% 0.3% 2.5% 0.2% 1.2%
Oakley 3.9% 39.5% 2.5% 24.7% 1.3% 6.6%
Orinda 0.5% 4.8% 0.2% 2.3% 0.2% 1.1%
Pinole 1.1% 11.1% 0.6% 5.6% 0.2% 1.0%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.0% 0.3% 3.2% 0.3% 1.5%
San Pablo 2.0% 19.7% 0.4% 3.9% 0.2% 1.0%
San Ramon 2.6% 26.0% 3.0% 30.1% 2.1% 10.7%
Unincorporated County 0.5% 5.2% 0.9% 9.1% 0.9% 4.5%
Urban County Total 1.4% 13.6% 1.5% 14.9% 0.4% 4.46%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 4.6% 46.0% 1.7% 17.1% 0.8% 4.2%
Concord 0.9% 9.3% 0.3% 3.3% 0.6% 2.9%
Pittsburg 1.9% 19.5% 1.6% 16.1% 0.6% 3.0%
Richmond 1.4% 14.1% 0.6% 5.5% 1.0% 4.9%
Walnut Creek 0.7% 6.6% 0.5% 5.0% 0.4% 1.8%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 1.8% 18.1% 1.2% 11.9% 0.9% 4.3%
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
POPULATION BY AGE
Table 3 shows population by age group. Of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Walnut
Creek had the largest share of persons over 65 (25.0 percent), followed by El Cerrito (20.7
percent) and Orinda (18.4 percent). Oakley had the largest percentage of persons under the age
of 18 (34.7 percent), followed by Brentwood (33.8 percent) and Antioch (33.7 percent). Contra
Costa County had a total of 27.7 percent of persons under 18 and 11.3 percent of persons
over 65.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-4
TABLE 3
POPULATION BY AGE
Jurisdiction
Percentage
of Persons
Under 18
Percentage
of Persons
Over 18
Percentage
of Persons
Age 19–64
Percentage
of Persons
Over 65
Urban County
Brentwood 33.8% 66.1% 56.5% 9.6%
Clayton 26.9% 72.5% 63.4% 9.1%
Danville 29.5% 70.5% 60.2% 10.3%
El Cerrito 16.6% 83.4% 62.7% 20.7%
Hercules 28.7% 71.3% 64.5% 6.8%
Lafayette 26.4% 73.6% 59.6% 14.0%
Martinez 24.0% 76.0% 65.8% 10.2%
Moraga 25.6% 74.4% 59.2% 15.2%
Oakley 34.7% 64.6% 58.8% 5.8%
Orinda 26.4% 73.6% 55.2% 18.4%
Pinole 26.6% 73.5% 59.4% 14.1%
Pleasant Hill 22.6% 77.4% 64.3% 13.1%
San Pablo 33.0% 67.0% 58.1% 8.9%
San Ramon 27.4% 72.6% 66.4% 6.2%
Unincorporated County 27.2% 72.8% 61.9% 10.9%
Urban County Total 27.4% 72.6% 60.1% 11.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 33.7% 66.3% 59.0% 7.3%
Concord 26.5% 72.4% 61.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 31.3% 67.9% 59.7% 8.2%
Richmond 28.7% 71.2% 61.6% 9.6%
Walnut Creek 18.0% 81.6% 56.6% 25.0%
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 27.7% 72.3% 61.0% 11.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equal 100.
RACE/ETHNICITY
Although Contra Costa County is generally diverse, the particular racial and ethnic composition
varies by community. Please see Tables 4 and 5.1 Of the nineteen cities in the County, there are
eight with a White population of over 80 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez,
1 Race is shown for persons who reported being of that race alone. Persons reporting more than one race are included
in “two or more races.” Persons who indicated they were of only one race but did not report a race in one of the five
categories shown are included in “some other race.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-5
Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek), and six with a minority population near or
greater Thant 50 percent (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Richmond).
In a similar fashion, four communities have an Hispanic or Latino population over 25 percent
(Brentwood, Oakley, San Pablo, Richmond), and six have an Hispanic or Latino population of
less than 6 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek).
The communities that are predominantly White tend to be those located in the central portion of
the County, in the Interstate Highway 680 corridor. The predominantly minority and Hispanic
or Latino communities tend to be in the industrial and agricultural areas of the eastern and
western regions of the County.
Areas of Minority Concentration
Data on race and ethnicity were examined at the block group level to determine areas of
minority and ethnic concentration (2000 U.S. Decennial Census, Summary File 3). Minority
population is defined as the total population less those who responded “White alone” to the
U.S. Census. Block group areas where the percentage of total minority population exceeds the
group’s countywide total percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of “minority concentration.” Areas that have a minority population at least 1.5 times the
countywide total percentage are considered to be areas of “high minority concentration.” Note
that of all the entitlement jurisdictions, Walnut Creek does not have any areas of minority
concentration, therefore a map was not included. Please see Maps 1 through 5 in Appendix 1.
(Please note that although Census tract boundaries are contiguous with County boundaries,
block group area boundaries within tracts may not be contiguous with current city boundaries.)
It should be noted that in all areas which show an overall minority concentration, the
predominant minority group is Black/African American.
Since the U.S. Census enumerates Hispanic as a distinct ethnic category, this characteristic was
examined separately. Block group areas where the percentage of total Hispanic population
exceeds the countywide percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of Hispanic concentration. The average countywide percentage of Hispanic population is 17.6
percent. Areas that have a Hispanic population at least 1.5 times the countywide percentage are
considered to be areas of high Hispanic concentration. Note that of all the entitlement
jurisdictions, Walnut Creek does not have any areas of Hispanic concentration, therefore a map
was not included. Please see Maps 6 through 10 in Appendix 2.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-6
TABLE 4
RACE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
other race
Two or
more
races
Urban County
Brentwood 74.0% 1.5% 0.5% 3.3% 0.2% 14.0% 6.6%
Clayton 87.7% 1.2% 0.1% 5.5% 0.4% 1.3% 3.8%
Danville 86.3% 1.0% 0.2% 8.5% 0.0% 0.9% 3.0%
El Cerrito 57.0% 8.1% 0.6% 24.3% 0.5% 3.4% 6.2%
Hercules 28.0% 18.8% 0.6% 43.0% 0.2% 5.1% 4.6%
Lafayette 88.0% 0.5% 0.2% 7.0% 0.1% 0.9% 3.3%
Martinez 81.0% 3.3% 0.8% 6.4% 0.1% 3.4% 5.0%
Moraga 80.0% 1.3% 0.4% 13.0% 0.1% 1.6% 4.1%
Oakley 76.0% 3.0% 0.7% 3.0% 0.0% 11.1% 6.6%
Orinda 87.0% 0.3% 0.2% 8.7% 0.2% 0.8% 3.0%
Pinole 55.0% 10.9% 0.5% 21.1% 0.9% 5.8% 6.0%
Pleasant Hill 82.0% 1.1% 0.5% 10.0% 0.3% 1.9% 4.3%
San Pablo 31.0% 18.3% 1.1% 16.3% 0.2% 26.0% 7.0%
San Ramon 76.0% 2.1% 0.4% 15.3% 0.2% 2.2% 3.8%
Unincorporated
County 66.1% 9.9% 0.8% 10.9% 0.6% 5.9% 5.7%
Urban County Total 65.3% 9.2% 0.6% 10.9% 0.4% 8.2% 5.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 65.2% 9.5% 0.8% 7.3% 0.4% 9.2% 7.5%
Concord 70.7% 3.0% 0.8% 9.4% 0.5% 9.7% 5.9%
Pittsburg 43.5% 18.9% 0.8% 12.7% 0.9% 16.1% 7.2%
Richmond 31.4% 36.1% 0.7% 12.3% 0.5% 13.9% 5.3%
Walnut Creek 83.9% 1.1% 0.3% 9.4% 0.2% 2.0% 3.3%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
65.5% 9.4% 0.6% 11.0% 0.4% 8.1% 5.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P6
Note: Rounding may lead to row totals slightly more or less than 100%.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-7
TABLE 5
HISPANIC ORIGIN AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction Hispanic or Latino (all races) Not Hispanic or Latino (all races)
Urban County
Brentwood 28.9% 71.1%
Clayton 5.7% 94.3%
Danville 4.9% 95.1%
El Cerrito 7.9% 92.1%
Hercules 10.8% 89.2%
Lafayette 4.3% 95.7%
Martinez 10.6% 89.4%
Moraga 4.6% 95.4%
Oakley 24.6% 75.4%
Orinda 3.5% 96.5%
Pinole 14.4% 85.6%
Pleasant Hill 8.2% 91.8%
San Pablo 44.5% 55.5%
San Ramon 7.2% 92.8%
Unincorporated County 20.6% 79.4%
Urban County Total 17.7% 82.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 22.0% 78.0%
Concord 21.9% 78.1%
Pittsburg 32.0% 68.0%
Richmond 26.8% 73.2%
Walnut Creek 5.8% 94.2%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 17.7% 82.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P7
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-8
INCOME
In this plan, income will be discussed using the terms as defined in Table 6 below. These terms
correspond to the income limits published annually by HUD. HUD bases these income
categories on the Decennial Census with adjustment factors applied using the annual American
Community Survey. Income categories take into consideration family size. The income limit for
a family of four is shown for illustration.
TABLE 6
INCOME CATEGORIES
Term Percentage AMI1 2009 Income Limit, Family of 42
Extremely low income 30% $26,790
Very low income 50% $44,650
Low income 80% $66,250
Moderate income3 120% $107,160
1 AMI = area median family income
2 Oakland-Fremont HMFA (HUD Metropolitan FMR Area) including Contra Costa County.
3 HUD does not publish a “moderate income” limit. It is calculated as 2.4 times the published very low-income limit.
Table 7 provides a summary of income statistics as reported by the 2000 Census for all
jurisdictions within Contra Costa County except the unincorporated area of the County. The
2000 Census does not provide information for the unincorporated area but does include data for
a Census-designated place (CDP). A CDP comprises a densely settled concentration of
population that is not within an incorporated place but is locally identified by a name. Contra
Costa County has 22 different CDPs. To get a better idea of the incomes for the unincorporated
area, Table 8 provides data for each CDP in the unincorporated County.
The communities of Contra Costa County have a significant disparity of household income
between them. Four cities and three CDPs have annual median household incomes above
$100,000 (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, Alamo, Blackhawk-Camino/Tassajara, and
Diablo). None of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions.
Three cities and eight CDPs have annual median household incomes near or below $50,000 (San
Pablo, Pittsburg, Richmond, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Crockett, El Sobrante, Pacheco,
Rollingwood, and Vine Hill). Two of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions,
eight are un-incorporated CDPs.
Higher income communities in the County tend to be in the central region, lower income
communities are more likely to be in the industrial and agricultural communities of the eastern
and western regions.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-9
TABLE 7
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR INCORPORATED JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Urban County
Brentwood $69,198 $24,909
Clayton $101,651 $42,048
Danville $114,064 $50,773
El Cerrito $57,253 $32,593
Hercules $75,196 $27,699
Lafayette $102,107 $54,319
Martinez $63,010 $29,701
Moraga $98,080 $45,437
Oakley $65,589 $21,895
Orinda $117,637 $65,428
Pinole $62,256 $25,170
Pleasant Hill $67,489 $33,076
San Pablo $37,184 $14,303
San Ramon $95,856 $42,336
Unincorporated County See Table 8
Urban County Total n/a n/a
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch $60,359 $22,152
Concord $55,597 $24,727
Pittsburg $50,557 $18,241
Richmond $44,210 $19,788
Walnut Creek $63,238 $39,875
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total $63,675 $30,615
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-10
TABLE 8
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Census Designated Place Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Alamo CDP $137,105 $65,705
Bay Point CDP $44,951 $16,743
Bayview-Montalvin CDP $50,750 $16,056
Bethel Island CDP $44,569 $26,739
Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara CDP $154,598 $66,972
Byron CDP $35,938 $21,231
Clyde CDP $66,875 $30,822
Crockett CDP $48,574 $27,469
Diablo CDP $197,904 $95,419
Discovery Bay CDP $89,915 $41,313
East Richmond Heights CDP $57,500 $27,873
El Sobrante CDP $48,272 $24,525
Kensington CDP $93,247 $55,275
Knightsen CDP $58,929 $22,191
Mountain View CDP $51,986 $26,071
Pacheco CDP $45,851 $26,064
Port Costa CDP $61,429 $33,563
Rodeo CDP $60,522 $21,432
Rollingwood CDP $48,229 $13,428
Tara Hills CDP $56,380 $22,946
Vine Hill CDP $48,125 $17,985
Walden CDP $58,552 $41,093
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
Areas of Low- and Very Low-Income Concentration
Data on income was examined at the block group level to determine areas of low- and very low-
income concentration (2009 HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary Data).
Low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more low-income persons.2 The exception
is the Urban County and entitlement communities within the County which have been
designated by HUD as “exception grantees.” In those communities, the HUD exception
2 Using the LOWMODPCT variable which is defined as “the percentage of persons who are of low/moderate income;
calculated by LOWMOD/LOWMODUNIV times 100.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-11
threshold was used to determine low-income areas.3 Please see Maps 11 through 16 in
Appendix 3. Very low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more very low-income
persons or a percentage of very low-income persons that exceeds the applicable exception
threshold. 4 Please see Maps 17 through 18 in Appendix 3.
POVERTY
In addition to reporting income, the 2000 Census reports the number of persons and families
that have incomes that fall below the federal poverty level. 5 The poverty level is adjusted for
family size and composition making it a more relative measure than household income. Persons
and families that are below the poverty level are in general very poor. Please see Table 9 for
data on persons and families who fall below the poverty line. The table also shows children
who are below the poverty line.
The cities of San Pablo and Richmond, as well as the unincorporated areas of the County, are
notable for the level of poverty as is the un-incorporated area of the County. The un-
incorporated area of the County also has a notably high level of children in poverty.
3 Defined by HUD as an area “within the highest quartile of all areas within the jurisdiction . . . in terms of the degree
of concentration of persons of low and moderate income.” This threshold is 42.60% for the Urban County; 47.9% for
Concord; 32.5% for Walnut Creek.
4 Calculated as “PVLOW/LOWMODUNIV times 100.” PVLOW = “The total number of persons below the very low-
income threshold. LOMODUNIV = “Persons with the potential for being deemed Low Mod.”
5 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau based on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-12
TABLE 9
SHARE OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY
Jurisdiction Persons Persons Under
18 Years of Age Families
Urban County
Brentwood 5.8% 2.5% 5.1%
Clayton 2.6% 1.0% 1.9%
Danville 2.2% 0.5% 1.2%
El Cerrito 6.7% 1.3% 3.8%
Hercules 3.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Lafayette 2.9% 0.6% 2.0%
Martinez 5.2% 1.0% 3.0%
Moraga 2.9% 0.9% 2.0%
Oakley 5.0% 1.8% 3.7%
Orinda 1.9% 0.3% 1.1%
Pinole 5.0% 1.4% 3.3%
Pleasant Hill 5.0% 0.8% 2.3%
San Pablo 18.1% 7.5% 15.5%
San Ramon 2.0% 0.4% 1.4%
Unincorporated County 47.8% 16.8% 36.7%
Urban County Total 17.6% 6.0% 13.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 8.5% 3.8% 7.2%
Concord 7.6% 2.4% 5.6%
Pittsburg 11.5% 4.3% 9.6%
Richmond 16.2% 6.4% 13.5%
Walnut Creek 3.7% 0.6% 1.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 7.6% 10.3% 5.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 (persons and families for whom poverty status is determined), Table P87 and P89
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-13
EDUCATION
Education level plays a critical role in determining the income level of a household. Table 10
provides a summary of educational attainment for persons aged 25 years and older for the share
of the population in the state and in each jurisdiction. Both Clayton and Orinda had zero
persons who reported no schooling, with Moraga and Danville following close behind (0.1
percent). San Pablo (6.6 percent) and Richmond (3.4 percent) had the greatest number of
persons who reported no schooling. For the share of persons having a college degree, only 6 of
the 19 jurisdictions in Contra Costa County were below the state percentage (33.7 percent).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-14
TABLE 10
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR PERSONS AGED 25 YEARS AND OLDER
Jurisdiction % No
Schooling
% Some
Schooling
(nursery–11th
grade)
% High
School
(without
diploma)
% High
School
Graduate
and
Equivalent
% Some
College (no
degree)
% College
Degree
State of California 3.2% 15.3% 4.7% 20.1% 22.9% 33.7%
Urban County
Brentwood 1.9% 11.4% 3.9% 25.4% 28.7% 28.8%
Clayton 0.0% 1.3% 1.2% 15.1% 22.9% 59.5%
Danville 0.1% 2.1% 1.3% 11.2% 19.0% 66.4%
El Cerrito 1.0% 4.5% 1.9% 13.0% 17.6% 62.0%
Hercules 1.4% 4.8% 3.2% 16.8% 27.2% 46.5%
Lafayette 0.2% 1.2% 0.9% 8.7% 15.8% 73.1%
Martinez 0.4% 5.3% 3.3% 20.3% 28.8% 42.0%
Moraga 0.1% 1.7% 1.2% 8.3% 16.3% 72.4%
Oakley 0.8% 10.3% 4.1% 30.4% 32.4% 22.0%
Orinda 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 5.5% 12.7% 79.6%
Pinole 1.1% 7.7% 3.0% 24.1% 28.1% 36.1%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.4% 2.1% 17.5% 24.1% 51.5%
San Pablo 6.6% 24.2% 6.8% 26.1% 21.2% 15.1%
San Ramon 0.3% 1.7% 1.5% 11.8% 23.8% 60.9%
Unincorporated
County 1.5% 8.8% 3.5% 20.4% 24.7% 41.1%
Urban County Total 1.3% 7.9% 3.2% 19.3% 24.2% 44.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 1.1% 9.2% 4.1% 28.6% 29.9% 27.1%
Concord 1.7% 10.0% 3.6% 23.2% 26.9% 34.6%
Pittsburg 2.6% 16.2% 5.5% 25.9% 27.8% 22.1%
Richmond 3.4% 15.4% 5.8% 21.8% 24.4% 29.2%
Walnut Creek 0.3% 3.3% 1.4% 12.6% 21.1% 61.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 1.4% 8.4% 3.4% 19.8% 24.4% 42.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P37
Note: Due to rounding, the total percentage for each jurisdiction may not equal 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-15
EMPLOYMENT
Table 11 provides a summary of the civilian labor force, employment (the number employed),
unemployment (the number unemployed), and the unemployment rate for 2007 and 2008–2009
for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The 2007 data is the annual average, and the 2008–
2009 data was collected from March 2008 through December 2009. When comparing the 2007
data to the 2008–2009 data for Contra Costa County as a whole, due to the current economic
condition the unemployment rate has increased dramatically from 4.7 percent in 2007 to 11
percent in 2008–2009. This increased unemployment rate is the trend for all jurisdictions in the
County, with every jurisdiction seeing an increase in unemployment.
The jurisdictions that had the greatest increase in unemployment rates for 2008–2009 were San
Pablo (11.7 percent increase) and Richmond and Moraga (each with an approximate 10 percent
increase). The Department of Finance does not provide a breakdown of occupation for
individual jurisdictions; therefore the 2000 U.S. Census was used. As shown in Table 12,
management, professional, and related occupations represent the largest share of occupations
for the Urban County and entitlement jurisdictions, followed by sales and office occupations.
Persons employed in farming, fishing, and forestry represent the smallest share of the
workforce.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010 2-16 TABLE 11 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS Jurisdiction 2008–2009 2007 Labor Force Employment Unemployed Labor Force Employment Unemployed Number Percentage Number Percentage Urban County Brentwood 10,900 9,900 1,100 9.8% 10,900 10,400 400 4.1% Clayton 6,200 6,000 100 2.3% 6,400 6,400 100 0.9% Danville 23,100 21,700 1,300 5.8% 23,500 23,000 600 2.4% El Cerrito 14,000 12,600 1,400 9.8% 13,900 13,300 600 4.1% Hercules 11,300 10,400 800 7.4% 11,400 11,000 400 3.1% Lafayette 12,600 12,100 500 4.0% 12,900 12,700 200 1.6% Martinez 21,900 20,000 1,900 8.8% 21,900 21,100 800 3.7% Moraga 9,400 7,800 1,600 16.5% 8,900 8,300 700 7.3% Oakley 13,700 12,600 1,100 8.0% 13,800 13,300 500 3.3% Orinda 8,600 8,300 300 3.9% 8,900 8,700 100 1.6% Pinole 10,500 9,800 700 7.1% 10,600 10,300 300 3.0% Pleasant Hill 20,300 18,500 1,800 9.0% 20,300 19,600 800 3.8% San Pablo 14,400 11,300 3,100 21.5% 13,200 11,900 1,300 9.8% San Ramon 28,100 26,800 1,300 4.6% 28,900 28,300 500 1.9% Entitlement Jurisdictions Antioch 49,500 43,400 6,200 12.4% 48,400 45,800 2,600 5.3% Concord 70,500 62,100 8,400 11.9% 69,100 65,600 3,500 5.1% Pittsburg 31,000 25,700 5,300 17.2% 29,300 27,100 2,200 7.6% Richmond 54,000 44,500 9,500 17.6% 51,000 47,000 4,000 7.8% Walnut Creek 34,200 31,600 2,600 7.5% 34,500 33,400 1,100 3.1% Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 527,100 469,100 58,000 11.0% 519,700 495,400 24,300 4.7% Source: Economic Development Department, Labor Force and Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2008–2009. Note: The data is not seasonally adjusted; therefore the employment and unemployment numbers may not be the total labor force.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-17
TABLE 12
OCCUPATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WORKFORCE
Jurisdiction
Management,
professional,
and related
Service
Sales
and
office
Farming,
fishing,
and
forestry
Construction,
extraction, and
maintenance
Production,
transportation,
and material
moving
Urban County
Brentwood 35.9% 15.0% 25.6% 1.2% 14.1% 8.1%
Clayton 54.5% 9.3% 27.0% 0.0% 4.6% 4.6%
Danville 58.1% 5.7% 28.5% 0.1% 4.0% 3.6%
El Cerrito 58.2% 8.6% 24.2% 0.1% 4.0% 4.9%
Hercules 39.6% 9.6% 35.1% 0.0% 6.0% 9.7%
Lafayette 64.3% 7.8% 20.1% 0.1% 4.2% 3.6%
Martinez 41.3% 10.1% 31.0% 0.1% 10.6% 7.0%
Moraga 61.2% 7.8% 24.7% 0.1% 2.3% 3.9%
Oakley 25.2% 15.9% 29.9% 0.4% 15.7% 12.9%
Orinda 66.4% 6.3% 22.2% 0.3% 2.0% 2.8%
Pinole 34.3% 16.1% 29.6% 0.0% 9.7% 10.2%
Pleasant Hill 48.9% 10.7% 26.9% 0.1% 8.2% 5.2%
San Pablo 20.2% 23.4% 25.8% 0.7% 13.8% 16.2%
San Ramon 54.8% 6.0% 30.6% 0.0% 4.5% 4.0%
Unincorporated
County 41.2% 13.5% 26.9% 0.5% 9.3% 8.7%
Urban County Total 47.8% 10.3% 27.8% 0.2% 7.4% 6.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 29.1% 15.1% 31.2% 0.2% 13.2% 11.3%
Concord 34.0% 17.8% 27.9% 0.1% 10.9% 9.3%
Pittsburg 24.0% 19.1% 29.8% 0.1% 13.2% 13.7%
Richmond 32.9% 18.1% 26.4% 0.2% 9.0% 13.3%
Walnut Creek 55.5% 9.0% 27.6% 0.1% 4.1% 3.6%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
41.0% 13.4% 28.0% 0.2% 8.9% 8.5%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P50
Note: Due to rounding errors, total employment shares for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-18
HOUSEHOLDS
The type, size, and composition of a household can affect the type of housing and services that
are needed. The following section provides an analysis of the household profiles for all
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, as well as in the unincorporated County.
Table 13 presents household size, percentage of persons living alone, and percentage of persons
over age 65. San Pablo had the largest average household size (3.25 persons) of all the
jurisdictions, with the second largest household size (3.23 persons) reported in Oakley. Based on
the 2000 U.S. Census, Walnut Creek had the largest share of persons living alone (38.4 percent)
and householders over the age of 65 (35.8 percent).
TABLE 13
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2009
Jurisdiction Average Household
Size (persons)1
% of Single Persons Living
Alone2
% Headed by Person
65 and Older2
Urban County
Brentwood 3.04 14.5% 18.2%
Clayton 2.73 14.5% 15.9%
Danville 2.75 15.7% 16.7%
El Cerrito 2.23 30.9% 30.8%
Hercules 2.99 17.8% 8.6%
Lafayette 2.57 18.9% 21.6%
Martinez 2.39 27.3% 16.0%
Moraga 2.56 19.9% 26.2%
Oakley 3.23 12.9% 11.5%
Orinda 2.63 16.4% 30.4%
Pinole 2.76 20.0% 23.2%
Pleasant Hill 2.33 28.9% 20.1%
San Pablo 3.25 22.4% 16.3%
San Ramon 2.60 21.1% 9.8%
Unincorporated County 2.69 21.7% 18.9%
Urban County Total -- 21.3% 18.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 3.04 15.8% 13.3%
Concord 2.71 23.2% 17.8%
Pittsburg 3.13 18.3% 15.2%
Richmond 2.79 25.9% 17.7%
Walnut Creek 2.07 38.4% 35.8%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 2.75 22.9% 19.3%
Source: 1 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10 and H1; 2 Department of Finance 2009, E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-19
Table 14 presents the number of family households and the share of family households that are
married, single parents, and have children under 18 years of age for all jurisdictions in Contra
Costa County.
Of the 344,129 households in the County, 243,971 (70.9 percent) were family households.6 Of the
family households, 123,948 (50.8 percent) had children under 18. When looking closer at the
jurisdictions in the County: Oakley (63.4 percent), San Pablo (61.1 percent), and Antioch (59.8
percent) had the largest share of families with children under 18; Orinda (91.5 percent), Clayton
(90.5 percent), and Lafayette (90.1 percent) had the largest share of married couples; and San
Pablo (21.7 percent) and Richmond (18.9 percent) had the largest share of single parents. These
percentages exceed that of the County for each category: families with children under 18,
married couples, and single parents.
6 Comprising related individuals.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-20
TABLE 14
FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Jurisdiction Family Households % Married % With Children
Under 18 % Single Parent
Urban County
Brentwood 6,231 87.0% 58.7% 9.3%
Clayton 3,212 90.5% 48.1% 5.4%
Danville 12,054 89.0% 52.1% 6.1%
El Cerrito 6,047 78.5% 34.5% 7.7%
Hercules 4,993 78.9% 55.2% 11.4%
Lafayette 6,805 90.1% 49.1% 6.3%
Martinez 9,279 78.6% 48.0% 11.6%
Moraga 4,361 88.6% 47.1% 5.7%
Oakley 6,483 86.4% 63.4% 8.8%
Orinda 5,231 91.5% 46.1% 4.2%
Pinole 5,148 77.3% 46.3% 9.6%
Pleasant Hill 8,435 80.6% 46.9% 10.3%
San Pablo 6,672 63.1% 61.1% 21.7%
San Ramon 12,077 86.1% 53.3% 8.4%
Unincorporated
County 39,370 79.1% -- 11.1%
Urban County Total 136,398 82.1% 42.1% 9.7%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 23,307 77.5% 59.8% 14.8%
Concord 30,637 75.6% 51.4% 12.8%
Pittsburg 13,509 72.9% 55.1% 14.7%
Richmond 23,403 63.4% 51.0% 18.9%
Walnut Creek 16,717 85.0% 39.1% 7.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 243,971 78.7% 50.8% 11.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-21
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – NON-HOMELESS
Certain groups may have more difficulty finding housing and may require specialized services
or assistance. Owing to their special circumstances, they are more likely to have extremely low,
very low, low, or moderate incomes. These groups include the elderly, frail elderly, persons
with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug
addiction, victims of domestic violence, large households, and single parent-headed (female
and male) households.
Elderly and Frail Elderly
The three jurisdictions with the largest share of senior households were Walnut Creek (36.1
percent), Orinda (31.9 percent), and El Cerrito (31.4 percent). Please see Table 15.
Of all jurisdictions in the County, both San Pablo (52.6 percent) and Pittsburg (50.7 percent) had
over half of their senior population reporting a disability, compared to the total County with
39.6 percent of the senior population reporting a disability.
Seniors are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the increase in evictions in
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted during foreclosure. Seniors are more likely to be on fixed
incomes and fall into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that
they can afford.7
7 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-22
TABLE 15
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction % Senior
Population
% Senior
Households
% Renter
Households
% Owner
Households
% With a
Disability*
Urban County
Brentwood 9.6% 19.4% 9.2% 90.8% 34.9%
Clayton 9.1% 16.2 % 1.6% 98.4% 34.1%
Danville 10.3% 17.6% 11.5% 88.5% 37.8%
El Cerrito 20.7% 31.4% 16.5% 83.5% 38.0%
Hercules 6.8% 8.8% 18.0% 82.0% 39.3%
Lafayette 14.0% 21.5% 11.8% 88.2% 25.4%
Martinez 10.2% 16.3% 23.9% 76.1% 42.0%
Moraga 15.2% 27.8% 8.2% 91.8% 28.4%
Oakley 5.8% 12.0% 18.8% 81.2% 45.8%
Orinda 18.4% 31.9% 8.7% 91.3% 22.3%
Pinole 14.1% 22.6% 20.7% 79.3% 44.1%
Pleasant Hill 13.1% 20.3% 31.3% 68.7% 42.7%
San Pablo 8.9% 16.8% 36.3% 63.7% 52.6%
San Ramon 6.2% 9.3% 22.0% 78.0% 35.0%
Unincorporated
County 10.9% 19.1% 16.8% 83.2% 37.5%
Urban County Total 11.1% 21.2% 19.5% 80.5% 37.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 7.3% 13.8% 26.0% 74.0% 44.0%
Concord 10.8% 17.6% 21.5% 78.5% 41.9%
Pittsburg 8.3% 15.9% 25.5% 74.5% 50.7%
Richmond 9.6% 18.0% 22.6% 77.4% 47.2%
Walnut Creek 25.0% 36.1% 15.1% 84.9% 37.0%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 11.3% 19.5% 18.9% 81.1% 39.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8, P11, P41 and H14
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-23
Persons with Disabilities
Table 16 presents data from the 2000 Census for persons with disabilities in the state, in the
Urban County (all non-entitlement jurisdictions), and in the entitlement jurisdictions. Of the
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, San Pablo (25.5 percent) had the greatest share of the
persons with a disability for all persons over 5 years of age, followed by Richmond (21.6
percent). Moraga (9.7 percent) had the smallest share of persons with a disability, followed by
Lafayette (9.8 percent).
Of the disabled persons in the County, 24.1 percent reported an employment disability and 23.5
percent reported a physical disability. These percentages were consistent with the state and
most jurisdictions in the County.
Disabled persons are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the increase in
evictions during 2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon.
There is little legal recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Disabled
persons find it more difficult to find housing that can accommodate their needs than
nondisabled persons and are more likely to fall into a low-income category, making it more
difficult to find new housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.8
8 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010 2-24 TABLE 16 DISABILITY STATUS AND TYPES Jurisdiction Number of Disabled Persons % of Persons Disabled % of Disabled Population –Sensory* % of Disabled Population –Physical* % of Disabled Population –Mental* % of Disabled Population –Self-care* % of Disabled Population –Go-outside-home* % of Disabled Population –Employment Disability* State of California 5,923,361 19.2% 9.3% 21.0% 13.3% 7.2% 23.0% 26.2% Urban County Brentwood 3,232 15.4% 9.5% 24.6% 13.6% 6.5% 21.1% 24.6% Clayton 1,128 11.2% 10.7% 21.4% 13.0% 4.7% 23.8% 26.5% Danville 4,330 11.1% 10.7% 22.6% 16.5% 8.7% 19.5% 22.1% El Cerrito 3,746 16.9% 12.3% 25.0% 14.7% 9.8% 21.7% 16.4% Hercules 2,595 14.3% 9.0% 20.5% 11.9% 6.7% 20.4% 31.5% Lafayette 2,167 9.8% 15.0% 25.2% 16.0% 6.3% 15.8% 21.7% Martinez 5,322 16.2% 10.1% 28.1% 15.8% 6.6% 16.1% 23.2% Moraga 1,540 9.7% 12.3% 26.9% 14.5% 7.7% 21.1% 17.5% Oakley 3,604 15.4% 8.5% 25.7% 16.2% 7.8% 18.4% 23.4% Orinda 1,881 11.4% 11.9% 23.4% 15.1% 7.3% 21.1% 21.2% Pinole 3,255 17.7% 11.7% 26.6% 14.7% 8.1% 21.5% 17.4% Pleasant Hill 4,486 14.7% 11.5% 25.2% 13.7% 7.5% 20.0% 22.1% San Pablo 6,915 25.5% 8.5% 17.6% 12.3% 7.0% 26.2% 28.4% San Ramon 4,135 10.0% 9.9% 23.0% 13.0% 7.2% 20.3% 26.6% Unincorporated County 23,268 16.6% 10.2% 23.1% 14.2% 7.4% 21.0% 24.1% Urban County Total 71,604 15.0% 10.4% 23.5% 14.3% 7.4% 20.8% 23.6% Entitlement Jurisdictions Antioch 13,488 16.3% 9.2% 24.6% 15.7% 6.8% 18.7% 25.0% Concord 21,184 18.9% 9.6% 23.2% 13.1% 7.2% 20.5% 26.4% Pittsburg 10,981 21.1% 7.5% 21.3% 12.5% 8.1% 22.6% 28.0% Richmond 19,666 21.6% 8.8% 22.0% 14.0% 7.9% 21.9% 25.4% Walnut Creek 10,649 17.4% 14.6% 27.3% 15.2% 8.5% 19.9% 14.5% Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 147,572 16.8% 10.0% 23.5% 14.1% 7.5% 20.8% 24.1% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P41 and P42 *People may have reported more than one disability, resulting in numbers over 100 percent in this column.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-25
Large Households
Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons who are related.
Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is a limited supply
of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs.
Table 17 provides data for large households for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The
jurisdictions with the greatest share of large households (households with five or more persons)
were San Pablo (24.7 percent), Pittsburg (19.9 percent), and Oakley (19.2 percent). Walnut Creek
had the smallest share of large households (4.4 percent). As shown in Table 17, of all the
housing units countywide with three or more bedrooms, 77.3 percent were owner-occupied
housing units and 24.4 percent were renter-occupied housing units.
The supply of housing units with three or more bedrooms available for ownership and rental is
in excess of the number of large owner and rental households (please see table below). This
suggests that there is not a numerical shortage of available housing units to meet the needs of
large households. However, lower-income large households may be priced out of the larger
housing units.
Some service providers noted that there has been growth in large households as households
have been adversely financially impacted by job loss and reduction in work hours. Increasingly,
multigenerational family members are living together as large households to reduce housing
costs.9
Large households are also among several groups impacted by the increase in evictions during
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Large households find it more
difficult to find housing that can accommodate their household size and are more likely to fall
into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that meets their needs
and that they can afford.10
9 SHELTER, Inc., September 17, 2009.
10 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-26
TABLE 17
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Large
Households
% Large
Households
% of Total
Owner-
Occupied
Households
%of Total
Renter-
Occupied
Households
% of Total
Owner
Housing Units
w/3+
Bedrooms
% of Total
Renter
Housing Units
w/3+
Bedrooms
Urban County
Brentwood 1,368 17.1% 13.4% 3.7% 72.6% 34.0%
Clayton 403 9.7% 9.3% 0.4% 90.2% 72.4%
Danville 1,567 10.3% 9.3% 1.0% 91.1% 48.4%
El Cerrito 553 5.5% 4.2% 1.3% 69.1% 16.4%
Hercules 1,117 16.9% 14.0% 2.8% 70.5% 44.0%
Lafayette 729 7.9% 7.3% 0.6% 91.4% 22.4%
Martinez 1,123 7.1% 5.6% 1.5% 81.1% 21.6%
Moraga 465 8.5% 7.7% 0.8% 85.3% 33.5%
Oakley 1,552 19.2% 15.6% 3.6% 87.0% 51.5%
Orinda 522 8.4% 7.4% 1.0% 91.0% 43.0%
Pinole 868 12.2% 8.9% 3.3% 85.7% 28.2%
Pleasant Hill 851 6.3% 4.9% 1.4% 82.5% 21.3%
San Pablo 2,259 24.7% 12.4% 12.3% 42.4% 13.6%
San Ramon 1,480 8.6% 7.0% 1.7% 87.6% 22.8%
Unincorporated
County 6,725 12.3% 8.7% 3.5% 75.4% 26.7%
Urban County Total 43,359 11.3% 8.5% 2.8% 80.3% 25.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 5,173 17.6% 13.0% 4.6% 88.0% 30.8%
Concord 5,580 12.7% 6.8% 5.9% 78.0% 26.4%
Pittsburg 3,533 19.9% 12.5% 7.4% 79.7% 27.7%
Richmond 5,488 15.8% 7.8% 8.0% 60.9% 19.8%
Walnut Creek 1,330 4.4% 3.3% 1.1% 58.3% 15.5%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
42,355 12.3% 8.4% 3.9% 77.3% 24.4%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H16 and H42
* Numbers in this table do not include persons in group quarters.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-27
Single-Parent Households
Nearly three-quarters of single-parent households in the state are headed by a female. As
shown in Table 18, the share of female-headed households is much larger than the share of
male-headed single-parent households for all jurisdictions in the County.
The share of female-headed households at or below the poverty level is also much greater than
male-headed households at or below the poverty level.11 The share of single-parent households
at or below the poverty level in the state (29.0 percent) is much higher than in the jurisdictions
in the Urban County and the entitlement jurisdictions.
TABLE 18
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Total Percentage
in Poverty
Female-
headed
% Female-
headed in
Poverty
Male-
headed
% Male-
headed in
Poverty
Antioch 5,250 17.7% 3,712 20.9% 1,538 9.9%
Concord 7,476 11.4% 5,305 13.9% 2,171 5.3%
Pittsburg 3,656 18.6% 2,626 21.3% 1,030 11.7%
Richmond 8,575 23.0% 6,674 24.8% 1,901 16.6%
Walnut Creek 2,508 6.8% 1,942 7.7% 566 2.9%
Urban County 51,891 14.8% 37,740 16.8% 14,151 9.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 43,682 14.5% 32,054 16.6% 11,628 8.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P12, P89
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Like most other jurisdictions throughout the state, the most significant trend in the Contra
Costa County housing market has been the decrease in single-family home sales prices and the
corresponding decrease in the value of single-family housing. Combined with an environment
of historically low interest rates, this has reduced the gap between the cost to buy a home and
the price which households at the lower end of the range of incomes can afford. Although this
“affordability gap” has been reduced when it comes to home purchase, the combination of
instability in the job market, stagnating real wages, and the general tightening of credit has not
necessarily made home purchase easier for lower income households.
The rental market has seen continued low vacancy rates and rents have been stable and
trending upward.
11 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau based on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-28
The following discussion identifies housing characteristics, trends, and needs for County
jurisdictions.
Housing Growth
Between 2000 and 2009 the number of housing units in the state increased 10.78 percent.
Table 19 displays housing growth in all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. Of all the
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Brentwood had the largest increase in housing units
(126.9 percent). Second to that was San Ramon with an increase of 43.1 percent. Of the
entitlement cities, Pittsburg had the largest increase with 13.9 percent.
Tenure
Housing tenure refers to whether a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied. Table 20
provides a summary of housing tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. As shown,
Clayton had the greatest share of owner-occupied households and San Pablo had the greatest
share of renter-occupied housing units. It is important to note that the level of single-family
foreclosures may have significantly shifted the owner/renter distribution.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-29
TABLE 19
HOUSING UNITS, 2000–2009
Jurisdiction 2000 Housing Units 2009 Housing Units Percentage Change
2000–2009
Urban County
Brentwood 7,788 17,671 126.9%
Clayton 3,924 4,006 2.1%
Danville 15,130 15,795 4.4%
El Cerrito 10,462 10,705 2.3%
Hercules 6,546 8,319 27.1%
Lafayette 9,334 9,511 1.9%
Martinez 14,597 14,972 2.6%
Moraga 5,760 5,791 0.5%
Oakley 7,946 10,987 38.3%
Orinda 6,744 6,849 1.6%
Pinole 6,828 7,032 3.0%
Pleasant Hill 14,034 14,505 3.4%
San Pablo 9,354 9,953 6.4%
San Ramon 17,552 25,113 43.1%
Unincorporated County 57,609 65,604 13.9%
Urban County Total 193,608 226,813 17.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 30,116 33,982 12.8%
Concord 45,084 46,638 3.4%
Pittsburg 18,300 20,848 13.9%
Richmond 36,044 38,433 6.6%
Walnut Creek 31,425 32,473 3.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 354,577 399,187 12.6%
Source: Department of Finance, 2000 and 2009 E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-30
TABLE 20
HOUSING TENURE
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Urban County
Brentwood 80.7% 19.3%
Clayton 94.1% 5.9%
Danville 89.4% 10.6%
El Cerrito 60.9% 39.1%
Hercules 84.2% 15.8%
Lafayette 75.8% 24.2%
Martinez 69.0% 31.0%
Moraga 84.5% 15.5%
Oakley 85.0% 15.0%
Orinda 91.6% 8.4%
Pinole 74.5% 25.5%
Pleasant Hill 63.7% 36.3%
San Pablo 49.8% 50.2%
San Ramon 71.1% 28.9%
Unincorporated County 73.5% 26.5%
Urban County Total 70.4% 29.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 70.9% 29.1%
Concord 62.6% 37.4%
Pittsburg 62.8% 37.2%
Richmond 53.4% 46.6%
Walnut Creek 68.1% 31.9%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 69.3% 30.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H7
Housing Type
Table 21 exhibits the percentage of housing units as a share of total housing units by the
number of units in the structure and tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County,
separating out the Urban County jurisdictions and entitlement jurisdictions. Demand for
owner-occupied housing is primarily met through the supply of single-family housing, while
renter-occupied housing demand is primarily met through a combination of single-family
housing and multi-family units.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010 2-31 TABLE 21 TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Single-family Units Multi-family (2–4 units) Multi-family (>5 units) Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, etc. Single-family Units Multi-family (2–4 units) Multi-family (>5 units) Mobile Homes Boat, RV, Van, etc. Urban County Brentwood 96.8% 0.4% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0% 52.4% 14.7% 29.6% 3.0% 0.4% Clayton 99.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 91.5% 2.7% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% Danville 98.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.8% 6.5% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0% El Cerrito 97.7% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 38.7% 29.4% 31.9% 0.0% 0.0% Hercules 94.2% 1.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.1% 13.5% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% Lafayette 99.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.5% 12.8% 44.7% 0.0% 0.0% Martinez 97.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 47.6% 17.0% 35.4% 0.0% 0.0% Moraga 97.2% 1.2% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 40.3% 15.6% 44.2% 0.0% 0.0% Oakley 98.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 84.4% 6.7% 2.7% 5.9% 0.2% Orinda 99.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 68.3% 9.0% 21.3% 1.5% 0.0% Pinole 98.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 43.6% 18.5% 37.7% 0.0% 0.2% Pleasant Hill 97.3% 0.4% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 34.6% 12.6% 52.5% 0.2% 0.0% San Pablo 83.6% 5.4% 4.7% 6.0% 0.2% 41.6% 22.3% 33.9% 2.1% 0.1% San Ramon 96.6% 0.9% 2.3% 0.2% 0.0% 36.6% 13.1% 50.3% 0.0% 0.0% Unincorporated County 93.7% 0.8% 0.9% 4.5% 0.2% 56.5% 11.3% 28.6% 3.4% 0.2% Urban County Total 96.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.8% 0.1% 49.7% 14.9% 33.6% 1.7% 0.1% Entitlement Jurisdictions Antioch 98.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 50.0% 17.0% 32.8% 0.1% 0.0% Concord 91.0% 2.3% 3.8% 2.9% 0.1% 35.5% 12.8% 51.0% 0.7% 0.1% Pittsburg 96.1% 0.6% 0.3% 3.0% 0.0% 48.8% 17.8% 32.6% 0.8% 0.0% Richmond 95.2% 3.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% 40.5% 27.6% 31.7% 0.0% 0.0% Walnut Creek 79.9% 7.0% 12.9% 0.1% 0.0% 29.6% 16.2% 54.1% 0.1% 0.0% Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 94.5% 1.6% 2.2% 1.6% 0.1% 44.3% 17.2% 37.5% 0.9% 0.1% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H33 Due to rounding, total percentages of renter and owner housing types for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-32
Vacancy Rate
Vacancy trends in housing are analyzed using a “vacancy rate” which establishes the
relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is
greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate is low and the price of housing will
most likely increase. Additionally, the vacancy rate indicates whether or not the community has
an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility. HUD standards indicate that a
vacancy rate of 5 percent is sufficient to provide choice and mobility.
Table 22 provides the total number of vacant housing units as well as the percentage of vacant
housing units in 2009 for all of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, separating out the
Urban County jurisdictions and the entitlement jurisdictions. Please note the state Department
of Finance (DOF) estimate is for all housing unit types and does not exclude seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use and all other vacant units. The DOF also does not provide
vacancy by tenure. To provide vacancy by reason for vacancy, 2000 Census data was used (see
Table 23).
Overall, the 2009 data (Table 22) indicate that the County has a very low vacancy rate. Several
communities in the Urban County have vacancy rates below 5 percent, which is extremely low.
Historical data from the 2000 Census (Table 26) indicate that in several communities
(Brentwood, Clayton, and Moraga) the share of vacant units that are for rent is well below the
overall County share (30.5%). These communities also have a very low share of renter-occupied
units. The data suggest that renters might be challenged to find affordable housing in these
communities.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-33
TABLE 22
VACANCY STATUS, 2009
Jurisdiction Total Vacant Housing Units % of Total Housing Units Vacant
Urban County
Brentwood 649 3.67%
Clayton 41 1.02%
Danville 328 2.08%
El Cerrito 259 2.42%
Hercules 156 1.88%
Lafayette 185 1.95%
Martinez 304 2.03%
Moraga 98 1.69%
Oakley 322 2.93%
Orinda 149 2.18%
Pinole 86 1.22%
Pleasant Hill 291 2.01%
San Pablo 308 3.09%
San Ramon 868 3.46%
Unincorporated County 2,711 4.13%
Urban County Total 6,755 2.98%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 878 2.58%
Concord 1,098 2.35%
Pittsburg 634 3.04%
Richmond 1,514 3.94%
Walnut Creek 1,161 3.58%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 12,040 3.02%
Source: Department of Finance, 2009 E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-34
TABLE 23
VACANCY STATUS, 2000
Jurisdiction
Total
Vacant
Housing
Units
% of Total
Housing
Units
Vacant
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for Rent
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for Sale
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are
Rented/
Sold, Not
Occupied
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are Vacant
for Other
Reasons
Urban County
Brentwood 239 3.2% 4.2% 30.5% 31.8% 33.5%
Clayton 46 1.2% 2.3% 26.1% 56.5% 13.0%
Danville 309 2.1% 15.9% 29.4% 23.6% 31.1%
El Cerrito 260 2.5% 23.1% 35.8% 28.8% 12.3%
Hercules 124 1.9% 14.5% 77.4% 0.8% 7.3%
Lafayette 183 2.0% 29.5% 35.0% 12.0% 23.5%
Martinez 278 1.9% 34.5% 30.2% 8.3% 27.0%
Moraga 105 1.8% 4.8% 21.0% 31.4% 42.9%
Oakley 128 1.6% 15.6% 62.5% 0.0% 21.9%
Orinda 155 2.3% 11.0% 20.6% 18.7% 49.7%
Pinole 78 1.1% 38.5% 48.7% 3.8% 9.0%
Pleasant Hill 274 2.0% 29.9% 17.2% 13.1% 39.8%
San Pablo 282 3.1% 29.4% 20.6% 14.2% 35.8%
San Ramon 620 3.7% 38.2% 9.5% 20.8% 31.5%
Unincorporated County 2,376 4.3% 17.5% 18.0% 15.7% 48.8%
Urban County Total 5,457 1.3% 21.6% 23.4% 17.2% 37.8%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 800 2.7% 41.6% 38.8% 3.5% 16.1%
Concord 1,018 2.3% 44.2% 21.7% 8.2% 25.9%
Pittsburg 587 3.2% 46.5% 21.0% 17.4% 15.2%
Richmond 1,446 4.0% 43.8% 23.8% 11.6% 20.8%
Walnut Creek 1,140 3.6% 27.5% 23.3% 15.7% 33.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 10,448 3.0% 30.5% 24.3% 14.4% 30.9%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H8
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-35
Age of Housing Stock
Table 24 displays the share of housing units constructed by age and tenure for the state and for
all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. With the exception of El Cerrito, Lafayette and Orinda
most housing in each jurisdiction was built after 1960.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010 2-36 TABLE 24 AGE OF HOUSING BY TENURE Jurisdiction 1939 or earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1994 1995 to March 2000 Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner State of California 9.5% 4.6% 4.9% 23.5% 9.6% 13.9% 37.2% 17.5% 19.7% 24.1% 9.7% 14.4% 5.7% 1.6% 4.1% Urban County Brentwood 1.8% 1.0% 0.8% 6.9% 2.9% 4.0% 15.2% 4.7% 10.4% 29.2% 4.7% 24.5% 47.0% 6.0% 41.0% Clayton 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 42.7% 2.0% 40.7% 29.7% 2.4% 27.3% 22.8% 0.7% 22.1% Danville 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 10.0% 0.9% 9.1% 44.4% 4.5% 39.9% 32.3% 4.0% 28.3% 12.9% 1.1% 11.8% El Cerrito 12.9% 3.4% 9.5% 52.6% 15.3% 37.3% 25.4% 15.2% 10.3% 7.9% 4.7% 3.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.6% Hercules 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 24.6% 4.1% 20.6% 70.2% 9.6% 60.6% 3.8% 1.6% 2.2% Lafayette 4.7% 1.2% 3.5% 47.6% 8.7% 38.8% 37.6% 11.9% 25.7% 8.4% 1.9% 6.5% 1.7% 0.5% 1.2% Martinez 10.5% 5.3% 5.2% 16.7% 6.0% 10.7% 38.1% 10.4% 27.6% 31.5% 9.0% 22.5% 3.3% 0.3% 3.0% Moraga 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 8.0% 1.7% 6.3% 74.7% 12.1% 62.6% 16.3% 1.5% 14.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% Oakley 2.6% 0.8% 1.7% 6.1% 1.9% 4.3% 15.7% 4.2% 11.4% 60.6% 5.8% 54.8% 15.0% 2.2% 12.8% Orinda 7.9% 0.6% 7.3% 48.0% 2.3% 45.7% 31.5% 2.4% 29.1% 10.0% 2.1% 7.9% 2.5% 0.9% 1.6% Pinole 3.8% 1.4% 2.4% 18.8% 3.5% 15.3% 48.9% 12.6% 36.3% 27.0% 7.9% 19.1% 1.6% 0.1% 1.4% Pleasant Hill 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 32.8% 5.3% 27.5% 34.6% 17.4% 17.2% 28.1% 11.3% 16.8% 3.1% 1.4% 1.7% San Pablo 4.8% 1.8% 2.9% 33.5% 14.3% 19.2% 36.3% 23.3% 13.0% 22.2% 8.6% 13.6% 3.3% 2.2% 1.1% San Ramon 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 37.0% 6.2% 30.8% 47.2% 18.6% 28.6% 14.8% 3.7% 11.1% Unincorporated County 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 27.5% 6.5% 21.0% 29.8% 8.3% 21.5% 29.1% 7.8% 21.3% 5.8% 1.3% 4.5% Urban County 3.9% 1.4% 2.5% 20.6% 4.7% 15.8% 35.8% 9.8% 26.0% 30.6% 7.7% 22.9% 9.1% 1.6% 7.4% Entitlement Jurisdictions Antioch 2.9% 1.4% 1.5% 14.3% 5.6% 8.7% 30.9% 11.1% 19.8% 38.0% 9.8% 28.2% 13.9% 1.3% 12.6% Concord 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 25.7% 7.3% 18.3% 54.9% 21.1% 33.8% 16.3% 7.9% 8.5% 1.6% 0.4% 1.2% Pittsburg 3.6% 1.6% 2.0% 17.7% 7.2% 10.4% 37.6% 11.2% 26.3% 34.0% 14.3% 19.6% 7.2% 2.8% 4.5% Richmond 10.7% 3.8% 7.0% 37.8% 14.7% 23.1% 28.6% 16.3% 12.3% 20.0% 10.7% 9.3% 2.9% 1.2% 1.7% Walnut Creek 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 15.0% 4.9% 10.1% 62.1% 18.9% 43.2% 19.1% 6.9% 12.2% 2.1% 0.5% 1.6% Contra Costa County (countywide) 4.6% 1.7% 2.9% 22.9% 6.6% 16.3% 38.6% 12.7% 25.9% 27.3% 8.5% 18.8% 6.7% 1.3% 5.4% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H36
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-37
Housing Cost
Table 25 provides a summary of home sales prices for all jurisdictions. The County has
experienced a sharp decrease in the median sales price for homes with the exception of
Hercules, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill, which have all seen a year-to-year increase in median
sales price. It is important to note that as a measure of central tendency median sales price is
sensitive to sales volume in market sub-sectors as much as it is to overall price trends. An
increase in the volume of sales of higher priced homes relative to overall sales volume can lead
to an increase in median sales price even though overall prices remain low.
As shown, as of February 2010, San Pablo had the lowest median sales price ($152,344) and
Orinda the highest ($829,500). San Ramon, San Pablo, and Brentwood experienced the sharpest
declines in the median sales price of homes from November 2008 to November 2009.
In December 2009, a survey of local Contra Costa newspapers and online rental listings was
conducted for both single-family homes and multi-family units for all jurisdictions in the
County. The results are presented in Table 26. According to the results of the survey, average
rental rates in San Ramon are the most expensive at $1,662, followed by Lafayette at $1,533 and
Walnut Creek at $1,518. These cities are the most expensive for all unit sizes and housing types.
The most expensive rents occur in the central portion of Contra Costa County, with the least
expensive in the east. The west has considerably lower rents than the central part of the County.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes annual Fair Market Rents
(FMR), which include an estimated utility cost, and the annual income required to afford them.
Table 27 shows the Fair Market Rents for 2009 for Contra Costa County.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-38
TABLE 25
MEDIAN HOME SALE LISTINGS
Jurisdiction Three Month Median Sales Price
(Sep – Nov 2009)
Year-to-Year Change
(Nov 2008 – Nov 2009) Number of Homes
for Sale (Jan 2010)
Dollars Percentage
Urban County
Brentwood $290,000 $-50,000 -14.7% 189
Clayton 525,000 -72,500 -12.1% 26
Danville 807,500 -30,000 -3.6% 195
El Cerrito 539,500 -28,500 -5.0% 21
Hercules 325,000 -25,000 8.3% 54
Lafayette 805,000 -55,000 -6.4% 76
Martinez 333,000 5,750 1.8% 90
Moraga 810,000 -40,000 -4.7% 34
Oakley 232,850 -17,100 -6.8% 119
Orinda 829,500 -109,500 -11.7% 49
Pinole 267,354 -27,646 -9.4% 32
Pleasant Hill 439,500 -30,500 7.5% 54
San Pablo 152,344 -27,360 -15.2% 45
San Ramon 559,500 -155,500 -21.7% 169
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 199,000 -18,150 -8.4% 208
Concord 246,000 -9,000 -3.5% 173
Pittsburg 180,000 -15,000 -7.7% 112
Richmond 157,000 -17,500 -10.0% 177
Walnut Creek 447,500 -64,500 -12.6% 202
Source: Trulia.com, February 2010
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-39
TABLE 26
MEDIAN RENTAL LISTINGS
Place/Community
Type: Bedroom (BR)/Bath (BA) Overall
Average Rent Studio 1BR/1 BA 2 BR/1 BA 2 BR/1+ BA 3 BR/1+ BA
East
Antioch $762 $750 $1,178 $1,167 $1,512 $1,074
Bay Point $595 $650 $1,183 $1,391 $1,400 $1,045
Pittsburg $762 $750 $941 $1,039 $1,512 $1,001
Central
Concord none $875 $1,073 $1,369 $1,725 $1,261
Lafayette $950 $1,359 $1,303 $2,034 $2,020 $1,533
Martinez $723 $1,137 $1,204 $1,512 $1,860 $1,287
Pleasant Hill $989 $1,202 $1,236 $1,478 $2,004 $1,382
San Ramon $1,448 $1,908 $1,307 $1,728 $1,921 $1,662
Walnut Creek $1,122 $1,075 $1090 $1,578 $2,725 $1,518
West
El Cerrito $756 $1,217 $1,260 $1,515 $1,387 $1,227
El Sobrante $1,256 $1,247 $1,264 $1,639 $1,406 $1,362
Pinole $800 $944 $1,082 $1,793 $1,610 $1,246
Richmond $985 $888 $1,026 $1,510 $2,450 $1,372
San Pablo $870 $899 $1,247 $1,908 $1,751 $1,335
Countywide
Average $952 $1,096 $1,170 $1,559 $1,837 $1,323
Source: PMC Rental Survey, December 2009
TABLE 27
FAIR MARKET RENTS, 2009
Unit Size FMR Annual Income to Afford
Studio $905 $36,200
1-bedroom $1,093 $43,720
2-bedroom $1,295 $51,800
3-bedroom $1,756 $70,240
4-bedroom $2,174 $86,960
Source: U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, 2009 FMR; 2009 “Out of Reach” Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-40
Housing Affordability by Tenure and Household Type
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of U.S.
Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the “CHAS”
tables obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System” (SOCDS). These data are
presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing problems” by households and the other
presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing units. Tables 28 and 29 provide a summary,
and the full tables can be found in Appendix 4. The needs of renter and owner households are
examined separately.12
The CHAS housing problems table presents the number of households paying more than 30
percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type, and income
category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to as the housing “cost
burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost burden over 30 percent has
a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over 50 percent have a “severe” cost
burden.
Overpayment is a concern for low-income households since they may be forced to live in
overcrowded situations or cut other necessary expenditures, such as health care, in order to
afford housing. The HUD definition of housing cost includes not only monthly rent and
mortgage payments but an estimate of utilities.
Renter Households
Household Type
Overall, approximately 40 percent of renter households in the County have a high cost burden.
Less than 18 percent have a severe cost burden. This is roughly consistent in all jurisdictions
with the exception of Walnut Creek which has 34 percent of renter households with high cost
burdens.
Elderly one- and two-person renter households tend to experience a higher degree of high cost
burden (58 percent) and severe cost burden (32 percent) countywide. Antioch is alone with a
significantly higher number experiencing severe cost burden (41 percent). Both Pittsburg and
Richmond have a lower number experiencing severe cost burden (21 percent and 24 percent,
respectively).
Large renter households (five or more persons) experience cost burdens at roughly the same
rate as all renter households as do small related (two to four persons) and the balance of renter
households.
12 Data tables are provided in Appendix 4 for the State of California, Contra Costa County, the Urban County area,
and the five entitlement communities. Because of the nature of the Consortium, data tables were acquired according
to the CDBG geography. Although this best approximates the jurisdictional boundaries within the Consortium, it
does introduce a significant level of rounding in the data. Please see
http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-41
Income Groups
Low-income renter households (>50 to ≤80 percent area median income [AMI]) experience a
high cost burden at close to the same rate (44 percent) as do all renter households countywide.
The severe cost burden is significantly lower (6 percent). Very low-income (>30 percent to ≤50
percent AMI) and extremely low-income renter households (≤30 percent AMI) experience cost
burdens much higher than all renters (71 percent and 76 percent, respectively). The rate of
severe cost burden for the very low-income population (25 percent) is slightly higher than all
renters. The extremely low-income population has a rate of severe cost burden (58 percent)
more than three times that of all renters. The rate of high cost burden for renter households with
incomes above low income (>80 percent AMI) is 9 percent.
The Urban County and Concord have cost burden rates among the income groups very similar
to the County as a whole. Notable exceptions are a higher rate of severe cost burden for low-
income households in the Urban County (9 percent); a lower rate of severe cost burden for low-
income households in Concord (3 percent); and a higher rate of high cost burden for very low-
income households in Concord (78 percent).
Antioch is similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high cost
burden for low-income (32 percent) and lower rates of severe cost burden for very low-income
households (17 percent). Antioch also has a generally lower cost burden for households with
incomes above low income (4.6 percent).
Much like its neighbor Antioch, Pittsburg is more affordable for lower-income households than
the County as a whole, with 2.8 percent of low-income households experiencing a severe cost
burden (43 percent high cost burden) and virtually no above low-income renter households
experiencing a significant cost burden.
Richmond has much lower rates of cost burden for lower-income renter households across all
income categories: 54 percent high and 13 percent severe for very low-income; 33 percent high
and 2 percent severe for low-income. Cost burden rates for the extremely low-income are
comparable to the County as a whole.
Although the cost burden for extremely low-income households is consistently high across the
County as a whole, Walnut Creek stands out with a rate of 68 percent. It is similarly higher for
cost burden rates of very low-income (85 percent high, 53 percent severe), low-income (60
percent and 10 percent), and above low-income (12 percent high) households.
Owner Households
Household Type
Approximately one-third (29 percent) of owner households in the County have a high cost
burden. Approximately 10 percent have a severe cost burden. This is consistent across all
jurisdictions.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-42
Elderly one- and two-person owner households tend to experience a slightly higher degree of
severe cost burden (12 percent) countywide, although this rate is the same as the rate of all
households. The rate of high cost burden is 26 percent.
Large owner households (five or more persons) experience a cost burden at roughly the same
rate as all owner households as do small related (two to four persons). Antioch, and Walnut
Creek have lower rates of severe cost burden for large owner households (5.5 and 3.5 percent,
respectively) than other jurisdictions. Pittsburg is notable for its higher rate of severe cost
burden for owner households (12.9 percent).
Income Groups
Low-income owner households (>50 to ≤80 percent AMI) experience a high cost burden at a
higher rate (52 percent) than do all households countywide (29 percent). The severe cost burden
is nearly twice as high for low-income owners (19 percent) as for all owners (10 percent). Very
low-income owners (>30 percent to ≤50 percent AMI) experience high and severe cost burdens
much higher than the general population (59 percent and 36 percent). Extremely low-income
households (≤30 percent AMI) are even more cost burdened (72 percent high, 56 percent
severe). The rate of cost burden for owner households with incomes above low income (>80
percent AMI) is lower than the overall population (20 percent high, 3 percent severe).
The Urban County area has cost burden rates by income roughly the same as the County as a
whole.
Antioch has among the highest overall cost burden rates for lower-income owner households,
with 58 percent of low-income homeowners experiencing a high cost burden and 14 percent
severe. Very low-income homeowners in Antioch have a 66 percent high cost burden rate and a
43 percent severe rate. Extremely low-income owner households in Antioch have rates similar
to the County as a whole.
Concord has a pattern similar to the County as a whole with the exception of low-income
households having a lower rate of severe cost burden (15 percent).
Pittsburg has a pattern similar to Concord. It also has a lower rate of cost burden for above low-
income households (16 percent high, 1 percent severe).
Richmond has a generally lower rate of cost burden for low-income owner households (46
percent high, 12 percent severe). It is otherwise similar to the County as a whole.
Walnut Creek is also similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high
cost burden for low-income owners (39 percent).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010 2-43 TABLE 28 COST BURDEN SUMMARY, RENTERS Jurisdiction All Renters Elderly Large Above low-income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-income High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe Antioch 43.8% 20.4% 58.6% 40.6% 41.9% 19.0% 4.6% 0.4% 31.5% 5.5% 72.8% 17.0% 77.4% 58.0% Concord 39.8% 16.4% 61.2% 30.8% 33.4% 14.7% 5.6% 0.1% 43.6% 3.0% 78.2% 22.2% 78.0% 62.4% Pittsburg 41.5% 18.5% 53.2% 21.4% 32.2% 15.3% 3.2% 0.0% 42.8% 2.8% 73.4% 22.2% 72.3% 54.6% Richmond 40.6% 19.3% 52.3% 24.2% 40.3% 18.0% 6.2% 0.2% 33.2% 1.9% 53.8% 13.0% 77.4% 55.2% Walnut Creek 33.8% 16.4% 56.2% 35.3% 34.5% 12.0% 11.8% 2.2% 59.8% 10.1% 85.2% 53.3% 76.9% 67.7% Urban County 36.0% 16.3% 58.5% 32.9% 32.9% 13.0% 10.7% 1.4% 46.6% 9.4% 72.7% 29.0% 74.1% 56.7% Countywide 38.4% 17.4% 57.5% 32.1% 35.6% 15.3% 9.1% 1.0% 43.5% 6.4% 70.9% 24.48% 75.7% 57.6% Source: 2000 CHAS data TABLE 29 COST BURDEN SUMMARY, OWNERS Jurisdiction All Owners Elderly Large Above low-income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-income High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe Antioch 29.3% 8.0% 28.3% 14.4% 28.5% 5.5% 19.7% 1.5% 57.8% 13.9% 65.6% 42.8% 67.3% 54.5% Concord 27.9% 8.8% 28.6% 13.9% 26.9% 6.1% 17.9% 1.6% 50.4% 15.2% 56.9% 35.0% 76.6% 57.4% Pittsburg 29.4% 11.0% 28.6% 12.6% 32.7% 12.9% 15.7% 1.0% 51.2% 14.7% 60.9% 36.8% 70.7% 60.9% Richmond 30.7% 11.3% 25.1% 13.6% 28.5% 7.0% 17.2% 2.2% 45.7% 11.2% 56.3% 27.9% 67.6% 51.4% Walnut Creek 26.2% 9.8% 26.5% 11.2% 26.6% 3.5% 17.0% 3.4% 38.7% 18.6% 63.9% 32.2% 76.3% 60.9% Urban County 28.1% 9.4% 23.9% 11.0% 30.0% 8.5% 21.0% 3.4% 54.7% 23.7% 57.1% 37.9% 71.7% 55.9% Countywide 28.6% 9.7% 25.9% 12.0% 29.7% 8.2% 19.8% 2.8% 51.9% 19.3% 58.8% 35.7% 71.7% 56.0% Source: 2000 CHAS data
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-44
Overcrowding
Table 30 illustrates the share of households by person per room for owners and renters
in the state and entitlement cities. Households with more than 1 person per room are
considered overcrowded. Households with more than 1.5 persons per room are
considered severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 30, renter-occupied households
have a higher incidence of overcrowding than owner-occupied households. In both
categories (owner and renter), Walnut Creek has the smallest share of overcrowded
households.
TABLE 30
PERSONS PER ROOM
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
<1.0 persons 1.01 to 1.5
persons >1.5 persons <1.0 persons 1.01 to 1.5
persons >1.5 persons
State of California 91.4% 4.3% 4.3% 76.1% 8.5% 15.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) 95.8% 2.5% 1.7% 85.3% 6.7% 8.0%
Antioch 96.1% 2.2% 1.8% 85.0% 9.3% 5.7%
Concord 96.0% 2.3% 1.7% 81.9% 7.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 89.9% 6.2% 3.9% 77.3% 9.8% 12.9%
Richmond 90.0% 5.6% 4.4% 78.7% 9.1% 12.1%
Walnut Creek 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 92.5% 3.7% 3.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H20
Note: Due to rounding errors, the total percentage for owner or renter occupied may not total 100.
Foreclosures
A foreclosure is a term used to describe the procedure followed in enforcing a creditor’s
rights when a debt secured by any lien on property is in default. According to
DataQuick, in Contra Costa County (countywide) there were 5,017 households with a
notice of default (first stage in the foreclosure process) in the second quarter of 2009, a
decrease of 0.6 percent over the same quarter in 2008. In the second quarter of 2009 there
were 2,048 homes lost to foreclosure, representing a decrease of 30.9 percent from the
same quarter in 2008.
The Contra Costa County Recorder keeps an inventory of notices of defaults, notices of
trustee sales, and trustee’s deed upon sale (see definitions of each below). Table 31
provides the number of homes with each status for the entire year. Please note that one
housing unit may be counted more than once per year.
Notice of Default: A written document that gives constructive notice of a
trustor’s failure to perform his/her obligation under a deed of trust. This
document must be recorded.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-45
Notice of Trustee’s Sale: A written document that sets forth the day, date, and
time of the trustee’s sale and describes the property to be sold. This document is
prepared by the trustee and must be recorded with the county recorder in the
county in which the property is located at least 14 days prior to the scheduled
sale date.
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale: A written document which is prepared and signed by
the trustee when the secured property is sold at a trustee’s sale. This document
transfers ownership to the successful bidder at the sale and must be recorded
with the county recorder in the county in which the property is located.
TABLE 31
FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY
Year Total Notices
of Defaults
Total Notices
of Trustee Sales
Total Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale
2009 18,323 14,623 8,360
2008 17,714 14,932 11,679
2007 11,837 6,666 4,189
2006 4,380 1,479 502
2005 2,519 777 131
2004 2,413 864 163
2003 2,713 1,020 205
2002 2,815 1,076 190
2001 2,351 881 209
2000 2,207 1,034 398
Source: Contra Costa County Recorder, 2009
One of the most significant increases in demand for a range of services has come as a
result of low-income tenants being evicted from their homes because the property owner
has been foreclosed upon. Most often the tenants are unaware that the foreclosure is
under way and find themselves without housing. Due to the costs of moving, security
deposit requirements, and the rent qualification process, they find it difficult or
impossible to find new housing, particularly if they have experienced a job loss and
have little or no income to qualify for a new rental and little in the way of savings.
Seniors, disabled persons, and large families are especially adversely impacted when
evicted. There is little legal recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of
foreclosures.13
13 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
Contra Costa Consortium February 2010
3-1
MORTGAGE LENDING (HMDA DATA)
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), enacted by Congress in 1975 and
implemented by the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation C, requires lending institutions
to report public loan data. Analyzing these data can reveal patterns of lending by race
and location that may indicate discriminatory practices in mortgage lending.
To prepare this analysis, 20,875 records of lender actions were pulled from all the lender
actions reported in the 2008 HMDA data set for Contra Costa County. These represent
actions taken by lenders in response to a request from a consumer for a new home loan
to purchase a primary residence.
Lender actions related to home improvement loans, re-financing, and to purchase
properties that will not be owner-occupied were excluded. Lender actions that did not
show a loan type were also excluded as were records of loan transactions between banks
and “pre-approval” requests.1
LENDING ACTION VOLUME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide a summary of the results of home loan applications by race
and ethnicity for Contra Costa County. As shown in Table 3-1, persons reporting White
make up more than 50 percent of loan applications in the County. As shown in Table
3-2, roughly 16 percent of loan applicants are for persons reporting ethnicity as Hispanic
or Latino.
1 Please see the note at the end of this section for a technical discussion of how the raw HMDA data was
filtered to create the data set analyzed.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-2
TABLE 3-1
LENDING ACTION BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Race Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
American Indian or
Alaskan Native 203 48 99 104
Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander 351 73 157 194
Black or African
American 1,087 260 505 582
Other or No Info
Provided 3,212 651 1,527 1,685
Asian 3,974 732 1,797 2,177
White 12,048 2,073 4,738 7,310
Total 20,875 3,837 8,823 12,052
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
TABLE 3-2
LENDING ACTION BY ETHNICITY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Race Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
Hispanic or Latino 3,409 897 1,686 1,723
Not Hispanic or Latino 14,619 2,370 5,802 8,817
Other or no info 2,847 570 1,328 1,512
Total 20,875 3,837 8,816 12,052
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide a visual comparison of the share of loan applications by race
in 2008 (Figure 3-1) to the share of the whole population by race in 2000 (Figure 3-2).
When compared to the general population of Contra Costa County (2000 U.S. Decennial
Census), the data set is roughly representational. Notable exceptions are that persons
reporting race as White and Black or African American are underrepresented as loan
applicants, while persons reporting race as Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Asian, and
Other are overrepresented as loan applicants.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-3
FIGURE 3-1
2008 LOAN APPLICATIONS BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FIGURE 3-2
2000 POPULATION BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
American Indian
or Alaskan
Native
1%
Asian
19%
Black or African
American
5%
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
2%
White
58%
Other or No Info
Provided
15%
American Indian
or Alaskan
Native
1%
Asian
11%
Black or African
American
9%
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
0%
White
66%
Other or No Info
Provided
13%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-4
LENDING ACTION RATES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
To reveal differences in lending action rates by race and ethnicity, histograms were
created to compare the rate of outcomes by race and ethnicity.2 The histograms are
scaled to be roughly equal in size so that differences in lending volume are minimized.
In the overall data set (Figure 3-3), approximately 1 in 5 of all applications are denied
and 42 percent “fail,” meaning that they do not result in a loan origination. Fifty-seven
percent of all applications do result in a loan origination.
FIGURE 3-3
ALL LOAN APPLICATIONS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
American Indian or Alaskan Native
For persons in the American Indian or Alaskan Native racial category, the origination
rate is slightly lower than the overall population and the failure rate is slightly higher.
The denial rate is nearly 1 in 4. Within this group, loan origination is more likely and
failure less likely. Forty-eight (48) percent of loan failures are due to denial.
As shown in Table 3-3, Antioch has the largest share of denied loan applications,
followed by the Urban County, Pittsburg, and Richmond.
2 It should be noted that the variable used to segregate the data by race and ethnicity was “Applicant Race
1” and “Applicant Ethnicity.” Co-applicant information and other races reported by the applicant were not
considered.
20,875
3,837
8,823
12,052
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (18.4%)Loan "failures"
(42.3%)
Originations
(57.7%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-5
FIGURE 3-4
LENDING ACTIONS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE
203
48
99 104
0
50
100
150
200
250
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (23.6%)Loan "failures"
(48.8%)
Originations
(51.2%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-6
TABLE 3-3
LENDING ACTION FOR AMERICAN INDIAN
OR ALASKAN NATIVE BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 53 16 33% 29 29% 24 23%
Concord 18 4 8% 6 6% 12 12%
Pittsburg 28 5 10% 10 10% 18 17%
Richmond 20 5 10% 12 12% 8 8%
Walnut Creek 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1%
Urban
County 64 14 29% 32 32% 32 31%
Other
Jurisdictions 19 4 8% 10 10% 9 9%
Total 203 48 100% 99 100% 104 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts
that share multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general
areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
For persons in the Hawaiian or Pacific Islander racial category, the origination rate is
slightly lower and the denial rate slightly higher than the overall population. The
combined loan failure rate is slightly higher than the aggregate. Given that those
reporting race as Hawaiian or Pacific Islander are overrepresented in the data, the
analysis could be misleading.
As shown in Table 3-4, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-7
FIGURE 3-5
LENDING ACTION BY HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
TABLE 3-4
LENDING ACTION FOR HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 62 12 16% 28 18% 34 18%
Concord 47 10 14% 25 16% 22 11%
Pittsburg 44 15 21% 29 18% 15 8%
Richmond 28 8 11% 13 8% 15 8%
Walnut
Creek 5 1 1% 3 2% 2 1%
Urban
County 134 22 30% 48 31% 86 44%
Other
Jurisdictions 31 5 7% 11 7% 20 10%
Total 351 73 100% 157 100% 194 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
351
73
157
194
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.8%)Loan "failures"
(44.7%)
Originations (55.3%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-8
Black or African American
For persons in the Black or African American racial category, the origination rate is
slightly lower than the overall population and the denial rate is higher. Lenders deny
approximately 1 in 4 loan applications. The overall failure rate is slightly higher than the
failure rate for the overall population. Nearly 52 percent of loan failures are due to
denial. Overall, it is more likely that a loan is originated for an applicant reporting race
as Black or African American.
As shown in Table 3-5, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Antioch, Pittsburg, and areas outside of the Consortium.
FIGURE 3-6
LENDING ACTION BY BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
1,087
260
505
582
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (23.9%)Loan "failures"
(46.5%)
Originations (53.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-9
TABLE 3-5
LENDING ACTION FOR BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 237 59 23% 108 21% 129 22%
Concord 33 4 2% 11 2% 22 4%
Pittsburg 149 36 14% 73 15% 76 13%
Richmond 93 20 8% 44 9% 49 8%
Walnut Creek 9 1 >1% 4 >1% 5 >1%
Urban County 445 112 43% 207 41% 238 41%
Other
Jurisdictions 121 28 11% 58 11% 63 11%
Total 1,087 260 100% 505 100% 582 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
Other or No Information
For persons in the Other or No Information racial category, the records that indicated a
race of “other” or where no race information was provided have slightly higher denial
rates than the overall population. Failure rates are higher and origination rates lower
than the overall population. Forty-three (43) percent of loan applications resulting in
failure are due to denial. Applicants reporting race as “other” or not providing race
information are more likely to originate a loan.
As shown in Table 3-6, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Antioch, areas outside of the Consortium, Richmond,
and Pittsburg.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-10
FIGURE 3-7
LENDING ACTION BY OTHER OR NO INFORMATION
TABLE 3-6
LENDING ACTION FOR OTHER OR NO INFORMATION BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 541 125 19% 252 17% 289 17%
Concord 342 60 9% 157 10% 185 11%
Pittsburg 255 71 11% 144 9% 111 7%
Richmond 369 88 14% 206 13% 163 10%
Walnut Creek 176 22 3% 66 4% 110 7%
Urban County 926 174 27% 439 29% 487 29%
Other
Jurisdictions 603 111 17% 263 17% 340 20%
Total 3,212 651 100% 1,527 100% 1,685 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
3,212
651
1,527 1,685
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.3%)Loan "failures"
(47.5%)
Originations
(52.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-11
Asian
For persons in the Asian racial category, the distribution of loan applications is similar to
the overall population. The same share of applications is denied, while slightly more fail
and slightly less originate. About 40 percent of loan failures are due to denial and it is
more likely that a loan request will originate than fail for persons reporting race as
Asian.
As shown in Table 3-7, the Urban County has the largest share of denied loan
applications, followed by Antioch and areas outside of the Consortium.
FIGURE 3-8
LENDING ACTION BY ASIAN
3,974
732
1,797 2,177
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (18.4%)Loan "failures"
(45.2%)
Originations (54.8%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-12
TABLE 3-7
LENDING ACTION FOR ASIAN BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 445 102 14% 203 11% 242 11%
Concord 269 55 8% 126 7% 143 7%
Pittsburg 188 43 6% 85 5% 103 5%
Richmond 344 68 9% 160 9% 184 8%
Walnut Creek 122 16 2% 53 3% 69 3%
Urban County 2,010 355 48% 926 51% 1,084 50%
Other
Jurisdictions 596 93 13% 244 14% 352 16%
Total 3,974 732 100% 1,797 100% 2,177 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts
that share multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general
areas of the County.
White
For persons in the White racial category, the origination rate is higher than the overall
population and higher than all other subgroups. Denials and failures are lower than the
aggregate and other subgroups. Of loan applications resulting in failure, 44 percent are
due to denial. It is more likely that a loan is originated for an applicant reporting race as
White.
As shown in Table 3-8, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial followed by Antioch, areas outside of the Consortium, Richmond,
and Concord.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-13
FIGURE 3-9
LENDING ACTION BY WHITE
TABLE 3-8
LENDING ACTION FOR WHITE BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 2,073 366 18% 795 17% 1,278 17%
Concord 1,266 210 10% 495 10% 771 11%
Pittsburg 902 195 9% 407 9% 495 7%
Richmond 1,306 268 13% 556 12% 750 10%
Walnut Creek 762 98 5% 273 6% 489 7%
Urban County 3,459 628 30% 1,396 29% 2,063 28%
Other
Jurisdictions 2,280 308 15% 816 17% 1,464 20%
Total 12,048 2,073 100% 4,738 100% 7,310 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
12,048
2,073
4,738
7,310
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (17.2%)Loan "failures"
(39.2%)
Originations
(60.7%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-14
Hispanic
When the data is grouped by applicants that responded as Hispanic, Not Hispanic, and
No information provided for Hispanic ethnicity, we find that denial, failure, and
origination rates vary from the aggregate. Applicants who reported Hispanic or who did
not provide a response showed a greater share of denials and failures and a smaller
share of approvals when compared to the aggregate.
Applicants reporting ethnicity as Hispanic have the greatest share of denied loans
amongst all subgroups (more than 1 in 4). Of loans that fail to originate for Hispanic
applicants, 54 percent are due to denial. Though it is more likely that a loan originates
for Hispanic applicants, this subgroup has the smallest share of applications reaching
origination.
As shown in Table 3-9, Antioch has the largest share of denied loan applications,
followed by Richmond, the Urban County, and Pittsburg.
FIGURE 3-10
LOAN ACTION BY HISPANIC
3,409
897
1,686 1,723
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (26.3%)Loan "failures"
(49.5%)
Originations (50.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-15
FIGURE 3-11
LOAN ACTIONS FOR NON-HISPANIC
FIGURE 3-12
LOAN ACTIONS FOR ETHNICITY NO INFORMATION PROVIDED
14,619
2,370
5,802
8,817
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (16.2%)Loan "failures"
(39.7%)
Originations (60.3%)
2,847
570
1,328 1,512
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.0%)Loan "failures"
(46.6%)
Originations (53.1%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-16
TABLE 3-9
LENDING ACTION FOR HISPANIC BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 759 197 22% 353 21% 406 24%
Concord 284 69 8% 145 9% 139 8%
Pittsburg 544 145 16% 273 16% 271 16%
Richmond 631 186 21% 335 20% 296 17%
Walnut Creek 35 3 >1% 9 >1% 26 2%
Urban County 653 159 18% 312 19% 341 20%
Other
Jurisdictions 503 138 15% 259 15% 244 14%
Total 3,409 897 100% 1,686 100% 1,723 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
MORTGAGE LENDING BY AREA
The same data set used to analyze mortgage lending by race and ethnicity was used to
analyze mortgage lending by area. The HMDA data reports loans by the U.S. Census
tract area of the home being purchased. The goal of this analysis is to detect whether
there are geographic patterns of mortgage credit availability.
Loan applications were analyzed by census tracts and mapped. All areas in Contra
Costa County were mapped by quartile and show the volume and rate of each lending
action: origination, denial, and failure. Lending action maps are located in Appendix 5.
HMDA data is organized into the 168 countywide census tracts (2000 U.S. census tract
boundaries). Fifty-eight (58) percent of loan applications across all census tracts in the
County result in origination, 42 percent result in failure, and 18 percent result in denial.
The lending action data tells us that origination is more likely than failure for the County
as a whole; however at the census tract level, some areas in the County have much
smaller shares of loan origination.
As shown in the origination rate map (mapped rates of origination by countywide
quartiles), the areas that fall within the highest quartile (66 percent to 100 percent loan
origination rates) are located in the communities of Lafayette, Oakley, San Ramon,
Walnut Creek, Moraga, El Cerrito, and East Richmond.
Areas that fall within the mid-range quartiles for rates of origination (54 percent to 65
percent) include communities in the eastern portion of the County (Oakley, Brentwood,
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-17
and Knightsen) as well as in pocketed areas in the central portion of the County
(Danville, Orinda, Rheem Valley, and Glorietta).
The lowest quartile for rates of origination is made up of census tracts with 53 percent or
less of actions resulting in loan origination. The areas making up the lowest quartile rate
of origination include portions of the Delta region in the eastern part of the County, with
the largest concentration located in the western portion of the County. Of those census
tracts that fall within the lower quartile, 24 have a share of less than 50 percent
origination, meaning it is more likely for loan applications to result in failure than
origination. Table 3-10 displays census tracts with less than 50 percent loan origination.
Five if the census tracts shown in Table 3-10 have significantly low rates of origination:
3160 (25 percent), 3280 (14 percent), 3650.02 (33 percent), 3750 (36 percent), and 3770 (31
percent). Two of these census tracts have so few application records, the resulting rates
are meaningless (3160 and 3280). The three remaining census tracts are located in the
City of Richmond.
It is important to put each of the census tracts with low origination rates into context
with the characteristics of each census tract. These characteristics include minority
concentration, Hispanic concentration, and low/moderate-income concentration.
Minority Concentration
Each of the three census tracts (3650.02, 3750, and 3770) has a highly concentrated
population of minorities (see Figures 1 through 5 of the Consolidated Plan). Each of the
census tracts with low rates of loan origination has minority population shares greater
than 63.2 percent.
Hispanic Concentration
Two of the three census tracts (3750 and 3770) with low loan origination rates are also
census tracts with a highly concentrated population of Hispanic individuals (see Maps 1
through 6 of the Consolidated Plan). The concentration of Hispanic persons in both
census tracts is greater than 26.5 percent of the census tract populations.
Low/Moderate-Income Concentration
As described in the Consolidated Plan, areas with a low/moderate-income population
share of 51 percent are considered target areas, with exceptions for the Urban County
(42.6 percent), Concord (47.9 percent), and Walnut Creek (32.5 percent). Each of the
three census tracts with low loan origination rates is located in low/moderate-income
areas.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-18
TABLE 3-10
LENDING ACTION FOR CENSUS TRACTS WITH LESS THAN 50 PERCENT ORIGINATION RATE,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Census Tract Location Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
3072.01 Antioch 44 28% 56% 44%
3080.01 Antioch 164 29% 53% 47%
3131.01 Pittsburg 121 26% 53% 47%
3132.01 Pittsburg 188 28% 51% 49%
3141.02 Pittsburg/Urban
County 126 29% 52% 48%
3141.04 Bay Point/ Urban
County 101 35% 58% 42%
3160 1 Martinez 4 0% 75% 25%
3280 1 Concord 14 29% 86% 14%
3361.01 Concord 39 33% 56% 44%
3362 Concord 108 24% 53% 47%
3521.02 Moraga/Urban
County 74 16% 51% 49%
3540.01 Orinda/Urban
County 33 21% 55% 45%
3560.02
Hercules/Martinez/
Richmond/Urban
County
112 29% 52% 48%
3640.01 Pinole/Urban
County 115 23% 52% 48%
3650.02 Richmond/Urban
County 163 32% 67% 33%
3660.01 San Pablo/Urban
County 91 29% 53% 47%
3671 Richmond 105 26% 57% 43%
3680 San Pablo 120 25% 53% 47%
3690.01 San Pablo 55 25% 53% 47%
3730 Richmond 66 29% 56% 44%
3750 Richmond 45 42% 64% 36%
3760 Richmond 79 27% 54% 46%
3770 Richmond 72 36% 69% 31%
3810 Richmond 111 36% 55% 45%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: The share of failure loan actions include the share of loans resulting in denial.
1 These census tracts have so few total loan applications, the rates are essentially meaningless.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-19
Geographic Distribution of High Priced Loans
Under Regulation C, lenders are required to report the difference between the Annual
Percentage Rate (APR) of originated loans and the Average Prime Offer Rate. The prime
rate is the rate that prime borrowers can expect to receive. Subprime borrowers receive
higher APRs than prime borrowers, meaning that subprime borrowers pay more for
mortgage financing.
The HMDA data set reports the rate spread for all originated loans. The rate spread
represents the difference between the APR and the prime rate at the time of loan
purchase. Essentially, the rate spread reports the rate that borrowers pay in excess of the
prime rate. For first-lien loans, lenders are required to report the rate in excess of 1.5
percent of the prime rate, and for subordinate-lien loans lenders are required to report
the rate in excess of 3.5 percent. For example, if a borrower secures a first-lien mortgage
with an 8 percent APR when the prime rate is 5 percent, then the rate spread reported in
the HMDA data set is 1.5 percent [8-(1.5+5)=1.5]. Loans with a reported rate spread are
considered “high cost” or “subprime” loans.
Table 3-11 reports the share of high priced loans originated for owner-occupied home
purchases in Consortium jurisdictions and the remainder of the County, including non-
Consortium jurisdictions for 2008. Because HMDA data is reported by census tract, there
may be some overlap of reporting between jurisdictions; however there are no
duplicated loan records reported. As shown, 6.9 percent of originated loans in the
County are high priced loans. Of Consortium jurisdictions, Antioch (12.2 percent) has
the largest share of high cost loans and Walnut Creek (6.8 percent) the lowest.
Interestingly, Walnut Creek has the greatest number of high cost subordinate loans,
which is likely attributable to higher priced housing in Walnut Creek.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-20
TABLE 3-11
HIGH PRICED LOANS FOR CONSORTIUM JURISDICTIONS,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total Loan
Originations
First-Lien High
Cost Loans
Subordinate-
Lien High Cost
Loans
Total High
Cost Loans
Percentage
High Cost
Loans
Antioch 1,996 232 12 244 12.2%
Concord 1,155 93 5 98 8.5%
Pittsburg 818 60 0 60 7.3%
Richmond 1,169 91 3 94 8.0%
Walnut Creek 676 36 10 46 6.8%
All Other
Areas 6,238 262 28 290 4.6%
Total 12,052 774 58 832 7.9%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA data is reported by Census Tract, which typically cross boundaries amongst jurisdictions. Loan records
were assigned to jurisdictions primarily represented by a census tract which may cause error in allocating loan records
to particular jurisdictions. Loan records are not duplicated.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In general, it is more likely that loan application requests result in origination, meaning
that a greater share of loan applications originate than fail. Loan applications for each
race do not vary greatly from the aggregate results of lending actions for the County,
though areas with much lower than expected origination rates are also highly
concentrated with minority populations.
Applicants reporting ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino experience lower rates of
origination than all other subgroups. Nearly one-half of all loan applications for
Hispanic persons fail to originate. Of loan applications that fail for Hispanic persons, 53
percent do so because of denial. More than one-quarter of loan applications are denied
for Hispanic persons because of higher than accepted debt-to-income ratios.
Unfavorable credit history and lack of collateral make up the reasons 22 percent of loan
applications were denied for Hispanic persons.
About 40 percent of denied loan applications for Hispanic persons were because of
incomplete applications, unverifiable applicant information, and for “other” reasons.
The higher than expected rate of denied loan applications for Hispanic persons signifies
an opportunity to direct policies toward making homeownership opportunities more
available, through pre-purchase counseling, financial literacy, non-traditional credit
building, credit counseling, and alternative credit rating.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-21
Areas of low origination rates tend to be in the western portion of the County, mainly in
the North Richmond area. These are areas that also have high concentrations of
minorities and high concentrations of low- and very low-income households. The three
census tracts (3650.02, 3750, and 3770) with the lowest rate of loan originations have a
large share of loans that fail due to applicants withdrawing loan applications in the
midst of the approval process and applicants withdrawing loan applications after loan
approval. A small share of applications in these census tracts fail due to incomplete
applications.
Also, most loan applications that are denied in each of these census tracts are denied
because applicants are not qualified (debt-to-income ratios and credit history). Programs
should be directed toward increasing homebuyer knowledge in areas of low loan
origination rates.
Contra Costa Consortium Mach 23, 2010
4-1
PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES
This section discusses the efforts to determine and evaluate the practices of the private
sector as they relate to fair housing choice, including the policies and practices of real
estate agents, property managers, and mortgage lenders. Mortgage lending patterns are
discussed in the preceding Section 3.
REAL ESTATE SALES PRACTICES
In the State of California, to engage in the business of real estate sales, a broker or
salesperson must be licensed by the Department of Real Estate (DRE). The DRE also
enforces violations of California real estate law.
The real estate industry in California is highly professionalized. Almost all real estate
brokers and salespersons are affiliated with a real estate trade association. The two
largest are the California Association of Realtors (CAR), associated with the National
Association of Realtors (NAR), and the California Association of Real Estate Brokers
(CAREB), associated with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB).
Members of NAREB are licensed to use the professional designation “Realtist.” The use
of the term “Realtor” is restricted by NAR as a registered trademark.
NAR has a professional code of conduct which specifically prohibits unequal treatment
in professional services or employment practices on the basis of, “race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin” (Article 10, NAR Code of Ethics). Both
prohibit members from promulgating deed restrictions or covenants based on race.
Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that “Realtors shall not deny equal
professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,
familial status, or national origin. Realtors shall not be a party to any plan or agreement
to discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin.”
A Realtor pledges to conduct business in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Code
of Ethics. Article 10 imposes obligations upon Realtors and is also a firm statement of
support for equal opportunity in housing. A Realtor who suspects discrimination is
instructed to call the local Board of Realtors. Local Boards of Realtors will accept
complaints alleging violations of the Code of Ethics filed by a home seeker who alleges
discriminatory treatment in the availability, purchase, or rental of housing. Local Boards
of Realtors have a responsibility to enforce the Code of Ethics through professional
standards procedures and corrective action in cases where a violation of the Code of
Ethics is proven to have occurred.
The California Association of Realtors has many local associations. Contra Costa County
is served by the Contra Costa Association of Realtors, the Bay East Association of
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-2
Realtors, the Delta Association of Realtors, and the West Contra Costa Association of
Realtors.
CAR offers continuous online courses dealing with fair housing requirements and
issues. According to the course description, the course will provide an overview of the
federal fair housing laws and an in-depth discussion of the individual laws and their
application to the practice of real estate. The course also provides CAR members with a
study of the State of California fair housing laws and regulations. The course
emphasizes anti-discriminatory conduct which all licensees should practice and
concludes by discussing the voluntary affirmative action marketing program and why
promoting fair housing laws is a positive force at work in California and throughout the
nation.
NAREB Realtists follow a strict code of ethics that states “any Realtist shall not
discriminate against any person because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, National Origin,
Disability, Familial Status or Sexual Orientation” (Part I, Section 2, NAREB Code of
Ethics):
In the sale or rental of real property.
In advertising the sale or rental of real property.
In the financing of real property.
In the provision of professional services.
Part I, Section 2 of the NAREB Code of Ethics continues to state that any “Realtist shall
not be instrumental in establishing, reinforcing or extending any agreement or provision
that restricts or limits the use or occupancy of real property to any person or group of
persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status
or sexual orientation.”
RENTAL AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the country’s largest statewide trade
association for rental property owners and managers. CAA incorporated in 1941 to serve
rental property owners and managers throughout California. CAA represents rental
housing owners and professionals who together manage more than 1.5 million rental
units.
CAA supports the spirit and intent of all local, state, and federal fair housing laws for all
residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical
disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the
California Apartment Association agree to abide by the following provisions of their
Code for Equal Housing Opportunity:
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-3
We agree that in the rental, lease, sale, purchase, or exchange of real property,
owners and their employees have the responsibility to offer housing
accommodations to all persons on an equal basis;
We agree to set and implement fair and reasonable rental housing rules and
guidelines and will provide equal and consistent services throughout our
resident’s tenancy;
We agree that we have no right or responsibility to volunteer information
regarding the racial, creed, or ethnic composition of any neighborhood, and we
do not engage in any behavior or action that would result in steering; and
We agree not to print, display, or circulate any statement or advertisement that
indicates any preference, limitations, or discrimination in the rental or sale of
housing.
The CAA offers a Certificate in Residential Management (CRM), which includes a course
on fair housing law. In addition, the CAA website provides links to the Fair Housing
Institute and Fair Housing Network.
CAA has a local association with offices in Pleasant Hill. The CAA of Contra Costa
/Napa/Solano serves Contra Costa County, Napa, and Solano counties.
ADVERTISEMENT
In January 2010 a review of rental housing advertisements for all of Contra Costa
County was conducted to identify any fair housing impediments. All advertisements
were examined for language that explicitly or implicitly indicated that housing would
not be made available to persons without regard to membership in a protected class or
that there would be a preference for or a bias against persons belonging to a protected
class. No advertisements were found that would comprise an illegal or unfair housing
opportunity. The review looked at advertisements in the Contra Costa Times newspaper
(159 listings) and online websites (1,728 listings from craigslist.com and 169 listings from
Rent.com). Of the advertisements reviewed, there were no impediments identified in
Contra Costa County.
USE OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
Covenants that restrict the ownership or use of real property based on membership in a
protected class are prohibited under state and federal law. Nonetheless, recorded
documents with these terms persist.
Today, the California Department of Real Estate reviews Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all subdivisions of five or more lots, or condominiums of five
or more units. This review is authorized by the Subdivided Lands Act and mandated by
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-4
the Business Professions Code, Section 11000. The review includes a wide range of
issues, including compliance with fair housing law.
Since 2000, California state law has required that any person or entity that provides
declarations, deeds, and other governing documents related to the use of real property
must place a cover page over the document or a stamp on the first page of the document
containing a statement that any restrictive covenants that may appear in the document
are null and void and that any person with an interest in the property has the right to
request that the language be removed.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT
Patterns of complaints and enforcement are useful to assess the nature and level of
potentially unfair or discriminatory housing practices in the private sector. Several
public and private agencies may receive complaints about unfair housing practices or
housing discrimination.
At the federal level, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives complaints of
housing discrimination. FHEO will attempt to resolve matters informally. FHEO may act
on those complaints if they represent a violation of federal law and FHEO finds that
there is “reasonable cause” to pursue administrative action in federal court.
At the state level, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has a
similar role to FHEO. DFEH also receives, investigates, attempts to settle, and can take
administrative action to prosecute violations of the law. HUD and DFEH have some
overlap in jurisdiction and depending on the nature of the case, may refer cases to one
another. DFEH is a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grantee, meaning
that it receives funding from HUD to enforce federal fair housing law within the state.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity
The San Francisco FHEO office provided information on fair housing complaints and
cases for the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009.1 FHEO recorded 184
fair housing complaints originating in Contra Costa County over this time period. These
cases were reported either directly to FHEO (45) or through the state DFEH (139) as part
of FHAP grant activities. (Note: single cases may report multiple bases of
discrimination.)
Of the 184 complaints received, almost half of the fair housing complaints filed were on
the basis of disability (87), 50 complaints were filed on the basis of racial discrimination,
1 Chuck Hauptman, HUD-FHEO, San Francisco.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-5
22 were based on familial status, 19 were filed on the basis of national origin, 17 based
on sex, and 1 based on religion. There were an additional 7 filed complaining of
retaliation against a person for asserting fair housing rights or for making a fair housing
complaint.
From January 2008 through December 2009, a total of 75 complaints were made, of
which the majority were based on disability (41 complaints) and race (23 complaints).
The other complaints were in the categories of national origin, sex, family status, and
retaliator.
FHEO reported a total of 187 cases closed in the same time period: 144 were closed by
FHEO and 43 by DFEH. Ninety of these complaints were based on disability, 50 on race,
23 on familial status, 20 on national origin, 18 on sex, and 2 on religion. Ten of the closed
cases were based on retaliation. Of the closed cases, 89 were found to have insufficient
cause for action, 70 were resolved without administrative action, and 23 cases were
pursued administratively. Seven of the fair housing cases involved the payment of
compensation (less than $2,000).
From January 2008 through December 2009, a total of 97 cases were closed: 71 were
closed by FHEO and 26 by FHAP. The majority of the complaints were based on race
and disability.
California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH)
The California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) provided records
of housing complaints filed within Contra Costa County for the period January 2004
through December 2009.2 The department received 187 complaints between 2004 and
2008 for the county as a whole.
Of the 187 complaints received, almost half were on the basis of a disability (96
complaints), 31 based on national origin, 31 based on sex, and 9 based on religion, with
the remaining complaints based on marital status and familial status. Nine complaints
were based on retaliation.
From January 2008 through December 2009, there were a total of 75 complaints in
Contra Costa County, of which 33 were based on disability, 6 based on sex, 2 based on
national origin, and the remaining based on familial and marital status.
Since 2004 the DFEH has closed 19 fair housing complaints through successful
mediation, closed 26 through successful conciliation, and found “no probable cause to
prove a violation of the statute” for 103 fair housing complaints. The DFHE closed 23
cases noted withdrawn with resolution.
2 Correspondence, Karen Gilbert, State-DFEH
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-6
The DFEH also noted than in 2009, they received three complaints; however
Government Code Section 6255 exempts the department from disclosing information
related to the complaint until the file is closed.
Local Reports
There are four agencies that currently may receive complaints regarding fair housing in
Contra Costa County. These are Housing Rights, Inc. (HRI), Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA),
Fair Housing of Marin (FHM), and the Contra Costa Crisis Center.
Together, the four agencies received and/or handled 727 fair housing complaints from
Contra Costa County residents since 2006. Please see the following table. The most
common basis of complaint was discrimination based on disability and refusal to make
an accommodation for a person with a disability. The second most frequent basis of
discrimination claimed was race. Other notable fair housing complaints include claims
of discrimination based on familial status, national origin, and gender. Please see Table
4-1.
TABLE 4-1
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS BY BASIS, 2006 TO PRESENT
Basis of Complaint Number Percentage
Disability and Accommodation 368 50.6%
Race 168 23.1%
Familial Status 56 7.7%
National Origin 46 6.3%
Gender 23 3.2%
Other 66 9.1%
Total 727 100.0%
The majority of complaints were resolved by providing brief services or advising the
caller during the call. Please see the following table. Others were resolved
administratively, closed by an attorney, or closed after referral to HUD or DFEH. Many
were resolved through other means or the manner of resolution was not reported. Please
see Table 4-2.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-7
TABLE 4-2
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS BY RESOLUTION, 2006 TO PRESENT
Outcome Number Percentage
Agency Advice/Brief Services 286 39.3%
Referral to Other Agency 127 17.5%
Client Stopped Case 67 9.2%
Administratively Closed 47 6.5%
Closed by an Attorney 20 2.8%
Closed by HUD 21 2.9%
Closed by DFEH 8 1.1%
Other/not specified 151 20.8%
Total 727 100.0%
The Contra Costa Crisis Center “2-1-1” line tracks calls related to tenant/landlord issues
for the City of Richmond. From July through December of 2009, 69 referrals were made
for tenant/landlord issues.
Additional details regarding the individual agencies’ fair housing complaints and closed
cases summaries can be found in Appendix 7.
CAA of Contra Costa /Napa /Solano
The local association of the California Apartment Association receives complaints
regarding unfair housing practices.3 The distribution of complaints is roughly even
across the County, with a noticeably lower level from Richmond and higher level from
Antioch.
Many fair housing complaints received by the California Apartment Association center
on federally subsidized rental units (Section 8 and public housing). The most common
classifications of discrimination included female heads of households, family
households with teenage children, persons with disabilities, and racial discrimination.
The most common forms of discrimination reported by those persons who submitted a
complaint included inappropriate verbal statements, differential treatment, and neglect
of reasonable accommodations.
3 Personal communication, Theresa Karr of the California Apartment Association.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-8
Summary of Complaints and Enforcement Activity
Of the complaints received over the last few years, the most common (approximately 50
percent of all complaints) have been based on disability, specifically failure to provide
reasonable accommodation within rental housing units.
The next most frequently reported classifications of discrimination were national origin,
race, sex, and familial status.
Approximately 52 percent of all complaints filed to state or federal departments were
found to have “no probable cause to prove a violation of the statute.” Furthermore, out
of the total complaints filed, approximately 37 percent were handled through successful
mediation or conciliation.
SUMMARY OF PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES
Contra Costa County does not appear to have a significant problem in the private sector
regarding unfair housing practices or housing discrimination. There does appear to be a
lack of knowledge regarding the obligation of landlords and property managers to make
reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and to rent to them without regard to
disability.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-1
GOVERNMENT BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING
Public policies established at the state, regional, and local levels can affect housing
development and therefore may have an impact on the range and location of housing
choices available to residents. This section discusses the public policies enacted by
jurisdictions within Contra Costa County and their potential impacts on housing
development. Zoning and housing-related documents (e.g., housing elements, previous
fair housing assessments, consolidated plans) were reviewed to identify potential
impediments to fair housing choice and affordable housing development.
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND COMPLIANCE
As part of evaluating potential impediments to fair housing choice and housing
development, each jurisdiction’s Housing Element was reviewed. California state
housing element law requires that local governments adequately plan to meet the
existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
California state housing element law requires each jurisdiction to:
Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning
and development standards and with the services and facilities needed to
facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all
income levels in order to meet the city’s regional housing needs.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely
low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock.
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with special needs such as the elderly and those with disabilities must have
access to housing in a community. Community care facilities provide a supportive
housing environment to persons with special needs in a group situation. Restrictions
that prevent these types of facilities from locating in a community may impede equal
access to housing for the special needs groups.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-2
Licensed Community Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code) states that mentally and physically disabled
persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and that the use of
property for the care of six or fewer disabled persons is a valid residential use for zoning
purposes.
Housing element law requires that jurisdictions permit community care facilities with
six or fewer persons by right in all residential zones. Group homes of seven or more
residents, however, are often subject to special requirements. Current housing element
law requires local governments to permit group homes of seven or more in at least one
zone; a conditional use permit can be required.
There are many different types of licensed care facilities within the county. Below is a
description of the different types of care facilities within these jurisdictions.
Adult day care facilities (ADCF) provide programs for frail elderly and
developmentally disabled and/or mentally disabled adults in a day care setting.
Adult residential facilities (ARF) are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-
hour nonmedical care for adults ages 18 through 59, who are unable to provide
for their own daily needs. Adults may be physically handicapped,
developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled.
Group homes are facilities of any capacity and provide 24-hour nonmedical care
and supervision to children in a structured environment.
Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision, and
assistance with daily living activities to persons 60 years of age and over and
persons under 60 with compatible needs.
Small family homes (SFH) provide care 24 hours a day in the licensee’s family
residence for six or fewer children who are mentally disabled, developmentally
disabled, or physically handicapped and who require special care and
supervision as a result of such disabilities.
A social rehabilitation facility is any facility that provides 24-hour-a-day
nonmedical care and supervision in a group setting to adults recovering from
mental illnesses who temporarily need assistance, guidance, or counseling.
The Transitional Housing Placement Program provides care and supervision for
children at least 17 years of age participating in an independent living
arrangement.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-3
Please see Appendix 8 for a summary of the number of licensed care facilities by type
and their capacity by jurisdiction.
Reasonable Accommodation
Under state and federal law, local governments are required to “reasonably
accommodate” housing for persons with disabilities when exercising planning and
zoning powers. Jurisdictions must grant variances and zoning changes if necessary to
make new construction or rehabilitation of housing for persons with disabilities feasible,
but they are not required to fundamentally alter their zoning ordinance.
Although most local governments are aware of state and federal requirements to allow
reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a
jurisdiction, disabled residents may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated
against.
All of the jurisdictions examined provide flexibility in development standards to
reasonably accommodate the housing needs of residents with disabilities. The degree of
formalization varies by jurisdiction.
HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) as a project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services
to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months.
Permanent supportive housing is defined by HUD as long-term community-based
housing and supportive services for homeless persons with disabilities. The intent of this
type of supportive housing is to enable this special needs population to live as
independently as possible in a permanent setting. The supportive services may be
provided by the organization managing the housing or provided by other public or
private service agencies. There is no definite length of stay.
California Senate Bill 2 (Cedillo, 2007) requires that both the transitional and supportive
housing types be treated as a residential use and be subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Both transitional and
supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in the zoning code. Please see
Appendix 9 for a table illustrating whether or not transitional housing is permitted or
requires a use permit.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-4
Emergency Shelter
California Senate Bill 2 (Cedillo, 2007) also requires jurisdictions to allow emergency
shelters without any discretionary action in at least one zone that is appropriate for
permanent emergency shelters (i.e., with commercial uses compatible with residential or
light industrial zones in transition). The goal of SB 2 is to ensure that local governments
are sharing the responsibility of providing opportunities for the development of
emergency shelters. To that end, the legislation also requires that jurisdictions
demonstrate site capacity in the zone identified to be appropriate for the development of
emergency shelters. Within the identified zone, only objective development and
management standards may be applied, given they are designed to encourage and
facilitate the development of or conversion to an emergency shelter.
Please see Appendix 9 for a table illustrating whether or not permanent emergency
shelters are permitted.
BUILDING CODE
Building codes are essential to preserve public health and safety and to ensure the
construction of safe housing. On the other hand, excessive standards can constrain the
development of housing. Building codes are typically reviewed on an ongoing basis to
evaluate whether changes are necessary or desirable and consistent with changing state
law.
A review of the building codes for local jurisdictions in the County was completed, and
it was found that none of the building codes or amendments to the building codes create
an undue constraint on housing development. Please see Appendix 10 for a description
of the local building codes currently adopted.
RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Local jurisdictions may provide resources and incentives for the development of
affordable housing in order to assure the greatest possible availability of housing types
for all persons and all income groups. Resources include local, state, and federal funding
as well as local programs that provide incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Please see Appendix 11 for a listing of the funding programs available.
Two of the most significant incentive programs are inclusionary housing and the so-
called density bonus.
Inclusionary Housing
An inclusionary housing program requires a percentage of new residential housing
units to be offered for sale or rent at prices affordable to lower-income households. In an
effort to generate a mix of income levels within residential areas and to offer access to
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-5
public and commercial services without regard to economic status and income level, the
affordable units are expected to be dispersed throughout the development. The number
of inclusionary units is determined as a percentage of the total units in the development.
Developers may choose to pay a fee or to provide a combination of fee and units in lieu
of providing the units on-site. Fees collected are allocated to an Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. Please see Appendix 12 for a listing of affordable housing resources and
programs.
Density Bonus
Senate Bill 1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) altered the state density bonus provisions.
Effective January 1, 2005, SB 1818 increased the maximum bonus from 25 to 35 percent
and changed the eligibility thresholds for projects. The bill also required localities to
grant additional incentives and allowed bonuses for land donation. Under the new
density bonus law, there are provisions for projects that include affordable housing (to
low- and very low-income households), senior housing, donations of land,
condominium conversions, and child-care facilities. The law also allows for concessions
and incentives that have the effect of reducing the cost of development. A developer
may apply for one to three concessions or incentives depending on how many
affordable units are being constructed. Such concessions or incentives may include
modification of or relief from development standards such as minimum parking
requirements, minimum building setback and separation distances, maximum floor area
ratios, architectural design requirements, or others.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-1
IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS AND
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
This section describes the impediments to fair housing choice that have been identified
by this analysis. The identified impediments are grouped into four broad categories:
affordable housing, mortgage lending, governmental barriers, and fair housing
enforcement and education.
Within each category are one or more impediments followed by one or more actions the
Consortium member jurisdictions plan to undertake to address each impediment. It is
important to note that the identification of an impediment does not necessarily identify a
deficiency. By identifying the presence of an impediment, this analysis is stating the
nature of a problem which the actions to address will serve to mitigate. These may be
affirmative actions as much as responses to current conditions.
To facilitate reporting of accomplishments and the association of planned activities with
impediments and actions to address, each impediment and action is identified by
number. Actions are labeled according to the impediment they address.
Please note that state law requires local jurisdictions in California to assess barriers to
affordable housing as part of the General Plan Housing Element. Programs to address
impediments to fair housing may be addressed through the Housing Element.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The provision of affordable housing and the support of existing and new affordable
housing is critical to assuring that all households have access to quality housing.
Contra Costa County has a relatively high cost of housing with significant numbers of
households that experience a high cost burden. This is particularly the case with the
elderly and the very low-income. Although the level of need varies across the County,
there is a near universal need for increased affordable housing. Market forces alone will
not assure a sufficient supply of quality affordable housing.
Affordable housing must also be dispersed throughout the County to avoid the
concentration of low-income households. The geographic concentration of lower income
households tends to exacerbate problems such as disinvestment.
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create
new affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-2
Plan programs of the Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG,
HOME, and HOPWA.
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus”
provisions. (See housing element programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of
affordable housing. (See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County,
Richmond and Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of
Housing Choice Vouchers, and will monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers
to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative
resources may be given to projects and programs which expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable
housing in relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of
low-income, poverty and minority concentration.
MORTGAGE LENDING
The analysis of home mortgage lending patterns revealed that persons reporting as
Hispanic had a higher likelihood of not receiving requested mortgage credit. The
analysis suggested that this might be due to poor preparation prior to application for
credit.
The mortgage lending analysis also suggests that those who request mortgage credit to
purchase homes in areas that have concentrations of lower income households and
concentrations of minority households are less likely to receive that credit. The analysis
suggests that this is related to the quality of the applications (credit risk, debt to income,
loan to value).
Two general strategies are suggested from the analysis; pre-purchase counseling for
home buyers and the encouragement of lenders to reach out to under-represented
populations.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-3
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and
location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending
by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in
local programs, member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of “Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may
exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or “Substantial
Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition,
member jurisdictions may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA
reporting as most recently published by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders
and the mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower
income and minority households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home
buyer education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households.
Minority households include Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market their loan products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and
minority households. Minority households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration
and low-income concentration.
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination
rates under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market their loan products to households who wish to purchase homes in
Census Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent according to the most
recently published HMDA data.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-4
FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Promoting fair housing includes both education and enforcement. Consortium member
jurisdictions should continue to support both education and enforcement efforts.
This analysis has indicated that housing discrimination is most prevalent in the rental
housing industry. The reported incidence of unfair housing practices in the residential
sales market is relatively low. This can be assumed to be the case because the level of
professionalization in the sales industry is high and because parties tend to have
professional representation. Enforcement efforts will be targeted to rental housing.
Similarly, this analysis indicates that there is a general lack of awareness in the rental
housing industry when it comes to the requirement to provide reasonable
accommodation to persons with disabilities.
Evolving federal fair housing priorities and indications from local advocates support the
need for focused education and enforcement with regard to housing discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
The preparation of this analysis suggests that improved collection and reporting of
housing discrimination complaints by local agencies would provide a more useful and
accurate assessment of the state of fair housing in Contra Costa County. Specifically,
information should be collected with regard to complaints of housing discrimination
based on sexual orientation and complaints that landlords have not provided reasonable
accommodation.
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to
persons who have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against
persons based on sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with
disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-5
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to
reasonable accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities
who have been refused reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing
discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report
trends annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination
complaints. All agencies who provide this information should do so in the same
format with the same level of detail. Information should be available by the
quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based
on sexual orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities.
GOVERNMENT BARRIERS
Local government can play a critical role to providing a full range of housing types and
to assuring the availability of housing suitable to all sectors of the public. Not all
member jurisdictions have formal policies and procedures that describe how a member
of the public may request and receive a reasonable accommodation to local regulations.
A formal policy is an important commitment to the policy of reasonable
accommodation. It also provides the public with a clear road map to reasonable
accommodation.
Local land use policy should include provisions for all housing types including those
intended for the homeless. This analysis indicates that not all member jurisdictions allow
housing for the homeless by right.
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and
procedures for persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations
to local planning and development standards.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-6
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a
residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential
uses of the same type in the same zone, and is not explicitly permitted in the
zoning code.
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
treat transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only
to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone, and to explicitly permit both transitional and supportive housing
types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least
one appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
permit transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential
zoning district.
APPENDIX 1.
AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
35510430400030100035600235510635530331500034520130310030320035520034700030200235210231320234610230900030200334511032000134620135600134620236100035400231310335220231800035400135300135700031420030200435210134510734510935530435920236010034800030500030600235800035530135000035120034610135110032000232700035530234510831410335510135910135220134520234000233830200343003314102321102342000321103353002363000321101322000337300338202308002333100341000345105308001338201324000313101349000306001339000343002345103359203313201337200319000307205332000316000325000359204331000338100337100355305334004340001343001385100333200314104360200345101307101359102364002313102338301381000323000367100335000311000690013840002000307204307201334003329000326000321200330000310000336200382000345102364001317000307102369002312000391000383000362000371000334001367200328000344000386000139010037000000039200038700030720233610138910038800033610238520039020033400538920009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (42.10%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3551063031301000303200302002302003309000313103302004304000305000306002355101308002308001313101306001320130720530710131310231000031100030710230720430720131200030720235510409A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (42.10%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
35520031320235530435530132700035530335530232200033730033310033820132400033820233720033200032500033100032900033810033710035530533400434000133320032120033000033620032300033500033830133400333400132800033610133610233400533830233900009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (42.10%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3132023090003131033031410331410235531310131320130720531410431310231000031100030720131200035510635530409A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (42.10%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3780003610003650013592036010035910138000036500236300035920335920438510036020035910236400238100038200036710037900036400136900138400037200036900236800039100038300036200037100036720037700037600036600238600036600139010037000037400039200037300038700038910038800037500038520039020038920009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (42.10%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
APPENDIX 2.
AREAS OF HISPANIC CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
35510430400030100035600235510635530331500034520130310030320035520034700030200235210231320234610230900030200334511032000134620135600134620236100035400231310335220231800035400135300135700031420030200435210134510734510935530435920236010034800030500030600235800035530135000035120034610135110032000232700035530234510831410335510135910135220134520234000233830200343003314102321102342000321103353002363000321101322000337300338202308002333100341000345105308001338201324000313101349000306001339000343002345103359203313201337200319000307205332000316000325000359204331000338100337100355305334004340001343001385100333200314104360200345101307101359102364002313102338301381000323000367100335000311000690013840002000307204307201334003329000326000321200330000310000336200382000345102364001317000307102369002312000391000383000362000371000334001367200328000344000386000139010037000000039200038700030720233610138910038800033610238520039020033400538920009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (17.68%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3551063031301000303200302002302003309000313103302004304000305000306002355101308002308001313101306001320130720530710131310231000031100030710230720430720131200030720235510409A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (17.68%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
35520031320235530435530132700035530335530232200033730033310033820132400033820233720033200032500033100032900033810033710035530533400434000133320032120033000033620032300033500033830133400333400132800033610133610233400533830233900009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (17.68%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3132023090003131033031410331410235531310131320130720531410431310231000031100030720131200035510635530409A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (17.68%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
3780003610003650013592036010035910138000036500236300035920335920438510036020035910236400238100038200036710037900036400136900138400037200036900236800039100038300036200037100036720037700037600036600238600036600139010037000037400039200037300038700038910038800037500038520039020038920009A concentration is defined as a cgreater percentage than that groin Contra Costa County (17.68%defined as a census block groupoverall percentage representatio
APPENDIX 3.
AREAS OF LOW-INCOME AND VERY
LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
35510430400030100035600235510635530331500034520130310030320035520034700030200235210231320234610230900030200334511032000134620135600134620236100035400231310335220231800035400135300135700031420030200435210134510734510935530435920236010034800030500030600235800035530135000035120034610135110032000232700035530234510831410335510135910135220134520234000233830200343003314102321102342000321103353002363000321101322000337300338202308002333100341000345105308001338201324000313101349000306001339000343002345103359203313201337200319000307205332000316000325000359204331000338100337100355305334004340001343001385100333200314104360200345101307101359102364002313102338301381000323000367100335000311000690013840002000307204307201334003329000326000321200330000310000336200382000345102364001317000307102369002312000391000383000362000371000334001367200328000344000386000139010037000000039200038700030720233610138910038800033610238520039020033400538920009CDBG law authorizes an exception forfew areas in which 51 percent of resideincome. Contra Costa County is an exlow/moderate income threshold is 42.6
3551063031301000303200302002302003309000313103302004304000305000306002355101308002308001313101306001320130720530710131310231000031100030710230720430720131200030720235510409Low income areas are defined as have a concentration of 51 percenpopulation.
35520031320235530435530132700035530335530232200033730033310033820132400033820233720033200032500033100032900033810033710035530533400434000133320032120033000033620032300033500033830133400333400132800033610133610233400533830233900009CDBG law authorizes an exception forfew areas in which 51 percent of resideincome. Concord is an exception granlow/moderate income threshold is 47.9
3132023090003131033031410331410235531310131320130720531410431310231000031100030720131200035510635530409Low income areas are defined as have a concentration of 51 percenpopulation.
3780003610003650013592036010035910138000036500236300035920335920438510036020035910236400238100038200036710037900036400136900138400037200036900236800039100038300036200037100036720037700037600036600238600036600139010037000037400039200037300038700038910038800037500038520039020038920009Low income areas are defined as censusa concentration of 51 percent or more low
35530334610234620135210135120034800034610135110035530234000233830234300334200034520133820233730034100033820134900033900034300232500034000134300132400032600033830134400035210235210209CDBG law authorizes an exception for few areas in which 51 percent of resideincome. Walnut Creek is an exceptionlow/moderate income threshold is 32.5
35510430400030100035600235510635530331500034520130310030320035520034700030200235210231320234610230900030200334511032000134620135600134620236100035400231310335220231800035400135300135700031420030200435210134510734510935530435920236010034800030500030600235800035530135000035120034610135110032000232700035530234510831410335510135910135220134520234000233830200343003314102321102342000321103353002363000321101322000337300338202308002333100341000345105308001338201324000313101349000306001339000343002345103359203313201337200319000307205332000316000325000359204331000338100337100355305334004340001343001385100333200314104360200345101307101359102364002313102338301381000323000367100335000311000690013840002000307204307201334003329000326000321200330000310000336200382000345102364001317000307102369002312000391000383000362000371000334001367200328000344000386000139010037000000039200038700030720233610138910038800033610238520039020033400538920009eaCDBG law authorizes an exception forfew areas in which 51 percent of resideContra Costa County is an exception gincome threshold is 42.60%
3780003610003650013592036010035910138000036500236300035920335920438510036020035910236400238100038200036710037900036400136900138400037200036900236800039100038300036200037100036720037700037600036600238600036600139010037000037400039200037300038700038910038800037500038520039020038920009eaVery Low income areas are defined as censa concentration of 51 percent or more very
APPENDIX 4.
“CHAS” TABLES
Page | 1
Appendix 4 - CHAS Housing Problems Tables
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of
U.S. Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the
“CHAS” tables. They are obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System”
(SOCDS). These data are presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing
problems” by households and the other presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing
units. The needs of renter and owner households are examined separately.
The following are the housing problems tables for the State of California, Contra Costa
County, the Urban County area, and the five entitlement communities. Because of the
nature of the Consortium, data tables were acquired according to the CDBG geography.
Although this best approximates the jurisdictional boundaries within the Consortium, it
does introduce a significant level of rounding in the data.1
The CHAS housing problems tables present the number of households paying more
than 30 percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type,
and income category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to
as the housing “cost burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost
burden over 30 percent has a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over
50 percent have a “severe” cost burden.
1 Please see http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI344,660 646,560 335,000 486,800 1,813,020 411,249 210,095 114,040 120,730 856,114 2,669,1342. Household Income <=30% MFI209,065 332,745 161,320 297,120 1,000,250 180,589 92,950 40,400 70,075 384,014 1,384,2643. % with any housing problems 70.9 87.8 97 74.9 81.968.1 79.1 92.6 70.1 73.7 79.64. % Cost Burden >30% 68.6 81.5 85.6 72.2 76.7 67.6 75.980.9 68.8 71.3 75.25. % Cost Burden >50% 51.7 69.765.1 64.7 63.7 48.9 68.1 72.1 59.8 58 62.16. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI135,595 313,815 173,680 189,680 812,770 230,660 117,145 73,640 50,655 472,100 1,284,8707. % with any housing problems 74.8 87.2 95.3 87.5 86.946.3 78.7 93.1 73.6 64.6 78.78. % Cost Burden >30% 71.7 77.3 63.2 84.7 75.1 46 74.7 77.9 72.6 60.9 69.99. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 27.313.8 43.9 30 25.3 55 47.1 54.5 39.2 33.410. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI102,155 410,305 200,510 288,425 1,001,395 314,849 271,170 163,865 91,565 841,449 1,842,84411. % with any housing problems 58.5 63.2 87.2 59.9 66.630.9 70.4 86.2 67.5 58.4 62.812.% Cost Burden >30% 54.8 41.3 22.254.8 42.8 30.6 65.859.2 66.4 51.4 46.713. % Cost Burden >50% 15.6 4.91.7 9.6 6.7 14.1 29.7 16.9 34.9 22 13.714. Household Income >80% MFI146,954 908,040 259,900 822,215 2,137,109 932,389 2,556,075 736,380 623,820 4,848,664 6,985,77315. % with any housing problems 22.1 24.1 66.3 14.6 25.414.1 23.7 46.3 29.8 26.1 25.916.% Cost Burden >30% 18.6 7.3 3.710.3 8.8 13.9 20.8 18.4 28.9 20.1 16.717. % Cost Burden >50% 4.4 0.50.2 0.8 0.8 3.5 3.3 2.4 5.7 3.5 2.718. Total Households593,769 1,964,905 795,410 1,597,440 4,951,5241,658,487 3,037,340 1,014,285 836,115 6,546,227 11,497,75119. % with any housing problems 57.6 53.1 84.1 42.755.3 27.7 31.7 58 40 35.8 44.220. % Cost Burden >30 54.6 38.2 38 38.7 40.3 27.4 28.6 31.8 39 30.1 34.521. % Cost Burden >50 30.6 17.416.7 19.4 19.5 13.5 9.7 10.8 16.4 11.7 15Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI8,060 14,650 6,045 9,715 38,470 15,035 7,060 2,779 4,470 29,344 67,8142. Household Income <=30% MFI5,333 7,845 2,945 5,770 21,893 6,897 3,015 989 2,480 13,381 35,2743. % with any housing problems 70.7 81.3 94.6 75.5 79 63.8 85.2 93.9 75.6 73.1 76.74. % Cost Burden >30% 69 77.9 84.6 74.3 75.7 63.2 83.7 86.9 74.6 71.7 74.25. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 60.7 55.9 62.4 57.6 43 74.5 76.8 61.3 56 576. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI2,727 6,805 3,100 3,945 16,577 8,138 4,045 1,790 1,990 15,963 32,5407. % with any housing problems 76 79.5 88.9 85.7 82.1 43 78.4 89.9 71.6 60.8 71.78. % Cost Burden >30% 75.7 72.4 46.3 84.3 70.9 42.9 75.4 79.1 71.6 58.8 64.99. % Cost Burden >50% 39.2 19 10.3 36.1 24.8 22.7 50.4 41.3 54 35.7 30.110. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI1,918 7,413 2,445 5,879 17,655 8,968 8,785 3,520 3,108 24,381 42,03611. % with any housing problems 57.5 51.4 80.8 54.8 57.3 29.9 71 80.3 66.1 56.6 56.912.% Cost Burden >30% 56.5 38.9 26 52.3 43.5 29.8 67.8 55.7 66.1 51.9 48.313. % Cost Burden >50% 17.9 4.3 2.5 7 6.4 12.3 26.2 11.6 28.4 19.3 13.914. Household Income >80% MFI3,399 22,535 4,749 18,760 49,443 32,594 105,105 22,354 24,614 184,667 234,11015. % with any housing problems 29.1 17.9 53.3 11.4 19.6 12.9 21.7 35 28.8 22.7 2216.% Cost Burden >30% 25.6 8.2 3.3 8.6 9.1 12.7 20.1 19.2 28.4 19.8 17.517. % Cost Burden >50% 7.9 0.4 0 0.8 1 2.8 2.8 1.9 3.9 2.8 2.418. Total Households13,377 44,598 13,239 34,354 105,568 56,597 120,950 28,653 32,192 238,392 343,96019. % with any housing problems 59.3 44 75.9 38.1 48 26.1 28.8 46 38.6 31.5 36.620. % Cost Burden >30 57.5 35.4 35.6 35.8 38.4 25.9 27 29.7 38.2 28.6 31.621. % Cost Burden >50 32.1 14.5 15.3 16.2 17.4 12 7.9 8.2 13.8 9.7 12.1Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Contra Costa County, CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI768 1,831 668 789 4,056 1,013 658 299 237 2,207 6,2632. Household Income <=30% MFI542 934 350 433 2,259 507 309 125 122 1,063 3,3223. % with any housing problems 65.3 81.5 97.1 76.2 79 55.6 78.3 100 77 69.9 76.14. % Cost Burden >30% 64.6 78.9 94.9 76.2 77.4 54.8 78.3 80.8 77 67.3 74.25. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 61.6 60.9 59.6 58 38.7 72.5 80.8 47.5 54.5 56.96. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI226 897 318 356 1,797 506 349 174 115 1,144 2,9417. % with any housing problems 65.5 89.4 88.7 86 85.6 40.9 90.5 86.2 79.1 66.8 78.38. % Cost Burden >30% 65.5 83.2 41.8 78.9 72.8 40.9 90.5 78.2 79.1 65.6 709. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 13.3 8.8 20.5 17 30 59.6 35.1 60 42.8 2710. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI120 851 206 342 1,519 620 1,178 528 163 2,489 4,00811. % with any housing problems 52.5 41.8 77.7 32.2 45.4 30 70.5 78.8 60.7 61.5 55.412.% Cost Burden >30% 52.5 30.9 25.2 29.2 31.5 30 69.3 63.8 60.7 57.8 47.813. % Cost Burden >50% 45.8 1.6 0 4.1 5.5 4.5 20.6 5.9 26.4 13.9 10.714. Household Income >80% MFI135 1,565 392 698 2,790 1,245 9,862 2,938 1,803 15,848 18,63815. % with any housing problems 28.1 10 50 6.3 15.6 11.5 21.6 27.8 25 22.4 21.316.% Cost Burden >30% 28.1 3.6 3.6 2.9 4.6 11.5 20.5 17 25 19.7 17.417. % Cost Burden >50% 7.4 0 0 0 0.4 3.1 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.5 1.318. Total Households1,023 4,247 1,266 1,829 8,365 2,878 11,698 3,765 2,203 20,544 28,90919. % with any housing problems 58.9 48.9 77.3 43.2 53.2 28.4 30.1 40.1 33.4 32 38.220. % Cost Burden >30 58.6 42.5 41.9 40 43.8 28.3 29 28.5 33.4 29.3 33.521. % Cost Burden >50 40.6 16.7 19 18.9 20.4 14.4 7 5.5 9.2 8 11.6Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Antioch(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI1,159 2,302 991 1,480 5,932 1,823 719 244 716 3,502 9,4342. Household Income <=30% MFI773 1,011 380 897 3,061 888 313 51 421 1,673 4,7343. % with any housing problems 68.4 85.1 98.9 80.9 81.4 76.4 86.9 92.2 68.4 76.8 79.84. % Cost Burden >30% 65.2 79.2 97.9 79.3 78 76.4 85.6 92.2 68.4 76.6 77.55. % Cost Burden >50% 48.1 63.1 78.7 67.1 62.4 51.4 74.8 84.3 53.9 57.4 60.66. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI386 1,291 611 583 2,871 935 406 193 295 1,829 4,7007. % with any housing problems 77.2 89.1 97.1 94.2 90.2 41.1 75.1 91.7 63.7 57.6 77.58. % Cost Burden >30% 77.2 85.3 49.4 93.5 78.2 41.1 75.1 84.5 63.7 56.9 69.99. % Cost Burden >50% 30.1 21.8 8.2 32.2 22.2 22.7 50 48.7 44.4 35 27.110. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI251 1,381 545 1,078 3,255 1,127 1,056 360 591 3,134 6,38911. % with any housing problems 59 51.4 86.2 61.5 61.2 30.2 67.3 86.9 58.7 54.6 57.912.% Cost Burden >30% 57.4 37.2 27.3 56.9 43.6 30.2 66 54.2 58.7 50.4 46.913. % Cost Burden >50% 4 1.6 3.5 4.3 3 12.3 19.5 5.6 18.6 15.2 914. Household Income >80% MFI207 3,417 961 2,403 6,988 3,347 11,666 2,357 3,235 20,605 27,59315. % with any housing problems 21.3 18 48.3 10.2 19.6 12.1 18.3 34.7 28.5 20.8 20.516.% Cost Burden >30% 21.3 4.8 1.2 7 5.6 12 17 16.6 28.2 17.9 14.817. % Cost Burden >50% 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 2 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.218. Total Households1,617 7,100 2,497 4,961 16,175 6,297 13,441 2,961 4,542 27,241 43,41619. % with any housing problems 63 47 76.2 44 52.2 28.7 25.5 45.7 38.4 30.6 38.620. % Cost Burden >30 61.2 36.3 33.4 41.1 39.8 28.6 24.2 26.9 38.2 27.9 32.321. % Cost Burden >50 30.8 13.3 14.7 16.9 16.4 13.9 6.2 6.1 11.3 8.8 11.6Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Concord(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI510 1,229 542 563 2,844 803 532 327 244 1,906 4,7502. Household Income <=30% MFI379 643 272 328 1,622 352 210 127 104 793 2,4153. % with any housing problems 68.6 84.4 97.1 70.1 80 53.1 89 93.7 78.8 72.5 77.54. % Cost Burden >30% 59.6 74.7 90.4 67.1 72.3 50.3 89 90.6 78.8 70.7 71.85. % Cost Burden >50% 31.4 64.7 66.9 51.5 54.6 32.7 83.3 90.6 75 60.9 56.76. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI131 586 270 235 1,222 451 322 200 140 1,113 2,3357. % with any housing problems 70.2 84 96.3 92.3 86.8 39.7 73.3 100 60.7 62.9 75.48. % Cost Burden >30% 70.2 79.4 45.6 92.3 73.4 39.7 70.2 94 60.7 60.9 67.59. % Cost Burden >50% 26 25.6 1.5 35.3 22.2 20.4 40.7 55 55 36.8 29.210. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI102 569 178 387 1,236 292 760 439 105 1,596 2,83211. % with any housing problems 51 56.9 79.8 55 59.1 25.3 62.5 71.8 82.9 59.6 59.412.% Cost Burden >30% 51 43.8 10.7 54 42.8 25.3 56.8 51 82.9 51.2 47.513. % Cost Burden >50% 0 0.7 0 7.8 2.8 7.5 16.4 7.5 51.4 14.7 9.514. Household Income >80% MFI102 1,042 498 721 2,363 749 4,349 1,390 958 7,446 9,80915. % with any housing problems 9.8 10.3 52.4 8.5 18.6 13 17.8 41.8 30.5 23.4 22.316.% Cost Burden >30% 9.8 2.6 0.8 4.7 3.2 13 14.1 12.9 29 15.7 12.717. % Cost Burden >50% 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 1.4 4.1 1 0.818. Total Households714 2,840 1,218 1,671 6,443 1,844 5,641 2,156 1,307 10,948 17,39119. % with any housing problems 58 51.6 76.1 43.1 54.8 29.1 29.7 56.4 41.8 36.3 43.120. % Cost Burden >30 53.2 43 32.2 40.7 41.5 28.6 25.8 32.7 40.7 29.4 33.921. % Cost Burden >50 21.4 20.1 15.3 16.9 18.5 12.6 7.9 12.9 19 11 13.8Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Pittsburg(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI953 3,246 1,648 1,822 7,669 1,686 1,054 486 556 3,782 11,4512. Household Income <=30% MFI726 1,974 877 1,218 4,795 868 495 182 344 1,889 6,6843. % with any housing problems 72.7 82 92 78.2 81.5 57.6 78.4 100 76.7 70.6 78.44. % Cost Burden >30% 72.7 78.2 79.4 77.3 77.4 57.6 74.7 78.6 76.7 67.6 74.65. % Cost Burden >50% 41 56 50.2 65.8 55.2 35.7 67.1 51.6 68.3 51.4 54.16. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI227 1,272 771 604 2,874 818 559 304 212 1,893 4,7677. % with any housing problems 63 62.7 83.7 70.7 70 30.3 75.8 92.1 81.1 59.4 65.88. % Cost Burden >30% 61.2 55.4 37.6 68.4 53.8 30.3 71.6 80.9 81.1 56.3 54.89. % Cost Burden >50% 20.3 10.9 6.7 22.5 13 22 29.5 18.1 60.8 27.9 18.910. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI196 1,056 471 849 2,572 829 1,031 538 320 2,718 5,29011. % with any housing problems 28.6 44.4 85.8 49.6 52.5 23.6 71.5 81.6 60 57.5 55.112.% Cost Burden >30% 28.6 27.7 21.9 47.2 33.2 23.6 64.5 35.1 60 45.7 39.613. % Cost Burden >50% 0 1.7 0 3.5 1.9 8.6 15.1 4.5 16.6 11.2 6.714. Household Income >80% MFI311 2,455 607 2,300 5,673 1,909 5,973 1,570 2,260 11,712 17,38515. % with any housing problems 12.9 18.3 71.2 12.2 21.2 9.9 21.6 43.9 28.5 24 23.116.% Cost Burden >30% 12.9 3.8 1.6 9 6.2 8.6 17.5 10.2 28.4 17.2 13.617. % Cost Burden >50% 3.2 0 0 0 0.2 2 2.3 0.5 3 2.2 1.518. Total Households1,460 6,757 2,726 4,971 15,914 4,424 8,058 2,594 3,136 18,212 34,12619. % with any housing problems 52.5 49.3 83.9 41.9 53.2 25.6 35.2 61.3 40.6 37.5 44.920. % Cost Burden >30 52.3 39 40.3 39.5 40.6 25.1 30.8 28.5 40.5 30.7 35.321. % Cost Burden >50 24.2 18.7 18 19.5 19.3 13.6 9.8 7 15.4 11.3 15Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Richmond(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI3,643 5,228 1,926 4,077 14,874 7,093 3,517 1,282 2,150 14,042 28,9162. Household Income <=30% MFI2,315 2,860 956 2,425 8,556 3,111 1,416 438 1,170 6,135 14,6913. % with any housing problems 73.1 78.3 92.9 72.7 76.9 61.8 88.1 90.6 75 72.5 75.14. % Cost Burden >30% 71.7 76.6 78.8 71.5 74.1 61 87.3 90.6 74.2 71.7 73.15. % Cost Burden >50% 53.3 60 46.5 60.1 56.7 40.6 77.5 80.1 61.2 55.9 56.46. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI1,328 2,368 970 1,652 6,318 3,982 2,101 844 980 7,907 14,2257. % with any housing problems 80.4 77.7 86.1 85.8 81.7 40 80.3 88.3 69.8 59.5 69.48. % Cost Burden >30% 80.1 68.8 50.5 85.2 72.7 39.9 76.2 75.7 69.8 57.1 649. % Cost Burden >50% 38.8 21.6 15.7 39.7 29 21.9 57.1 47.4 53.9 37.9 3410. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI870 3,073 920 2,522 7,385 4,266 4,338 1,485 1,523 11,612 18,99711. % with any housing problems 59.2 52.2 75.9 54.8 56.8 29.1 74.6 82 69.9 58.2 57.712.% Cost Burden >30% 58.7 41.8 32.9 53.3 46.6 29 71.9 62.5 69.9 54.7 51.513. % Cost Burden >50% 22.2 6.5 4.8 10.3 9.4 13.3 32.5 17.8 33.6 23.7 18.214. Household Income >80% MFI1,880 11,511 2,078 9,702 25,171 19,134 66,362 12,993 14,283 112,772 137,94315. % with any housing problems 32.6 17.5 48.7 12.7 19.4 13.6 22.7 34.5 29.6 23.4 22.716.% Cost Burden >30% 26.8 9.9 3.6 10 10.7 13.4 21.3 21.3 29.3 21 19.117. % Cost Burden >50% 8.7 0.5 0 1.2 1.4 3.4 3.3 2.5 4.6 3.4 318. Total Households6,393 19,812 4,924 16,301 47,430 30,493 74,217 15,760 17,956 138,426 185,85619. % with any housing problems 60.8 38.8 69.7 35.6 43.9 24.1 28.6 43.4 38.2 30.6 3420. % Cost Burden >30 58.5 31.5 32.9 33.5 36 23.9 27 30 37.8 28.1 30.121. % Cost Burden >50 32.9 12.6 13 15.3 16.3 11 7.9 8.5 13.4 9.4 11.1Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Contra Costa County(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4) (5 or more) Other Owners Householdsmember Households member Householdshouseholds households(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (L)1. Household Income <=50% MFI840 451 91 774 2,156 2,182 219 18 331 2,750 4,9062. Household Income <=30% MFI461 242 34 358 1,095 885 74 18 197 1,174 2,2693. % with any housing problems 66.6 92.6 100 78.5 77.3 73.6 100 100 82.7 77.2 77.24. % Cost Burden >30% 66.6 92.6 88.2 78.5 76.9 73.6 100 100 77.7 76.3 76.65. % Cost Burden >50% 52.1 82.6 58.8 78.5 67.7 56.9 86.5 77.8 67.5 60.9 64.26. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI379 209 57 416 1,061 1,297 145 0 134 1,576 2,6377. % with any housing problems 77 88.5 82.5 95.7 86.9 60.7 82.8 N/A 82.1 64.5 73.58. % Cost Burden >30% 77 83.7 68.4 95.7 85.2 59.9 82.8 N/A 82.1 63.9 72.59. % Cost Burden >50% 58.8 37.3 26.3 60.1 53.3 24.3 69 N/A 68.7 32.2 40.710. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI300 316 72 603 1,291 1,599 257 34 265 2,155 3,44611. % with any housing problems 71 68 100 63 68.2 30.6 66.1 58.8 66.4 39.7 50.312.% Cost Burden >30% 67.7 63.6 11.1 59.7 59.8 30.6 62.3 29.4 66.4 38.7 46.613. % Cost Burden >50% 26 8.9 5.6 3.3 10.1 12.3 47.5 29.4 27.2 18.6 15.414. Household Income >80% MFI674 2,399 162 2,907 6,142 6,006 6,702 914 1,997 15,619 21,76115. % with any housing problems 34.4 22.8 75.3 7.7 18.3 11.3 19.3 30.9 26.1 17.8 17.916.% Cost Burden >30% 32.3 12 21.6 6.2 11.8 11.3 18.3 25.1 25.6 17 15.517. % Cost Burden >50% 14.7 1 0 0.4 2.2 1.3 2.9 1.1 5.1 2.5 2.418. Total Households1,814 3,166 325 4,284 9,589 9,787 7,178 966 2,593 20,524 30,11319. % with any housing problems 57.6 37 84.6 29.9 39.3 26.6 23.1 33.1 37.4 27.1 3120. % Cost Burden >30 56.2 28.1 34.5 28.5 33.8 26.5 22 26.6 36.6 26.2 28.721. % Cost Burden >50 35.3 10.5 12 13.1 16.4 11.2 6.7 3.5 15.4 9.8 11.9Renters OwnersHousehold by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Housing Problems Output for -All HouseholdsName of Jurisdiction:Walnut Creek(CDBG), CaliforniaSource of Data:CHAS Data BookData Current as of:2000
APPENDIX 5.
HMDA DATA TECHNICAL NOTES
Page | 1
Appendix 5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data Technical Note
The most recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data set was analyzed for
lending patterns (2008 Loan Application Register (LAR) & Transmittal Sheet (TS) Raw
Data).
Data were reviewed for loan applications to purchase homes in the 2000 U.S. Decennial
Census tracts that fall within the 2008 boundaries of Contra Costa County (see the
HMDA maps for tract numbers and boundaries). There are 67,206 records in the HMDA
data set.
The analysis was only concerned with fair lending practices for home purchases in
which purchasers were the primary resident; therefore the HMDA data is limited to
home purchase transactions reported as purchases by owner-occupants.
This exclusion reduced the data set by 40,611 records to 26,595 records. The excluded
records included 3,542 home improvement records, 33,184 refinancing records, 6,812
records for properties not to be owner-occupied, and 357 “not applicable” records.
Another 5,713 loan purchase records for loans purchased by institutions (usually
through foreclosure) and 7 “pre-approval” requests were excluded. These records were
excluded because they do not represent loan types expected to include discriminatory
lending practices.
The remaining 20,875 records represent actions reported by lenders in response to a
request from a consumer for a new home loan to purchase a primary residence.
It should be noted that multiple applications by the same household may be present in
the data set. Since the data set is anonymous, it does not contain a variable that can be
used to filter out duplicates.
The HMDA data report information on the location of the property being mortgaged;
the type, purpose and intended use of the loan; characteristics of the lender and
borrower; and the “action” the lender took. This final variable is of interest to analyze
lending patterns. It tells us the result of the lenders’ decisions regarding applications for
mortgage credit.
Appendix 5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
Page | 2
The action types reported in the HMDA data are:
1 loan originated
2 application approved but not accepted
3 application denied by a financial institution
4 application withdrawn by applicant
5 file closed for incompleteness
6 loan purchased by the institution
7 pre-approval request denied by financial institution
8 pre-approval request approved but not accepted
As previously mentioned, the data analysis was limited to certain action types that are
relative to requests for new mortgage credit. Records for action types 6, 7, and 8 have
been excluded.
The action types in the data set were organized according to three specific outcomes:
denials, failures, and originations. It is important to note that applications resulting in
denial are included in applications resulting in failure.
The analyzed outcomes were grouped as follows:
Total Applications Action types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Denials Action type 3
Failures Action types 2, 3, 4, 5
Originations Action type 1
APPENDIX 6.
MORTGAGE LENDING PATTERNS
(MAPS)
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
rtile
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
artile
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
35510430400030100356002355106355303315000345201303100303200355200347000302002352102313202346102309000302003320001346201356001346202361000354002313103352202318000354001353001357000314200302004352101345107345109
3553043592023601003480003050003060023553013500003512003461013511
00
320002327000355302 3451083141033551013591013522
0
1 3452023400
0
2338302 343003314102321102342000321103
35300232110136300032200033730033820230800233310034100034510
5308001
338201324000313101349000306001339000343002 3451033132013372
0
0
319000307205332000316000359204331000329000338100337100355305
340001343001385100314104321200
360200345101330000 33830133620000335000311000391000
e
APPENDIX 7.
MORTGAGE LENDING BY CENSUS
TRACT (HMDA)
Page | 1
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
LOAN APPLICATIONS BY CENSUS TRACT
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3010 113 0.54% 20 17.70% 48 42.48% 65 57.52%
3020.02 492 2.36% 96 19.51% 199 40.45% 293 59.55%
3020.03 245 1.17% 44 17.96% 79 32.24% 166 67.76%
3020.04 712 3.41% 134 18.82% 302 42.42% 410 57.58%
3031 650 3.11% 130 20.00% 283 43.54% 367 56.46%
3032 1035 4.96% 171 16.52% 388 37.49% 647 62.51%
3040 490 2.35% 99 20.20% 209 42.65% 281 57.35%
3050 57 0.27% 14 24.56% 27 47.37% 30 52.63%
3060.01 130 0.62% 24 18.46% 45 34.62% 85 65.38%
3060.02 90 0.43% 14 15.56% 39 43.33% 51 56.67%
3071.01 96 0.46% 29 30.21% 47 48.96% 49 51.04%
3071.02 70 0.34% 13 18.57% 32 45.71% 38 54.29%
3072.01 43 0.21% 12 27.91% 24 55.81% 19 44.19%
3072.02 43 0.21% 7 16.28% 17 39.53% 26 60.47%
3072.04 104 0.50% 22 21.15% 41 39.42% 63 60.58%
3072.05 109 0.52% 23 21.10% 45 41.28% 64 58.72%
3080.01 164 0.79% 48 29.27% 87 53.05% 77 46.95%
3080.02 178 0.85% 41 23.03% 71 39.89% 107 60.11%
3090 76 0.36% 15 19.74% 29 38.16% 47 61.84%
3100 144 0.69% 40 27.78% 72 50.00% 72 50.00%
3110 93 0.45% 22 23.66% 45 48.39% 48 51.61%
3120 36 0.17% 7 19.44% 17 47.22% 19 52.78%
3131.01 121 0.58% 31 25.62% 64 52.89% 57 47.11%
3131.02 128 0.61% 31 24.22% 63 49.22% 65 50.78%
3131.03 218 1.04% 47 21.56% 93 42.66% 125 57.34%
3132.01 188 0.90% 52 27.66% 96 51.06% 92 48.94%
3132.02 174 0.83% 30 17.24% 72 41.38% 102 58.62%
3141.02 126 0.60% 36 28.57% 65 51.59% 61 48.41%
3141.03 76 0.36% 14 18.42% 33 43.42% 43 56.58%
3141.04 101 0.48% 35 34.65% 59 58.42% 42 41.58%
3142 79 0.38% 18 22.78% 33 41.77% 46 58.23%
3150 94 0.45% 13 13.83% 32 34.04% 62 65.96%
3160 4 0.02% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00%
3170 17 0.08% 3 17.65% 8 47.06% 9 52.94%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 2
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3180 28 0.13% 2 7.14% 8 28.57% 20 71.43%
3190 81 0.39% 14 17.28% 35 43.21% 46 56.79%
3200.01 45 0.22% 9 20.00% 22 48.89% 23 51.11%
3200.02 131 0.63% 17 12.98% 38 29.01% 93 70.99%
3211.01 56 0.27% 9 16.07% 16 28.57% 40 71.43%
3211.02 95 0.46% 11 11.58% 29 30.53% 66 69.47%
3211.03 59 0.28% 2 3.39% 19 32.20% 40 67.80%
3212 57 0.27% 5 8.77% 16 28.07% 41 71.93%
3220 81 0.39% 7 8.64% 36 44.44% 45 55.56%
3230 60 0.29% 7 11.67% 20 33.33% 40 66.67%
3240 93 0.45% 14 15.05% 46 49.46% 47 50.54%
3250 77 0.37% 16 20.78% 31 40.26% 46 59.74%
3260 55 0.26% 9 16.36% 20 36.36% 35 63.64%
3270 161 0.77% 32 19.88% 80 49.69% 81 50.31%
3280 14 0.07% 4 28.57% 12 85.71% 2 14.29%
3290 111 0.53% 15 13.51% 51 45.95% 60 54.05%
3300 111 0.53% 14 12.61% 46 41.44% 65 58.56%
3310 140 0.67% 22 15.71% 55 39.29% 85 60.71%
3320 117 0.56% 17 14.53% 43 36.75% 74 63.25%
3331 117 0.56% 21 17.95% 54 46.15% 63 53.85%
3332 88 0.42% 15 17.05% 34 38.64% 54 61.36%
3340.01 66 0.32% 14 21.21% 25 37.88% 41 62.12%
3340.03 46 0.22% 7 15.22% 16 34.78% 30 65.22%
3340.04 104 0.50% 14 13.46% 33 31.73% 71 68.27%
3340.05 18 0.09% 2 11.11% 6 33.33% 12 66.67%
3350 56 0.27% 16 28.57% 25 44.64% 31 55.36%
3361.01 39 0.19% 13 33.33% 22 56.41% 17 43.59%
3361.02 73 0.35% 13 17.81% 29 39.73% 44 60.27%
3362 108 0.52% 26 24.07% 57 52.78% 51 47.22%
3371 40 0.19% 5 12.50% 15 37.50% 25 62.50%
3372 98 0.47% 13 13.27% 36 36.73% 62 63.27%
3373 94 0.45% 12 12.77% 40 42.55% 54 57.45%
3381 127 0.61% 22 17.32% 50 39.37% 77 60.63%
3382.01 61 0.29% 16 26.23% 25 40.98% 36 59.02%
3382.02 154 0.74% 20 12.99% 50 32.47% 104 67.53%
3383.01 36 0.17% 6 16.67% 15 41.67% 21 58.33%
3383.02 87 0.42% 12 13.79% 32 36.78% 55 63.22%
3390 135 0.65% 13 9.63% 42 31.11% 93 68.89%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 3
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3400.01 97 0.46% 9 9.28% 36 37.11% 61 62.89%
3400.02 128 0.61% 17 13.28% 52 40.63% 76 59.38%
3410 70 0.34% 4 5.71% 22 31.43% 48 68.57%
3420 94 0.45% 16 17.02% 38 40.43% 56 59.57%
3430.01 56 0.27% 7 12.50% 23 41.07% 33 58.93%
3430.02 64 0.31% 10 15.63% 20 31.25% 44 68.75%
3430.03 66 0.32% 12 18.18% 30 45.45% 36 54.55%
3440 18 0.09% 3 16.67% 6 33.33% 12 66.67%
3451.01 121 0.58% 21 17.36% 49 40.50% 72 59.50%
3451.02 56 0.27% 8 14.29% 19 33.93% 37 66.07%
3451.03 78 0.37% 16 20.51% 33 42.31% 45 57.69%
3451.05 54 0.26% 8 14.81% 15 27.78% 39 72.22%
3451.07 134 0.64% 11 8.21% 38 28.36% 96 71.64%
3451.08 211 1.01% 27 12.80% 68 32.23% 143 67.77%
3451.09 234 1.12% 28 11.97% 95 40.60% 139 59.40%
3451.1 183 0.88% 32 17.49% 89 48.63% 94 51.37%
3452.01 130 0.62% 19 14.62% 55 42.31% 75 57.69%
3452.02 120 0.57% 19 15.83% 48 40.00% 72 60.00%
3461.01 43 0.21% 5 11.63% 16 37.21% 27 62.79%
3461.02 100 0.48% 18 18.00% 47 47.00% 53 53.00%
3462.01 93 0.45% 16 17.20% 40 43.01% 53 56.99%
3462.02 173 0.83% 28 16.18% 73 42.20% 100 57.80%
3470 72 0.34% 7 9.72% 22 30.56% 50 69.44%
3480 66 0.32% 4 6.06% 17 25.76% 49 74.24%
3490 47 0.23% 6 12.77% 16 34.04% 31 65.96%
3500 49 0.23% 3 6.12% 16 32.65% 33 67.35%
3511 159 0.76% 10 6.29% 30 18.87% 129 81.13%
3512 87 0.42% 7 8.05% 32 36.78% 55 63.22%
3521.01 26 0.12% 3 11.54% 10 38.46% 16 61.54%
3521.02 74 0.35% 12 16.22% 38 51.35% 36 48.65%
3522.01 72 0.34% 4 5.56% 25 34.72% 47 65.28%
3522.02 49 0.23% 4 8.16% 11 22.45% 38 77.55%
3530.01 70 0.34% 10 14.29% 30 42.86% 40 57.14%
3530.02 44 0.21% 0.00% 14 31.82% 30 68.18%
3540.01 33 0.16% 7 21.21% 18 54.55% 15 45.45%
3540.02 84 0.40% 13 15.48% 35 41.67% 49 58.33%
3551.01 654 3.13% 140 21.41% 277 42.35% 377 57.65%
3551.04 1838 8.80% 300 16.32% 829 45.10% 1009 54.90%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 4
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3551.06 718 3.44% 192 26.74% 351 48.89% 367 51.11%
3552 238 1.14% 44 18.49% 100 42.02% 138 57.98%
3553.01 127 0.61% 9 7.09% 49 38.58% 78 61.42%
3553.02 45 0.22% 7 15.56% 16 35.56% 29 64.44%
3553.03 10 0.05% 2 20.00% 2 20.00% 8 80.00%
3553.04 107 0.51% 19 17.76% 29 27.10% 78 72.90%
3553.05 61 0.29% 12 19.67% 26 42.62% 35 57.38%
3560.01 65 0.31% 15 23.08% 31 47.69% 34 52.31%
3560.02 112 0.54% 33 29.46% 58 51.79% 54 48.21%
3570 30 0.14% 10 33.33% 15 50.00% 15 50.00%
3580 93 0.45% 21 22.58% 45 48.39% 48 51.61%
3591.01 379 1.82% 75 19.79% 172 45.38% 207 54.62%
3591.02 70 0.34% 8 11.43% 26 37.14% 44 62.86%
3592.02 77 0.37% 4 5.19% 25 32.47% 52 67.53%
3592.03 103 0.49% 19 18.45% 40 38.83% 63 61.17%
3592.04 71 0.34% 12 16.90% 30 42.25% 41 57.75%
3601 128 0.61% 20 15.63% 48 37.50% 80 62.50%
3602 70 0.34% 17 24.29% 31 44.29% 39 55.71%
3610 65 0.31% 5 7.69% 18 27.69% 47 72.31%
3620 36 0.17% 6 16.67% 11 30.56% 25 69.44%
3630 132 0.63% 35 26.52% 63 47.73% 69 52.27%
3640.01 115 0.55% 26 22.61% 60 52.17% 55 47.83%
3640.02 121 0.58% 23 19.01% 52 42.98% 69 57.02%
3650.01 299 1.43% 64 21.40% 137 45.82% 162 54.18%
3650.02 163 0.78% 52 31.90% 109 66.87% 54 33.13%
3660.01 91 0.44% 26 28.57% 48 52.75% 43 47.25%
3660.02 86 0.41% 15 17.44% 43 50.00% 43 50.00%
3671 105 0.50% 27 25.71% 60 57.14% 45 42.86%
3672 87 0.42% 18 20.69% 36 41.38% 51 58.62%
3680 120 0.57% 30 25.00% 64 53.33% 56 46.67%
3690.01 55 0.26% 14 25.45% 29 52.73% 26 47.27%
3690.02 50 0.24% 12 24.00% 25 50.00% 25 50.00%
3700 40 0.19% 5 12.50% 18 45.00% 22 55.00%
3710 82 0.39% 14 17.07% 33 40.24% 49 59.76%
3720 129 0.62% 23 17.83% 56 43.41% 73 56.59%
3730 66 0.32% 19 28.79% 37 56.06% 29 43.94%
3740 56 0.27% 7 12.50% 21 37.50% 35 62.50%
3750 45 0.22% 19 42.22% 29 64.44% 16 35.56%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 5
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3760 79 0.38% 21 26.58% 43 54.43% 36 45.57%
3770 72 0.34% 26 36.11% 50 69.44% 22 30.56%
3780 74 0.35% 13 17.57% 35 47.30% 39 52.70%
3790 84 0.40% 17 20.24% 41 48.81% 43 51.19%
3800 142 0.68% 19 13.38% 55 38.73% 87 61.27%
3810 111 0.53% 40 36.04% 61 54.95% 50 45.05%
3820 97 0.46% 14 14.43% 44 45.36% 53 54.64%
3830 30 0.14% 3 10.00% 10 33.33% 20 66.67%
3840 51 0.24% 5 9.80% 14 27.45% 37 72.55%
3851 41 0.20% 6 14.63% 11 26.83% 30 73.17%
3852 25 0.12% 4 16.00% 11 44.00% 14 56.00%
3860 22 0.11% 3 13.64% 10 45.45% 12 54.55%
3870 15 0.07% 1 6.67% 6 40.00% 9 60.00%
3880 15 0.07% 0.00% 3 20.00% 12 80.00%
3891 16 0.08% 5 31.25% 6 37.50% 10 62.50%
3892 7 0.03% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 4 57.14%
3901 29 0.14% 4 13.79% 8 27.59% 21 72.41%
3902 22 0.11% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 19 86.36%
3910 29 0.14% 2 6.90% 7 24.14% 22 75.86%
3920 30 0.14% 3 10.00% 6 20.00% 24 80.00%
NA 75 0.36% 5 6.67% 25 33.33% 50 66.67%
Total 20,875 100.00% 3,837 18.38% 8,823 42.27% 12,052 57.73%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: Loan failure includes all loan applications not originated, icluding loan denail.
APPENDIX 8.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS REPORTS
Page | 1
APPENDIX 8. FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS REPORTS
LOCAL FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
The following information was provided by local agencies regarding the amount and
type of fair housing complaints and requests for information.
Housing Rights, Inc.
Housing Rights, Inc. (HRI) provided records of housing complaints filed in Contra Costa
County from 2006 through 2009.1 HRI received a total of 317 fair housing complaints
during this time frame. Please note that HRI did not serve all jurisdictions within Contra
Costa County for all three years and has never served the City of Pittsburg.
Of the 317 complaints received, the majority were based on disability (32 percent) and
accommodation (18 percent), followed by race (13 percent), family status (11 percent),
and national origin (10 percent).
During the 2006 to 2009 time frame, the client’s decision to stop the case resulted in the
majority of closed cases (21 percent). Fifteen percent were closed by HRI (15 percent)
and only 3 percent were closed by DFEH (2 percent) and HUD (1 percent). The
remaining cases had the following outcomes:
Advice only (13 percent)
Client disappeared (12 percent)
Client refused to follow through (12 percent)
Pending referrals (7 percent)
Insufficient evidence (6 percent)
Administratively closed (5 percent)
Conciliated by other attorney/agency (4 percent)
Conciliated by HRI attorney (1 percent)
No discrimination referred to tenant/landlord counselor (1 percent)
Bay Area Legal Aid
Bay Area Legal Aid handled (i.e., closed) a total of 389 housing complaint cases in
Contra Costa County from March 1, 2007, to November 30, 2009. Bay Area Legal Aid is
currently in Quarter 12 of a three-year HUD fair housing project, and 389 cases represent
the total number of cases for the first 11 quarters.
Of the 389 cases handled, 204 (52 percent) were complaints regarding disability
discrimination and requests for reasonable accommodations. One hundred and twenty-
1 Personal communication, Wanda Remmers, Executive Director, Housing Rights, Inc.
Appendix 8. Fair Housing Complaints Reports
Page | 2
three (32 percent) of the complaints were related to race discrimination, followed by
complaints related to gender (23 complaints or 6 percent), family status (21 complaints
or 5 percent), national origin (14 complaints or 4 percent), religion (3 complaints or 1
percent), and sexual orientation (1 complaint or 1 percent).
Bay Area Legal Aid does not organize their data by county as to how each case was
settled; therefore the following data is provided for all of the fair housing cases from
four counties to indicate the pattern for the typical handling of cases.
Advice and/or brief services provided (40 percent)
Referral to other local organization or legal services provider (27 percent)
Obtained favorable resolution of fair housing complaint and settlement of issue
in litigation or settlement (19 percent)
Administratively resolved (8 percent)
Resolved by HUD (4 percent)
Other (2 percent)
Resolved by private attorney (1 percent)
Fair Housing of Marin
Fair Housing of Marin did not start working with the City of Richmond until January
2009; therefore they only have complaints recorded from January 2009 to January 2010.2
A total of 21 complaints were recorded over this time period.
Of the 21 complaints, 6 were on the basis on disability and accommodation, 4 were on
the basis of race, and the remaining complaints were related to affordable housing, late
rent, security deposit issues, rejected rental applications, and repairs. Of the cases closed,
29 percent were relevant to fair housing, of which two were closed by HUD and two
were closed by DFEH.
2 Personal communication, Caroline Peattie, Housing Director, Fair Housing of Marin.
APPENDIX 9.
LICENSED COMMUNITY CARE
FACILITIES
Page | 1 APPENDIX 9 LICENSED CARE FACILITIES BY JURISDICTION AND TYPE Type of Facility Antioch Concord Urban County Pittsburg Richmond Walnut Creek Total Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Adult Day Care Facility 9 354 4 221 14 485 1 72 6 306 2 84 36 1,522 Adult Residential Facility 28 166 27 178 57 408 18 105 21 118 6 36 157 1,011 Group Home 12 74 7 56 24 180 5 30 6 36 0 0 54 376 Residential Care Facility 42 550 92 928 194 3,399 15 101 18 216 79 1,290 440 6,484 Small Family Homes 4 19 1 6 7 42 1 2 1 5 0 0 14 74 Social Rehabilitation Facility 0 0 0 0 2 32 0 0 1 16 0 0 3 48 Transitional Housing Placement 1 12 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 Total 96 1,175 132 1,404 298 4,546 40 310 53 697 87 1,410 706 9,542 Source: State of California Community Care Licensing Division, September 2009
APPENDIX 10.
PERMITTED HOUSING TYPES
Page | 1 APPENDIX 10 PERMITTED HOUSING TYPES BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Single Family Multi Family Residential Care Facilities (6 or fewer) Residential Care Facilities (7 or more) Emergency Shelters Single Room Occupancy Units Second Units Transitional/Supportive Housing Reasonable Accommodation Urban County Brentwood P P P U U U P U Y Clayton P P P U P U P P Y Danville P P P U P P P P Y El Cerrito Y Hercules Lafayette P P P P P P P P Y Martinez P P P U P P P Y Moraga P P P ? P P P P Y Oakley P P P U P P P P Y Orinda Pinole P P P U P ? P U Y Pleasant Hill P P ? ? ? U ? ? Y San Pablo San Ramon P P P U P P P P Y Entitlement Jurisdictions Antioch P U U U P P U U Y Concord P P P P P P P P Y Pittsburg P P P U P U P P Y Richmond P P P U P U P P Y Walnut Creek P P P P P P P P Y Contra Costa County P P P U P P P P Y U: use permit required P: permitted use (note, if the use if permitted in one district, it will be noted as permitted in the table). Please note, permitted uses and conditional uses are subject to different zones for each jurisdiction. Please see each jurisdictions zoning code for more detail.
APPENDIX 11.
LOCALLY ADOPTED BUILDING CODES
Page | 1
Appendix 11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
Local Building Codes
Antioch
The City of Antioch has adopted the 2007 California Building Code. The California
Building Code has established construction standards for all residential buildings, which
provide minimum standards necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
residents. The City also requires that all new residential construction comply with the
federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which includes accessibility requirements
for certain types of buildings. Specific accessibility requirements for residential buildings
are also contained in the California Building Code.
Concord
The City of Concord has adopted the California Building Code, in addition to Fire,
Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Uniform Codes, as the basis for its building
standards. The City has also adopted the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings. Permits are required for all electrical and plumbing work and
for other major home improvements and modifications.
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County has adopted the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform
Housing Code, which establish standards and require inspections at various stages
of construction to ensure code compliance. The County’s building code also requires
new residential construction to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Pittsburg
The City of Pittsburg requires all building construction standards to conform to the
California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). In
addition, new residential construction must comply with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). As a standard practice, the City does not impose
additional local requirements to the California Building Code standards; however,
the City is considering adding programs and policies into the 2009 – 2014 Housing
Element to provide incentives to exceed minimum energy efficiency standards set
forth in Title 24.
Appendix 11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
Page | 2
Richmond
The City of Richmond’s Building Department currently administers codes and code
enforcement under the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Amendments
to the UBC have been made by the City and are based on the 2001 California Building
Code.
Walnut Creek
The City of Walnut Creek has adopted the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform
Housing Code. Development must comply with applicable codes. Code enforcement is
usually triggered by complaints, but at times City personnel will initiate enforcement
activity if a structure appears to be unsafe and not in compliance with the Uniform
Housing Code. There is a very low incidence of substandard structures in the city.
APPENDIX 12.
LOCAL RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Page | 1
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
Federal grants awarded to states
and units of general local
government on a formula basis
for housing and community
development activities which
primarily benefit low- and
moderate-income households.
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Homeless assistance
Infrastructure
Home Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME)
Federal grants awarded to states
and units of general local
government to produce or
preserve affordable housing.
New construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Rental assistance
Mortgage Credit Certificate
Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) program assists first-time
homebuyers with the purchase of
existing or new homes. The MCC
tax credit reduces the federal
income tax of borrowers
purchasing qualified homes.
First-time homebuyer
assistance
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers
Rental assistance payments to
owners of private market-rate
units on behalf of low-income
tenants.
Rental assistance
Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
Tax credits are available to
persons and corporations that
invest in affordable housing.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Multi-Family Housing Program
(MHP)
Deferred payment loans from the
state to local governments and
nonprofit and for-profit
developers for new construction,
rehabilitation, and preservation
of permanent and transitional
rental housing for lower-income
households. This program is
currently suspended for lack of
funding.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Conversion of
nonresidential to rental
Multi-family Housing Program –
Supportive Housing
Deferred payment loans from the
state for rental housing with
supportive services for the
disabled who are homeless or at
risk of homelessness. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Conversion of
nonresidential to rental
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
Page | 2
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
Grants from the state to cities to
provide down payment
assistance (up to $30,000) to low-
and moderate-income first-time
homebuyers of new homes in
projects with affordability
enhanced by local regulatory
incentives or barrier reductions.
This program is currently
suspended for lack of funding.
Homebuyer assistance
CalHome Grants from the state to cities
and nonprofit developers to offer
homebuyer assistance, including
down payment assistance,
rehabilitation,
acquisition/rehabilitation, and
homebuyer counseling. Loans to
developers for property
acquisition, site development,
predevelopment and
construction period expenses for
homeownership projects. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
Predevelopment, site
development, site
acquisition
Rehabilitation
Acquisition/rehabilitation
Down payment assistance
Mortgage financing
Homebuyer counseling
Transit-Oriented Development
Program
Funding for housing and related
infrastructure near transit stations.
This program is currently
suspended for lack of funding.
Rental housing
construction.
Mortgage assistance.
Infill Incentive Grant Program Funding of public infrastructure
(water, sewer, traffic, parks, site
cleanup, etc.) to facilitate infill
housing development. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
Infrastructure to support
high density affordable
housing.
CalHFA Affordable Housing
Partnerships Program (AHPP)
Affordable senior financing from
CalHFA when combined with a
local homebuyer assistance
program.
Homebuyer assistance
CalHFA California
Homebuyer's Downpayment
Assistance Program (CHDAP)
Deferred-payment junior loan to
qualified borrowers to be used for
their down payment or closing
costs.
Homebuyer assistance
Redevelopment Housing Fund State law requires that 20% of
Redevelopment Agency funds
be set aside for a wide range of
affordable housing activities
governed by state law.
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New construction
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
Page | 3
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)
Fixed rate mortgages issued by
private mortgage insurers.
Mortgages which fund the
purchase and rehabilitation of a
home. Low down payment
mortgages for single-family
homes in underserved low-
income and minority cities.
Homebuyer assistance
Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program
Direct subsidies to nonprofit and
for-profit developers and public
agencies for affordable low-
income ownership and rental
projects.
New construction
Freddie Mac HomeWorks – First and second
mortgages that include
rehabilitation loan; city provides
gap financing for rehabilitation
component. Households earning
up to 80% MFI qualify.
Homebuyer assistance
combined with
rehabilitation
DRAFT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FY 2010/11
ACTION PLAN
Community Development Block Grant
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Emergency Shelter Grants
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
March 26, 2010
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1
Program Description....................................................................................................................... 1
Community Development Block Grant...................................................................................... 1
HOME Investment Partnerships Act .......................................................................................... 2
Emergency Shelter Grants.......................................................................................................... 2
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS .......................................................................... 2
Available Resources........................................................................................................................ 2
Community Development Block Grant...................................................................................... 3
Emergency Shelter Grants.......................................................................................................... 4
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids ........................................................................... 4
Additional Resources.................................................................................................................. 4
Activities to be Undertaken ............................................................................................................ 5
Housing....................................................................................................................................... 5
American Dream Downpayment Intitiative (ADDI).................................................................. 7
Non-housing Community Development Needs.......................................................................... 7
Fair Housing................................................................................................................................ 9
North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy.......................................................... 12
Geographic Distribution................................................................................................................ 14
Summary of FY 2010/11 Geographic Distribution .................................................................. 15
Other Actions................................................................................................................................ 16
Additional Public Policies to Remove Barriers and Obstacles to the Provision of Affordable
Housing..................................................................................................................................... 16
Lead-based Paint Hazard Implementation Plan........................................................................ 18
Decrease the Number of Poverty Level Households................................................................ 18
Develop Institutional Structure................................................................................................. 21
Enhance Coordination between Public and Private Housing ................................................... 21
Foster Public Housing Improvements and Resident Initiatives................................................ 22
Public Housing Resident Initiatives.......................................................................................... 22
Additional Requirements.............................................................................................................. 22
Monitoring Plan........................................................................................................................ 23
Limited-English Proficient Populations/Language Assistance Plan......................................... 26
Summary of Public Participation Process..................................................................................... 26
Public Notices …………………………………………………………………………………...
ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT TABLES................................................................................... 27
ATTACHMENT B – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS CHART ..................................... 28
ATTACHMENT C – CERTIFICATIONS................................................................................... 29
ATTACHMENT D—FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER'S PROGRAM........................................... 30
ATTACHMENT E—AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PROCEDURES..................................... 33
ATTACHMENT F—MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS OUTREACH PROGRAM... 36
Executive Summary
The Contra Costa County FY 2010/11 Action Plan describes recommendations for funding of
specific projects and programs to address housing, economic development, infrastructure/public
facility improvements, and public service needs utilizing Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds.
These funds are allocated annually to entitlement communities through the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to carry out a wide range of community development
activities that benefit lower income persons and households 1 . In order to receive annual
allocations, jurisdictions must submit a five-year Consolidated Plan 2 and an annual Action Plan.
The FY 2010/15 3 Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) identifies
priority needs, strategies to meet the priority needs, and goals to be addressed during the five-
year period for housing, economic development, infrastructure/public facility, and public
services. The Action Plan must demonstrate the linkage between the use of funds and the specific
objectives developed to address needs identified in the five-year Consolidated Plan.
The County received the following allocations for FY 2010/11:
CDBG $3,736,986
HOME $3,220,509
ESG $ 151,604
HOPWA $ 450,000
Program Description
Community Development Block Grant
The primary purpose of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing
decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally
for persons of low income. The County’s goal is to develop and conserve viable communities in
areas where blight and disinvestment threaten residents’ safety, vitality and productivity. County
CDBG funds can be used only for projects that benefit Urban County 4 residents. Since 1975,
1 The Contra Costa County CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs use the following income definitions: Extremely-low
income households are defined as households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income (AMI) for the
Oakland PMSA as adjusted for household size. Very-low income households are defined as households with incomes at or
below 50 percent AMI, and low-income households are households with incomes at or below 80 percent AMI. Although
CDBG regulations use the terms low and moderate income to describe households with incomes at or below 50 percent and 80
percent AMI respectively, the County has elected to use the terms very-low and low-income to be consistent with its other
programs.
2 The Consolidated Plan is available for review at the Community Development Department or visit our web site at
www.ccreach.org.
3 The Consolidated Plan covers FY 2010/11 through FY 2014/15.
4 The Urban County consists of all of Contra Costa with the exception of the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and
Walnut Creek. These cities are separate entitlement jurisdictions under the CDBG program.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
1
Contra Costa County has used the CDBG program to improve the quality of life and physical
conditions in its lower income communities.
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
The purpose of the HOME program is to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and
affordable housing for very-low and low-income households. In June of 1993, Contra Costa
County as the Urban County representative, and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and
Walnut Creek, joined together to form a Consortium for purposes of participation in the HOME
program. The City of Richmond operates an independent HOME program. HOME funds may be
used for projects to acquire, rehabilitate, and construct housing for lower-income households in
the Consortium area.
Emergency Shelter Grants
The purpose of the ESG program is to provide emergency shelter and related services to the
County’s homeless populations. Eligible activities include: the rehabilitation and conversion of
buildings for use as emergency shelters; the provision of essential services to the homeless;
operating support for emergency shelters; and homeless prevention activities. ESG funds are
limited to projects and programs benefiting Urban County residents.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
The purpose of the HOPWA Program is to provide affordable housing, housing counseling and
advocacy programs for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS who are either homeless or have
unstable housing. The County represents all Contra Costa jurisdictions for purposes of
administering the HOPWA program.5
Available Resources
The County will have $7.5 million in federal resources for FY 2010/11. The following sections
breakdown the proposed sources and uses of those funds. Funds are allocated by the County
annually through a competitive application process to community and social service agencies,
public agencies, non-profit and for-profit housing developers, and businesses to implement
programs that provide affordable housing and strengthen and revitalize lower income
communities.
On April 27, 2010 a public meeting was held before the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors (Board) on the proposed allocation of FY 2010/11 CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds,
and FY 2008/09 HOPWA funds. The Board considered the recommendations for funding of FY
2010/11 projects from the Board’s Family and Human Services (public service and ESG
projects) and Finance (economic development and infrastructure/public facilities projects)
Committees, and the Affordable Housing Finance Committee (housing projects). Attachment A
5 Pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act, HOPWA funds are allocated on an annual basis to the City of Oakland for the
Oakland PMSA, which includes Alameda and Contra Costa County. Contra Costa receives a formula share of HOPWA funds
through the City of Oakland.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
2
summarizes projects to be funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds during FY
2010/11.
Community Development Block Grant
The Board of Supervisors has adopted funding guidelines for the annual allocation of CDBG
funds. The funding guidelines require that the annual grant award be allocated to the various
categories as follows:
Category of Use
Percent
of Grant
Housing 45.1%
Public Service 6 15.0%
Economic Development 14.0%
Infrastructure/Public Facilities 3.9%
Program Administration 20.0%
Contingency 7 2.0%
Total 100%
For FY 2010/11, the Board of Supervisors voted to use the “Contingency” to fund projects in the
Infrastructure/Public Facilities category.
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,736,986 Projects/Programs $3,419,144
8
Recaptured funds from closed
or completed projects 409,493
FY 2009/10 Housing
Development Assistance Fund
(HDAF) 76,071
Housing Development
Assistance Fund (HDAF)336,009
Program Income (est.)
350,000
Program Administration
FY 2010/11 9 817,397
Total Available for Allocation $4,572,550 Total Funds Allocated $4,572,550
6 Statutory Cap
7 The contingency category allows Board of Supervisor flexibility in funding specific projects.
8 Includes $350,000 in Revolving Loan Funds allocated to housing rehabilitation programs.
9 The allocation to Program Administration is limited to an amount no greater than twenty percent of the sum of the entitlement
grant plus the income (regular program income and revolving loan income) received by the grantee and its subrecipients during
the program year. As stated above, revolving loan income is included in the base amount used in calculating the twenty percent
allocated to Program Administration. The Program Administration is funded out of the entitlement. The revolving loan income
remains with the revolving loan programs to be used for rehabilitation loans and rehabilitation program administration.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
3
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,220,509 Projects/Programs $2,540,000
FY 2009/10HDAF 260,819 FY 2010/11 HDAF 619,277
Program Administration 10
322,051
Total Available for Allocation $3,481,328 Total Funds Allocated $3,481,328
If the HOME program receives program income during the fiscal year, ten percent of the
program income will be allocated to Program Administration and the remainder will be allocated
to the Housing Development Assistance Fund.
Emergency Shelter Grants
During FY 2010/11, the County will receive $151,604 in ESG funds. $145,025 will be allocated
to ESG eligible projects and five percent of the grant amount ($6,579) will be used for program
administration costs.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids
During FY 2010/11, the County will receive approximately $450,000 in HOPWA funds. These
funds will be allocated through a separate competitive application process in the fall of 2010. Six
and a half percent of the grant amount ($29,250) will be used for program administration costs.
Additional Resources
Match
County policy requires projects funded with CDBG funds to provide a minimum match as
follows: 10 percent required from non-profit organizations, 25 percent from local government
agencies, and 100 percent from for-profit entities. Public service and economic development
projects (sponsored by non-profit organizations and public agencies) receiving multiple year
funding are further required to increase the level of match for each year of funding up to 50
percent match after year five.
In accordance with federal regulations, all projects funded with Consortium HOME funds are
required to provide a minimum 25 percent permanent match to the project from non-federal
sources. During FY 2010/11, the minimum match for HOME will be $724,615.
In accordance with federal regulations, all projects funded with ESG funds are required to
provide a minimum 100 percent match from non-federal sources. During FY 2010/11, the
estimated minimum match for ESG will be $144,025.
10 Ten percent of program income received during the fiscal year will be allocated to Program Administration. This
additional Program Administration is not included in the table.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
4
HOPWA regulations do not require matching funds. However, housing development projects
using HOPWA funds must provide HOPWA-assisted units in proportion to the amount of
HOPWA funds in the project.
Leverage
Affordable housing development projects leverage significant additional resources. HOME and
CDBG housing projects to be funded in FY 2010/11 are expected to leverage over $34 million
(including required match) in additional financing. Typical funding sources include city and
County Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds, HUD-administered resources (e.g., Section 202
and McKinney Act funds), tax-exempt bond revenues, private sector equity investment through
low-income housing tax credits, State resources (e.g., CalHFA financing, Multi-Family Housing
Program), private foundation donations, and private lender loans.
Housing choice vouchers (Section 8) are used to further enhance housing affordability. The
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) expects about $3 million for its
voucher program.
In addition to the federal resources described above, the County typically has housing and capital
development resources from the Contra Costa County RDA. County RDA funds for housing
represent 20 percent of the annual tax increment generated by the County’s five redevelopment
areas (Bay Point, Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor).
The County currently has $45 million in Mortgage Credit Certificate resources. This is a one-
time allocation. In future years the County expects 6.9 million.
CDBG projects in the Economic Development, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Public
Service categories leverage substantial additional funds from a variety of sources including
public agencies, private foundations, fundraising, redevelopment agencies, in-kind donations,
fees and income. Economic Development, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Public Service
projects will leverage an estimated $1 million, $1.3 million and $16 million, respectively, in
additional funds during FY 2010/11.
Activities to be Undertaken
Housing
The Consolidated Plan establishes the following priorities for affordable housing programs and
projects funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds. Objectives, outcomes and
indicators are noted below each priority listed below. Also, Attachment B – Performance
Measurement Chart lists the objective, outcome, priority need and indicator for each funded
project.
AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income,
and moderate-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe, and
affordable rental housing and rental assistance.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
5
Indicator: Rental units constructed and rehabilitated.
AH-2 Increase homeownership opportunities.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Homeownership units constructed, acquired, or acquired and rehabilitated;
direct financial assistance provided to homebuyers.
AH-3 Maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Housing units rehabilitated.
AH-4 Reduce the number and impact of home foreclosures.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Public Service and Neighborhood Stabilization Program Activities
AH-5 Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Housing units reserved for homeless and special needs populations.
AH-6 Preserve existing special needs housing.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Number of housing units preserved as affordable housing specifically for
special needs populations.
AH-7 Adapt or modify existing housing to meet the needs of special needs populations.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Number of units reconstructed to provide accessibility improvements.
AH-8 Improve access to services for those in special needs housing.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Public Service Activities
In addition to the above priorities, the Board has established a priority for housing projects which
include units affordable to extremely-low income households. Attachment A provides
information on specific housing projects funded with FY 2010/11 CDBG and HOME funds.
ESG and HOPWA funds will be allocated later in the year through separate competitive
application processes.
In addition to the above federal resources, the County will apply to the California Debt Limit
Allocation Committee for approximately $7 million in Mortgage Revenue Bond authority. The
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
6
County intends to convert this authority into Mortgage Credit Certificates, which will assist 35 to
40 first-time homebuyers in acquiring homes.
The annual goal is to construct 165 units of rental housing, construct and/or assist 58 units of
owner-occupied housing, assist 20 homeless individuals and 30 homeless families, and assist 77
non-homeless special needs individuals.
American Dream Downpayment Intitiative (ADDI)
Description of planned use of ADDI funds:The Consortium has implemented a program that
facilitates the layering of ADDI funds with other homebuyer assistance programs including those
funded with redevelopment agency, Housing Choice Vouchers, and California State Proposition
1C funds. ADDI funds are provided in a manner consistent with 24 CFR Part 92 Subpart M—
American Dream Downpayment Initiative and the Consortium’s established HOME First-time
Homebuyer Shared Equity Loan Program as discussed in Attachment D.
Plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents and tenants of public housing and
manufactured housing: The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) has
established Self-Sufficiency and First-time Homebuyer programs. The Consortium is
coordinating ADDI outreach with the HACCC to target current and prospective participants in
those programs. The Consortium will also work with the County’s Mobile Home Advisory
Committee to market the program to residents and tenants of mobile home parks.
Description of activities to ensure suitability of ADDI recipients: ADDI recipients will be
required to complete a housing counseling training prior to purchasing a home. Additional
outreach will be targeted to participants in homeownership counseling programs, individual
development account programs, and other appropriate self-sufficiency and personal wealth
development type programs. These programs prepare low-income households for
homeownership by providing credit counseling, financial literacy classes and homeownership
workshops.
Non-housing Community Development Objectives & Homeless Objectives
Consistent with the purpose of the CDBG Program, the Board adopted the following goals in the
FY 2010/15 Consolidated Plan for programs and projects funded with CDBG and ESG funds.
The objective, outcome, and indicator are noted below each priority listed below. Also,
Attachment B – Performance Measurement Chart lists the objective, outcome, priority need and
indicator for each funded project.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
7
CD-1 General Public Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve
the quality of life and independence for lower-income persons, and ensure access to
programs that promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social
concerns such as hunger, substance abuse, and other issues.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-2 Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and frail elderly, and enable them
to maintain independence.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-3 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school and
prepare for productive adulthood.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-4 Non-homeless Special Needs: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to
improve the quality of life and independence for persons with special needs such as
disabled persons, victims of domestic violence, abused children, persons with
HIV/AIDS, illiterate adults, and migrant farm workers.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-5 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair
housing.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
8
CD-6 Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons with incomes below the
poverty level, expand economic opportunities for very-low and low-income residents,
and increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas.
Objective: Provide economic opportunity.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Number of jobs created, retained, or maintained; and/or number of businesses
assisted.
CD-8 Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate
infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility impaired by addressing physical
access barriers to public facilities.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Facility and Infrastructure Activities.
CD-8 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.
H-1 Homeless Services: Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by
providing emergency, transitional, and permanent affordable housing with appropriate
supportive services.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
H-2 Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the
needs of the homeless.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
Attachment A provides information on specific Housing, Public Service, Infrastructure/Public
Facilities, and Economic Development projects to be funded with FY 2010/11 CDBG funds.
Fair Housing
The recommendations of the draft Contra Costa Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice (AI) are as follows:
Affordable Housing
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create new
affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated Plan programs of the
Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG, HOME, and HOPWA.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
9
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable housing.
Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus” provisions. (See housing element
programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of affordable housing.
(See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County, Richmond and
Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers, and will
monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable housing
opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative resources may be
given to projects and programs which expand affordable housing opportunities in communities in
which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable housing in
relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of low-income, poverty and
minority concentration.
Mortgage Lending
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in local programs,
member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of
“Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or
“Substantial Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition, member jurisdictions
may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA reporting as most recently published
by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders and the
mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower income and minority
households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home buyer
education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to lower
income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households. Minority households include
Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly market loan
products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households. Minority
households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration and low-
income concentration.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
10
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to households
who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent
according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly market loan
products to households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination rates
under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental properties
regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to persons who
have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against persons based on
sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental properties
regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation.
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities who have been refused
reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report trends
annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination complaints. All
agencies who provide this information should do so in the same format with the same level of
detail. Information should be available by the quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based on sexual
orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
Government Barriers
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and procedures for
persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations to local planning and
development standards.
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a residential use subject
only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone,
and is not explicitly permitted in the zoning code.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
11
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to treat
transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only to those restrictions
that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, and to explicitly permit
both transitional and supportive housing types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least one
appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to permit
transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential zoning district.
North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
The community of North Richmond (census tract 3650.02) is located in an unincorporated area
of West Contra Costa County near San Pablo Bay, and is surrounded by the City of Richmond
(census tracts 3650.01 and .02). North Richmond covers 900 acres of land, and has
approximately 3,000 residents, the majority of which are minorities with very low-incomes.
African American, Latino, and Asian residents make up more than 75 percent of the population.
More than 52 percent of the residents are on public assistance, and almost 55 percent have not
completed high school.
North Richmond has many indicators of economic and social distress including low income, high
unemployment, illegal dumping, vacant and boarded up housing, high rent population, violence,
high illiteracy rate and low educational achievement.
North Richmond was designated as a Redevelopment Area in July 1987. A few years later, the
North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) was formed to provide community input,
structure, and to further the well-being and interests of North Richmond residents. Today, the
MAC continues to provide recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors on policy
matters that benefit the general public and North Richmond as a whole.
In August 1996, HUD approved the North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
(NRS). The purpose of the NRS is to create opportunities for jobs and housing, viable
neighborhood commercial areas, childcare, safe streets, and access to transportation. Since 1996
most of the objectives identified in the NRS have been met. In addition, the majority of projects
originally identified in the NRS have been completed. This includes the completion and full
occupancy of two housing developments – Community Heritage Apartments, a 52-unit senior
development completed in fall 2000, and Parkway Estates, an 87-unit single-family housing
project completed in fall 2001. The 3rd Street Corridor Transportation and Community
Streetscape Improvement project was completed in June, 2004. The Agency also provided
funding and assisted in leveraging federal funds to initiate the First Time Homebuyer and
Individual Development Account programs in North Richmond.
On February 23, 2010, the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) adopted its AB 1290 Five Year
Implementation Plan as required by California Redevelopment Law. This plan identifies the
Agency‘s goals and objectives, documents blight, and lists out accomplishments over the
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
12
previous 5 years in addition to setting future priority projects to create jobs, housing,
beautification projects, and improve the area’s infrastructure and roadway systems. This
document identifies resources and expenditures necessary to accomplish these community goals
and Agency driven initiatives.
One example is Agency staff working with private developer KB Home and local non-profit
Community Housing Development Corp. (CHDC) of North Richmond to build new low-income
housing opportunities for North Richmond with the Bella Flora subdivision. Construction of
Bella Flora was completed in 2008 on 173 units, 35 of which are affordable to very-low and
lower-income households.
Another major initiative is the North Richmond Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact
Report that is expected to guide future land use changes between Wildcat and San Pablo creeks.
The plan calls for the transformation of over 200 acres of underutilized land into a new
residential neighborhood consisting of parks, open space, residential housing, mix–use
development, commercial/retail outlets, public amenities, and infrastructure improvements.
In addition to the specific plan, the Agency continues to manage ongoing initiatives like the
North Richmond Housing MOU to promote affordable housing in North Richmond. Alliance
partners including Contra Costa County, the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County,
the City of Richmond, the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency, Richmond Housing
Authority, Contra Costa County Housing Authority, Community Housing Development
Corporation of North Richmond and Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) are
developing the 4th Edition of this MOU to create new affordable housing and apartments for low
income residents over the next 10 years. Part of this development includes the revitalization of
the 224 unit Las Deltas Public Housing Development, several scattered site locations, Grove
Point which is a mixed use residential and retail development on the eastern side of Third Street,
and the North Richmond Town Center. Besides housing, other major projects include:
Completion of the North Richmond Truck Route Project to divert big rig trucks out of the
residential neighborhood.
Initiation of an area wide Infrastructure Improvement Plan to provide needed
infrastructure improvements in the area north of Wildcat Creek and within the existing
residential neighborhood.
Implementation of the County’s First Source Hiring Program to link local residents with
North Richmond employers and job opportunities.
Elements of the NRS are currently being updated and blended with aspects of the North
Richmond Specific Plan, North Richmond Housing MOU, Grove Point Mixed-Use
Development, Las Deltas Revitalization and other project initiatives. The County will continue
to implement the existing programs (NRS and Specific Plan) and has allocated funding to the
following projects that are targeted and/or directly benefit the North Richmond community:
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
13
10-xx-PS North Richmond Multicultural/Senior Center
10-xx-PS Assistance in Money Management Program for Seniors
10-xx-PS After School Outreach Performing Arts Program
10-xx-PS El Cerrito High School Community Project
10-xx-PS Verde School Service Learning Program
10-xx-ED Project Independence
Geographic Distribution
CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are awarded to projects and programs on a
competitive allocation basis. The County has a two-year funding cycle for CDBG Public Service,
Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Economic Development projects, and ESG projects.
Projects/programs funded in FY 2010/11 are awarded funds in FY 2011/12 dependent on
satisfactory performance and the availability of funds.
CDBG Housing, HOME, and HOPWA project proposals continue to be reviewed on an annual
basis. A Notice of Funding Availability for Housing, HOME and HOPWA projects was
published in local newspapers and sent to over 100 jurisdictions, public agencies, affordable
housing developers, community based organizations and interest groups active in the Urban
County and Consortium area. Projects are reviewed and funding allocations are made based on
several criteria including the project’s ability to reach and serve its target population.
Consideration is given to project location to ensure that funds are allocated throughout the
County while directing services to those areas and persons with the greatest need.
Though projects may serve the entire Urban County, as is the case with many Public Service
projects, it is the intent of the program to target services to areas with the highest need such as a
revitalization strategy area or a census tract that meets “area benefit”11 criteria. In all cases,
subrecipients must demonstrate that they will be able to serve a minimum of 51 percent very-low
and low-income persons or households. However, it has been the County’s practice to fund
projects that serve a minimum of 75 percent extremely low, very low- and low-income persons
or households. Further, established policy gives priority to housing projects that provide units
affordable to and occupied by households with extremely low-income. These policies and
practices have ensured that projects/programs serve those areas with the highest need.
Housing activities to meet Consolidated Plan priorities include new construction, rehabilitation,
and preservation of existing affordable housing. These housing projects have the potential to
either assist in neighborhood revitalization or provide de-concentration of low-income and/or
minority populations by locating in areas with little supply of affordable housing.
Attachment A for HOME and CDBG provides a list of all projects approved for funding. The
tables include the population to be served (seniors, youth, disabled, etc.) and geographic area to
be served. It should be noted that for projects involving housing rehabilitation or small business /
micro-enterprise assistance, a specific address or location cannot be provided since the location
of properties are not yet known.
11 Some areas of the Urban County meet “Area Benefit” criteria, which means at least 51 percent (or as adjusted by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development) of the residents in that area are very low and low-income persons.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
14
Summary of FY 2010/11 Geographic Distribution
Project Category West
County
East
County
Central
County
Urban
County
Affordable Housing 2042
Economic Development 3 2 0 4
Infrastructure/Public Facilities 5 2 3 0
Public Service 8 6 5 20
Total 18 10 12 26
The highest numbers of low income and minority households are in West County, followed by
East County and Central County (see Appendix 3 of the draft Consolidated Plan). Urban County
projects are targeted to low income households throughout the County.
Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue its efforts to maintain the availability of housing
and services for the homeless in Contra Costa.
A major factor contributing to problems of the homeless and special needs populations in the
County is the lack of housing affordable to extremely-low and very-low income households as
well as an inadequate supply of accessible housing. In addition, Contra Costa has been hit hard
by the foreclosure crisis. The most recent homeless count did not show an increase of homeless
individuals or families. The Homeless Program staff believe that those who have lost their homes
due to foreclosure are either staying in hotels or with family and friends. The County’s strategies
to maintain and increase the supply of affordable housing are equally relevant as strategies to
alleviate problems of these populations 12 . As further recognition of the housing needs of
homeless and at-risk populations, in FY 1998/99, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors adopted
a policy to encourage the inclusion of units affordable to extremely-low income households in
projects funded with CDBG and HOME funds. In addition, a minimum of five percent of all new
housing built with County funds must be accessible to mobility-impaired households and an
additional two-percent must be accessible to hearing/vision impaired. Wherever feasible, the
County also requires the inclusion of accessible units in housing rehabilitation projects.
Strategies to improve housing affordability through direct payment assistance are also effective
in preventing and alleviating homelessness among lower-income and special needs households.
Therefore, the County will continue to pursue additional Section 8 vouchers, FEMA funds,
12 Affordable housing projects including units affordable to extremely-low and low-income households are listed in Attachment
A.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
15
Shelter Plus Care and other resources to assist the currently homeless and at-risk population in
obtaining and maintaining permanent housing.
In addition to strategies to increase the affordable housing supply using CDBG, HOME, and
HOPWA resources, the County will apply for McKinney Act funds to maintain and expand
programs and projects to serve the homeless, including families with children, youth leaving
foster care, victims of domestic violence, and individuals with problems of substance abuse and
mental illness. Potential projects include rental assistance for homeless individuals and families,
continued operating support for permanent and transitional housing projects and multi-service
centers, the potential development of additional permanent housing with support services for
families, and a variety of support services (e.g., outreach, case management, education/job
training, health services, counseling/parent education, substance abuse treatment and money
management).
CDBG funds in the Public Service category are also targeted to support programs that offer a
variety of services to the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless, as well as to special
needs populations. In FY 2010/11 funds will be allocated for operating expenses of an
emergency shelter for single adults. Funds will also be allocated for supportive services at a
transitional shelter for battered women with children, as well as programs that provide a
homeless hotline, housing counseling and legal services, and food distribution. These services
are available throughout the County. Support services such as client advocacy, job skills
training, independent living skills training, respite care, counseling and case management, and
nutrition education will be provided to the frail elderly, disabled, and the visually impaired.
During FY 2010/11, the County will work with the Contra Costa Interjurisdictional Council on
Homelessness (CCICH), a working group which is the result of a merger of the Homeless
Interdepartmental Interjurisdictional Working Group and the Continuum of Care Board, as well
as non-profit community and advocacy groups, the interfaith community, business organizations
and other relevant community groups to implement key strategies identified in the five-year
Continuum of Care Plan and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. The County’s Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness includes priorities to address three types of homeless populations: the
chronically homeless, those discharged into homelessness, and the transitionally (or episodic)
homeless people. This will include programs and projects to increase income and employment
opportunities for homeless households, expand needed support services and programs to prevent
homelessness, and increase the availability of housing affordable to extremely-low income
households and homeless persons.
Other Actions
Additional Public Policies to Remove Barriers and Obstacles to the Provision of
Affordable Housing
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue its efforts to remove or ameliorate public policies,
which negatively impact affordable housing development in the Urban County. Specific efforts
to be undertaken include the following:
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
16
Continue to expedite the development application review process for all affordable housing
projects with conforming zoning and with less than 100 units. This will lower housing
development costs by reducing the required processing time by two to three months.
Similarly, expedite the review and approval process for affordable housing appropriate for
large families.
In conformance with the General Plan, the County will initiate zoning changes for residential
and designated agricultural sites from current zoning designations to Planned Unit
Development (P-1) in order to streamline the entitlement process for development
applications and increase design flexibility.
In order to promote the development of affordable housing for seniors, the County will
consider flexibility in design requirements for these projects, including reduced parking,
smaller unit sizes, and common dining facilities.
The County’s Density Bonus Ordinance is fully consistent with the State Density Bonus
Law. The County is required to grant one density bonus and incentives or concessions when
an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development,
excluding any units permitted by the density bonus that will contain at least one of the
following: ten (10) percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income
households; five (5) percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income
households; a senior citizen housing development, or a mobile home park that limits
residency based on age requirements for housing older persons; or ten (10) percent of the
total dwelling units in a common interest development for persons and families of moderate
income, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.
The Board of Supervisors adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The IHO
requires all developers of five or more units to provide 15 percent of the units at affordable
costs to either moderate, low, or very-low income households depending on the type of
project. Developers may pay a fee in lieu of providing the affordable units. Effective in
2009, the rental in lieu fee is suspended.
The County will review and develop new regulations to permit the development of
agriculturally related structures on agriculturally zoned land without a use permit in order to
encourage the provision of onsite farmworker housing.
The County Redevelopment Agency provides a full-time equivalent staff position to expedite
the planning process for affordable housing and other projects located in County
Redevelopment project areas. By definition, these projects are implemented to alleviate
blight and improve affordable housing and overall living conditions within the low-income
community.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
17
Lead-based Paint Hazard Implementation Plan
The County will continue to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing
funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA resources through the implementation of 24
CFR Part 35. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce or eliminate lead-based paint hazards in
federally owned housing and housing receiving federal funds. All subrecipients enter into project
agreements that include requirements for compliance with the lead-based paint regulation. The
Neighborhood Preservation Program and the Rental Rehabilitation Program have developed
program specific lead hazard reduction implementation plans. All other projects will develop
plans appropriate to the project type and level of funding received 13 .
Decrease the Number of Poverty Level Households
The County and cities within it employ a variety of strategies to help alleviate poverty, including
efforts to stimulate economic growth and job opportunities, and to provide County residents with
the skills and abilities required to take advantage of those opportunities. The County, a majority
of cities, and their Redevelopment Agencies actively work to attract and retain businesses. Many
are involved in revitalization efforts for their downtown areas utilizing a variety of strategies
such as infrastructure and façade improvement programs, the State Main Street Program, and the
preparation of revitalization plans to guide future development. The County, through its various
departments, provides services and supports programs that promote personal responsibility,
independence and self-sufficiency.
Department of Conservation & Development
One of the responsibilities of the County Department of Conservation & Development (DCD) is
the management of the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs. Many CDBG and HOME
funded programs are geared toward helping lower-income persons find and maintain stable
housing, receive training for jobs that provide a livable wage, and access support services that
are needed to attain self-sufficiency.
By Board guidelines, 14 percent of the annual grant amount is set aside for economic
development activities. Programs funded under the Economic Development category are
intended to assist businesses with expanding economic opportunities for lower-income persons
and to increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas. As listed in Attachment A:
Economic Development, several job training and placement and microenterprise assistance
programs have been approved for funding.
In addition to economic development activities, the County works with other jurisdictions and
local non-profits to provide emergency and transitional housing, and support services necessary
to assist the homeless in achieving economic independence.
13 The requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 vary for different project types (e.g. tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and
rehabilitation). The requirements for rehabilitation depend on the level of federal assistance (e.g. less than $5,000 per unit,
$5,001 to $25,000 per unit, and over $25,000 per unit.)
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
18
Redevelopment Agency
The County Redevelopment Agency, a separate legal entity governed by the County’s Board of
Supervisors, is administered by the DCD. Redevelopment is one of the most effective ways to
breathe new life into deteriorated areas plagued by social, physical, environmental or economic
conditions, which act as a barrier to new investment by private enterprise. Through
redevelopment, the communities of Bay Point, North Richmond, Contra Costa Centre (formerly
Pleasant Hill BART), Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor receive focused attention and financial
investment to reverse deteriorating trends, create jobs, revitalize the business climate, rehabilitate
and add to the housing stock, and gain active participation and investment by citizens which
would not otherwise occur.
The Redevelopment Agency has several ongoing projects that include:
Circulation and infrastructure improvements, housing preservation, community
enhancement, and affordable housing in North Richmond;
Waterfront improvements, downtown revitalization activities, including mixed-use
development and streetscape improvements, and housing preservation in Rodeo;
Waterfront improvements, including residential and water related retail/recreation; mixed
income housing development and infrastructure improvements in support of transit-
oriented development, housing preservation and neighborhood infrastructure
improvements in Bay Point;
Housing preservation and neighborhood infrastructure and facilities in Montalvin Manor;
and
Final implementation of transit-oriented development program with affordable housing
and transit access improvements at Contra Costa Centre.
Employment and Human Services Department
The County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is responsible for providing
services to adults, children, families, and the elderly. Bureaus within EHSD that directly relate to
the reduction of poverty include the Workforce Services, Children and Family Services, and the
Workforce Development bureaus. Other programs administered by EHSD, that indirectly support
economic self-sufficiency and are intended to provide assistance to families and persons to lead
productive lives include, but are not limited to: 1) Welcome Home, Baby, which provides
support to first-time parents in order to improve the health and development of newborns; 2) the
Family Preservation Program, which emphasizes keeping families together in a safe, nurturing
environment and providing them with skills that will last when they leave the program; and 3)
Service Integration Teams that provide services to increase the economic self-sufficiency of
families, improve family functioning, and expand community capacity to support children and
families.
Workforce Development Board
The Workforce Development Board (WDB) of Contra Costa is a public policy body appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors to oversee the strategic planning and policy development of
the County’s workforce development system. The Board is composed of business, labor,
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
19
economic development, public agencies, education, and community-based organizations. The
Board has also designated the WDB as the oversight body for the County’s CalWORKS policy
to ensure full integration of the area’s workforce development system. The WDB has
responsibility to oversee the provision of workforce services through its four One-Stop Business
and Career Centers.
One-Stop Business and Career Centers
Contra Costa County, in collaboration with Alameda County, has developed a system of One -
Stop Business and Career Centers, under the name of East Bay Works (www.eastbayworks.org),
to serve both job seekers and employers. The One-Stop Business and Career Centers offer
comprehensive workforce development and labor market information. Job seekers and workers
find resources needed to plan or advance a career, or simply to find a job. The One-Stops,
through its partner agencies offer an array of job related services which include; skills
assessment and training, career counseling and workshops, online resume posting and job
referrals, internships and on-the-job training, childcare, transportation and health care
information. Four One-Stop Career Centers have been established in the County. The WDB has
designated a consortium of agencies including; California departments of Employment
Development and Rehabilitation, Community Colleges, Adult and Continuing Education, Job
Corps, County departments of Conservation & Development and Community Services, and the
California Human Development Corporation to act as the Operators of the Centers. One-Stops
are located in the cities of San Pablo (West County), Concord (Central County) and Brentwood
and Antioch (East County). The City of Richmond also operates two One-Stops.
General Assistance
The General Assistance (GA) program provides temporary assistance to adults 18 years and
older who are ineligible for federal or state-funded cash assistance programs. The program is
designed to meet the minimum needs of County residents who are unemployed or disabled. The
GA program also provides advocacy services to permanently disabled GA recipients and
CalWORKS adults to help them through the application process for Social Security Disability,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Social Security programs. Cash assistance for the aged,
blind and disabled legal immigrants who do not qualify for federal SSI because of welfare
reform changes is also available.
Contra Costa Economic Partnership
The Contra Costa Economic Partnership (CCEP) is a coalition of business, government and
education leaders dedicated to retaining and creating quality jobs for Contra Costa to maintain
the county's quality of life. The CCEP has taken the initial leadership role in developing a plan to
locate three to five business incubators in Contra Costa County. The county-wide strategy is
intended to stimulate job creation and new business formation.
The Software Business Incubator was the first to be established and opened its doors in August,
1997. The Software Incubator closed its doors in 2004 after being responsible for assisting in the
creation of many businesses during its existence. The Telecommunications Incubator was the
second to be established and opened its doors in October, 2000. Established under the auspices
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
20
of CCEP and the City of San Ramon, the Telecommunications Incubator’s mission is to 1) foster
the growth of start-up and early-stage companies, 2) create new job opportunities for local
residents, and 3) further the economic development goals of San Ramon and the Tri-Valley
region. CCEP is currently working on developing a Biotechnology Incubator. CCEP is also
instrumental in gathering and disseminating economic and demographic data to assist local
governmental entities in their planning efforts for housing, jobs and educational needs.
Develop Institutional Structure
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue to work with the cities and other public and private
agencies and organizations to implement strategies designed to accomplish the affordable
housing and community development objectives identified in the five-year Consolidated Plan 14 .
Specific actions to be undertaken by the County include the provision of resources and technical
assistance to public agencies and the non-profit and for-profit community in developing,
financing and implementing programs and projects consistent with the County’s annual and five-
year plans. In addition, the County will work with the cities and other agencies to establish an
informal cooperative network to share resources and facilitate development in the Urban County
and Consortium area. Finally, the County will work to develop further institutional capacity and
greater financial independence within the non-profit sector through the provision of HOME
funds to provide operating support for eligible Community Housing Development Organizations.
Enhance Coordination between Public and Private Housing
The County’s efforts to coordinate activities and strategies for affordable housing development
and the provision of emergency and transitional housing and supportive services include
cooperative planning efforts as well as participation in a number of countywide housing and
service provider organizations. Planning efforts to be undertaken during the current program year
include the following:
Contra Costa Consortium members continue to work on strategies and actions designed
to overcome identified impediments and eliminate problems of housing discrimination in
Contra Costa.
On March 11, 2008 the Board of Supervisors acted to dissolve the Contra Costa
Continuum of Care Board and formed the Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on
Homelessness Advisory Board (CCICH). CCICH works with Contra Costa jurisdictions,
public and private agencies, the interfaith community, homeless advocacy groups and
other community organizations to implement the Continuum of Care Plan, which
includes strategies and programs designed to alleviate homelessness, and the Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness.
14 The institutional structure through which the County’s affordable housing and community development programs are
implemented is described in detail in the County’s current Consolidated Plan.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
21
In addition to the above, the County participates in a number of countywide housing and service
provider organizations, which are intended to share resources and coordinate strategies and
programs for affordable housing and community development activities. These organizations
include the Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers, the Tri-Valley Affordable
Housing Subcommittee, the Contra Costa HIV/AIDS Consortium, the Children and Families
Policy Forum, Non-Profit Housing Association, and the Workforce Development Board. Finally,
the County continues to participate in the Bay Area Regional Innovative Homeless Initiative.
The Initiative includes representatives of nine Bay Area counties and is an effort to develop a
regional approach to programs and strategies to alleviate homelessness in the San Francisco Bay
Region.
Foster Public Housing Improvements and Resident Initiatives
HACCC will continue to undertake activities to rehabilitate and maintain the County’s public
housing through HUD’s Capital Fund Program (CFP) and operating subsidy. HACCC
anticipates an allocation of $2.1 million in CFP funds for FY 2011/12.
The following improvements are planned by HACCC in the FY 2011/12 grant year:
Management and Administration: HACCC will continue to focus on maintaining a
security presence in its developments through resident services programs such as the
Young Adult Empowerment Center and community law enforcement strategies. The
Authority will also aggressively seek to provide Section 3 opportunities for low income
persons and enhance resident training opportunities, particularly in projects funded by the
CFP grant.
Living Environment: During FY 2010/11, approximately $3.1 million in resources will
be used by HACCC for a variety of modernization improvements at thirteen development
sites. Specific improvements include comprehensive modernization and rehabilitation of
vacant units at three of the Authority’s sites, exterior modernization at two additional
sites, and the installation of energy efficient windows, security alarm systems, parking lot
repairs and exterior painting.
Public Housing Resident Initiatives
Resident Councils: The creation of Resident Councils is an important means of obtaining
resident input and participation in public housing programs and activities, including the
identification of appropriate resident services, resolution of safety issues, and implementation of
activities designed to move households from welfare to work and greater independence.
HACCC has two active Resident Councils representing two of the thirteen Public Housing
Developments located in Contra Costa County. In addition to office facilities and materials,
HACCC provides technical assistance and sponsors quarterly town hall meetings at each
development in an effort to develop resident leaders. Over the past few months, there has been
renewed interest at other developments to create more Resident Councils. Plans have been
initiated to create active Resident Councils at El Pueblo (Pittsburg), Los Arboles (Oakley), and
Casa de Mañana (Oakley).
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
22
The Bayo Vista Resident Council (Rodeo development) has an active Resident Council.
Training for Board members related to their development and their duties and responsibilities
continues. The Bayo Vista Resident Council Board of Directors supports the YMCA of the East
Bay which operates an after school program for families at the Bayo Vista Development. In
addition, the Bayo Vista Resident Council members operate a lunch program for school age
children during the summer months when children are not attending school.
Resident Advisory Board (RAB):HACCC conducts semi-annual meetings with 10 active
Board members of the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), The RAB is comprised of members of
active Resident Councils, resident leaders from other public housing developments without a
Resident Council and a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participant. The RAB is very active
and participatory in the planning of our 5 Year/Annual Plan, Capital Fund Program, and all other
related Resident Initiatives.
Additional Requirements
Monitoring Plan
Housing Projects and Programs
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development (DCD) is responsible for
the administration and management of the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs, which
provide assistance for affordable housing and homeless shelters. All projects funded through
these programs are monitored by the Department to ensure that the projects achieve their
approved objectives in a manner consistent with federal regulations, and the Consolidated Plan.
DCD’s monitoring procedures consist of the following:
Prior to funding consideration, all project applications are reviewed to ensure consistency
with federal regulations, the Consolidated Plan, the AI, and the County Housing Element.
Following funding approval, project sponsors are required to attend a meeting with
County staff to discuss the project funding and implementation process, applicable
federal regulations, County affordability restrictions and procedures during the
compliance period. Following this meeting, the County and project sponsor enter into
project agreements which specify project objectives, scope of work, eligible activities,
performance targets, project budget, implementation time frame, federal regulatory
requirements 15 , and monitoring and reporting requirements. In addition, all housing
development funds are provided to projects in the form of a loan with applicable federal
regulations and affordability and use restrictions incorporated into the loan documents
and effective throughout the loan term.
15 Includes compliance with federal regulations concerning: equal opportunity and fair housing; affirmative marketing;
displacement, relocation and acquisition; procurement; labor; lead-based paint; conflict of interest; debarment and suspension;
the environment; historic preservation; and flood insurance.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
23
The County and the other entitlement jurisdictions within the County have developed a
Performance Outcome Measurement System framework in response to CPD Notice 03-
09. Performance measurement outcome statements will be included in the contract and
each project will be monitored and evaluated on meeting the performance measurement
outcome statement.
During project implementation, project sponsors are required to submit quarterly progress
reports detailing project progress, significant development problems, project funding and
expenditures, outreach to women and minority-owned businesses, and affirmative
marketing activity. In addition, projects are monitored as applicable for compliance with
federal accounting and procurement standards, labor and construction standards,
relocation, affirmative marketing, equal opportunity, fair housing, and other federal
requirements. Projects are also subject to an onsite performance and/or financial audit
review on a selective basis.
Following project completion, project sponsors are required to submit project completion
reports identifying: project accomplishments; population served, including data on
household characteristics (e.g., size, income, and ethnicity); rent and/or housing
affordability; and total sources and uses of funds.
Affordable housing development projects (e.g., acquisition, rehabilitation, new
construction) must also submit annual compliance reports throughout the period of
required affordability. These reports are designed to ensure continued compliance with
federal regulations, affordability and use restrictions, and other requirements as specified
in project loan documents. In addition, all HOME and CDBG-assisted projects will be
subject to periodic onsite inspections to ensure continued compliance with federal
housing quality standards.16
On-site property managers and supervisors are encouraged to attend an annual pre-
HOME monitoring technical assistance meeting where all aspects of the monitoring are
covered; including Housing Quality Standards, reading and understanding the regulatory
agreement, insurance requirements, proper income verification, lease requirements,
affirmative marketing, etc.
Non-Housing Community Development Projects and Programs
Monitoring procedures for non-housing projects and programs are similar to those described for
Housing projects and programs and include:
Prior to funding consideration, all applications are reviewed for consistency with federal
regulations, Consolidated Plan, and Board of Supervisor policy. Following funding
approval, new subrecipients are required to attend a mandatory meeting to become
16 Projects with 1-4 HOME-assisted units will be inspected every third year, projects with 5-25 HOME-assisted units will be
inspected every other year, and projects with 26 or more HOME-assisted units will be inspected annually.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
24
familiar with program standards, County requirements, and federal regulations. Project
sponsors are also required to enter into agreements that specify objectives, scope of work,
applicable timelines and performance targets, budget, federal, state and local regulatory
requirements, and monitoring and reporting requirements.
During project implementation, project sponsors are required to submit periodic progress
reports detailing project progress toward objectives, problems and/or resolution to
meeting goals, quantitative participation data by ethnicity, income, and household status.
In addition, project sponsors are required to provide updated sources and uses budgets
with each quarterly demand. Projects are also subject to an onsite performance and
financial audit review. Staff completes a Grantee Monitoring Risk Analysis for each
project to determine those that will undergo an onsite monitoring.
The County and the other entitlement jurisdictions within the County have developed a
Performance Outcome Measurement System framework in response to CPD Notice 03-
09. In addition, agencies applying for FY 2010/11 funds were required to develop a work
plan including a description of program components, expected outcomes, and
performance measurements. Specific performance measurements will be included in the
contract for services and each project will be monitored and evaluated on meeting those
performance measurements.
Periodic reports and payment requests are reviewed for compliance with the Project
Agreement, budget consistency and documentation of expenditures. Project Sponsors are
advised of any procedural errors and/or ineligible activities, and provided with technical
assistance as needed.
Upon project completion, project sponsors are required to submit completion reports
identifying: program/project accomplishments, quantitative data, including number of
persons or households served, ethnicity, income level, and a final sources and uses
budget.
In the Public Services category, the County seeks to coordinate activities for the efficient
provision of services in the following ways:
In order to streamline and minimize paperwork, the County and other Consortium
members have all conformed to a two-year funding cycle including a standardized
application with one application deadline for all jurisdictions. Additionally all Contra
Costa County jurisdictions will require the same quarterly reporting form and deadline
schedule.
The County follows a strategy of supporting programs that provide a variety of
complementary and integrated services to targeted areas, and ensures that service
providers are aware of other organizations that may augment their program.
The County also participates with other County departments and non-profit organizations
efforts to collaborate on the provision of services.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
25
Limited-English Proficient Populations/Language Assistance Plan
According to the 2000 Census, 68 percent of Contra Costa County’s Hispanic population speaks
Spanish, and 28 percent of those who speak Spanish either speak English “not well” or “not at
all.” In addition, 62 percent of Contra Costa County’s Asian and Pacific Islander populations
speak a language other than English, and according to a sampling, 16 percent either speaks
English “not well” or “not at all.” Therefore, Contra Costa County does have a significant
limited-English proficient (LEP) population, both Asian and Hispanic.
In order to address and to better serve Contra Costa LEP residents, the County has developed a
Language Assistance Plan (LAP) in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) Final Guidance (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 13, January 22, 2007) and
Executive Order 13166. The goals of the LAP are: 1) to provide meaningful access for the
County’s LEP residents through the provision of free language assistance for the CDBG, HOME,
ESG, and HOPWA programs; 2) to provide an appropriate means to ensure the involvement of
LEP residents that are most likely to be affected by the programs and to ensure the continuity of
their involvement; 3) to ensure that the County’s CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA staff will
assist the County’s LEP population in obtaining the necessary services and/or assistance
requested or needed.
For FY 2010/11, the County will continue being proactive on many fronts with the
implementation of the LAP. The County’s mailing list of interested parties, which is used to
announce funding availability and general participation in the CDBG, HOME, ESG and
HOPWA programs, contains over 500 agencies including many agencies that target services to
specific populations (minorities, disabled, and the limited-English speaking populations). The
County’s staff will continue to access timely translation services, including having a Spanish-
speaking CDBG person currently on staff and by utilizing outside language assistance agencies,
when limited-English speaking citizens call to inquire about the various programs available. The
County will continue the process of translating vital documents that are critical for ensuring
meaningful access to the County’s major activities and programs by beneficiaries generally and
LEP residents specifically. The County continually monitors subrecipients to ensure funded
agencies are doing whatever is possible so that limited-English speaking residents have full and
complete access to services. The Census Bureau will conduct a census in 2010. The
demographic/limited-English population information for the County will be updated with the
2010 Census information when it becomes available.
Summary of Public Participation Process
On April 27, 2010, a public meeting regarding the FY 2010/11 Action Plan was held at the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors meeting. Notice of the meeting was published in the
news section of the local newspapers on March 26, 2010.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
26
City of Antioch, City of Concord, City of Pittsburg, City of Richmond,
City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County
Analysis of Impediments
to Fair Housing Choice
tioch, Ci
C
March, 2010
Contra Costa Consortium
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ES-1
What Is an Impediment to Fair Housing Choice? ....................................................................... ES-1
Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments ...................................................................................... ES-2
Impediments Identified ................................................................................................................... ES-3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Geographic Terms ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
What Is Fair Housing? ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
What Is an Impediment to Fair Housing Choice? .......................................................................... 1-2
Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments ......................................................................................... 1-3
Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan ................................................................................. 1-4
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Population ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1
Population by Age ............................................................................................................................... 2-3
Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4
Income ................................................................................................................................................... 2-8
Poverty ................................................................................................................................................ 2-11
Education ............................................................................................................................................ 2-13
Employment ....................................................................................................................................... 2-15
Households ......................................................................................................................................... 2-18
Special Needs Populations – Non-Homeless ................................................................................ 2-21
Housing Characteristics.................................................................................................................... 2-27
Mortgage Lending (HMDA Data) ....................................................................................................... 3-1
Lending Action Volume by Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 3-1
Lending Action Rates by Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................. 3-4
Mortgage Lending by Area .............................................................................................................. 3-16
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... 3-20
Private Sector Practices ......................................................................................................................... 4-1
Real Estate Sales Practices .................................................................................................................. 4-1
Rental and Property Management .................................................................................................... 4-2
Advertisement ..................................................................................................................................... 4-3
Use of Restrictive Covenants ............................................................................................................. 4-3
Fair Housing Complaints and Enforcement .................................................................................... 4-4
Summary of Private Sector Practices ................................................................................................ 4-8
Government Barriers to Fair Housing ................................................................................................ 5-1
Housing Element Law and Compliance .......................................................................................... 5-1
Housing for Persons with Special Needs ......................................................................................... 5-1
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
March 23, 2010 Contra Costa Consortium
ii
Housing for the Homeless .................................................................................................................. 5-3
Building Code ...................................................................................................................................... 5-4
Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing ......................................................................... 5-4
Identification of Impediments and Actions to Address ................................................................. 6-1
Affordable Housing ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
Mortgage Lending ............................................................................................................................... 6-2
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement ...................................................................................... 6-4
Government Barriers ........................................................................................................................... 6-5
AI Appendices
1. Areas of Minority Concentration (Maps)
2. Areas of Hispanic Concentration (Maps)
3. Areas of Low-Income and Very Low-income Concentration (Maps)
4. “CHAS” Tables
5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
6. Mortgage Lending Patterns (Maps)
7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
8. Fair Housing Complaints Reports
9. Licensed Community Care Facilities
10. Permitted Housing Types
11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
List of Tables
Table 1 Current and Projected Population ....................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2 Rate of Change in Current and Projected Population ...................................................... 2-3
Table 3 Population by Age ................................................................................................................. 2-4
Table 4 Race as a Percentage of Total Population ........................................................................... 2-6
Table 5 Hispanic Origin as a Percentage of Total Population ....................................................... 2-7
Table 6 Income Categories ................................................................................................................. 2-8
Table 7 Income Characteristics for Incorporated Jurisdictions ..................................................... 2-9
Table 8 Income Characteristics for Unincorporated Areas .......................................................... 2-10
Table 9 Share of Population Below Poverty .................................................................................. 2-12
Table 10 Educational Attainment for Persons Aged 25 Years and Older .................................. 2-14
Table 11 Employment Statistics ....................................................................................................... 2-16
Table 12 Occupation as a Percentage of the Workforce ............................................................... 2-17
Table 13 Household Composition, 2009 ......................................................................................... 2-18
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
iii
Table 14 Family Household Composition ..................................................................................... 2-20
Table 15 Senior Households ............................................................................................................. 2-22
Table 16 Disability Status and Types .............................................................................................. 2-24
Table 17 Large Households .............................................................................................................. 2-26
Table 18 Single-Parent Households ................................................................................................ 2-27
Table 19 Housing Units, 2000–2009 ................................................................................................ 2-29
Table 20 Housing Tenure ................................................................................................................. 2-30
Table 21 Tenure by Units in Structure ............................................................................................ 2-31
Table 22 Vacancy Status, 2009 ......................................................................................................... 2-33
Table 23 Vacancy Status, 2000 ......................................................................................................... 2-34
Table 24 Age of Housing by Tenure ............................................................................................... 2-36
Table 25 Median Home Sale Listings.............................................................................................. 2-38
Table 26 Median Rental Listings ..................................................................................................... 2-39
Table 27 Fair Market Rents, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 2-39
Table 28 Cost Burden Summary, Renters ...................................................................................... 2-43
Table 29 Cost Burden Summary, Owners ...................................................................................... 2-43
Table 30 Persons per Room .............................................................................................................. 2-44
Table 31 Foreclosure Activity .......................................................................................................... 2-45
Table 3-1 Lending Action by Race, Contra Costa County ............................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2 Lending Action by Ethnicity, Contra Costa County ..................................................... 3-2
Table 3-3 Lending Action for American Indian or Alaskan Native by Area, Contra Costa
County ................................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-4 Lending Action for Hawaiian or Pacific Islander by Area, Contra Costa County .... 3-7
Table 3-5 Lending Action for Black or African American by Area, Contra Costa County ....... 3-9
Table 3-6 Lending Action for Other or No Information by Area, Contra Costa County ........ 3-10
Table 3-7 Lending Action for Asian by Area, Contra Costa County ......................................... 3-12
Table 3-8 Lending Action for White by Area, Contra Costa County ......................................... 3-13
Table 3-9 Lending Action for Hispanic by Area, Contra Costa County .................................... 3-16
Table 3-10 Lending Action for Census Tracts with Less than 50 Percent Origination Rate,
Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................................ 3-18
Table 3-11 High Priced Loans for Consortium Jurisdictions, Contra Costa County ............... 3-20
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As recipients of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the members of the Contra Costa Consortium are required to conduct an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and to periodically review that
analysis and update it as necessary. This AI is being completed in concert with the 2010–
2015 Consolidated Plan. The AI will be reassessed and reevaluated with each
Consolidated Plan.
Together, the CDBG entitlement communities of Contra Costa County and the Urban
County have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to jointly plan for the housing and
community development needs of the County. The Consortium develops a single five-
year Consolidated Plan and has an established process to request funding and to
evaluate requests for funds. The Consortium maximizes the impact of available
resources and assures a more efficient distribution of funds. This is most notable in the
provision of countywide services and the ability to fund large housing projects (using
HOME funds) that would be beyond the capacity of any single member.
This AI is one of several ways in which Consortium members are fulfilling their
obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This document includes an analysis of
local factors that may impact fair housing choice, the identification of specific
impediments to fair housing choice, and a plan to address those impediments. The
Consortium must also assure equal access to services and programs it provides or
assists.
Please note that each member jurisdiction prepares its own Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). These CAPERs include a description of the
efforts made each year to affirmatively further fair housing. These documents may be
consulted for an evaluation of actions taken by individual jurisdictions.
WHAT IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE?
As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair
Housing Planning Guide (1996), impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color,
ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial
status, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the
availability of housing choices; or
Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race,
color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status,
familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-2
To affirmatively further fair housing, a community must work to remove impediments
to fair housing choice.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
The purpose of an AI is to review conditions in the jurisdiction that may impact the
ability of households to freely choose housing and to be treated without regard to race,
ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, source of income, age, disability, or other
protected status. The AI reviews the general state of fair housing, the enforcement of fair
housing law, efforts to promote fair housing, access to credit for the purpose of housing,
and general constraints to the availability of a full range of housing types.
An AI examines the affordability of housing in the jurisdiction with an emphasis on
housing affordable to households with annual incomes classified as low income and
less. (Low income is defined as equal to or less than 80 percent of the adjusted Area
Median Income as most recently published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.)
The document has three major goals:
To provide an overview of the Consortium and current conditions as they
impact fair housing choice.
To review the policies and practices of the Consortium as they impact fair
housing choice and the provision of housing, specifically affordable housing
and housing for special needs households.
To identify impediments to fair housing choice and actions the Consortium
will take to remove those impediments or to mitigate the impact those
impediments have on fair housing choice.
Fulfilling these goals includes the following:
A review of the laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and
practices of the Consortium.
An assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and
accessibility of housing.
An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing
choice.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-3
IMPEDIMENTS IDENTIFIED
This analysis has identified the following impediments and actions to address those
impediments. Section 6 of this document “Identification of Impediments and Actions to
Address” includes a summary of findings.
IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
Affordable Housing
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create
new affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated
Plan programs of the Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG,
HOME, and HOPWA.
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus”
provisions. (See housing element programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of
affordable housing. (See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County,
Richmond and Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of
Housing Choice Vouchers, and will monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers
to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative
resources may be given to projects and programs which expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable
housing in relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of
low-income, poverty and minority concentration.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-4
Mortgage Lending
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and
location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending
by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in
local programs, member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of “Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may
exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or “Substantial
Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition,
member jurisdictions may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA
reporting as most recently published by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders
and the mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower
income and minority households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home
buyer education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households.
Minority households include Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market loan products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and
minority households. Minority households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration
and low-income concentration.
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination
rates under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market loan products to households who wish to purchase homes in Census
Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent according to the most
recently published HMDA data.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-5
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to
persons who have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against
persons based on sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with
disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation.
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to
reasonable accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities
who have been refused reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing
discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report
trends annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination
complaints. All agencies who provide this information should do so in the same
format with the same level of detail. Information should be available by the
quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based
on sexual orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
ES-6
Government Barriers
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and
procedures for persons with disabilities to request reason able accommodations
to local planning and development standards.
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a
residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential
uses of the same type in the same zone, and is not explicitly permitted in the
zoning code.
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
treat transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only
to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone, and to explicitly permit both transitional and supportive housing
types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least
one appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
permit transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential
zoning district.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-1
INTRODUCTION
As recipients of funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the members of the Contra Costa Consortium are required to conduct an
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and to periodically review that
analysis and update it as necessary. This AI is being completed in concert with the 2010–
2015 Consolidated Plan. The AI will be reassessed and reevaluated with each
Consolidated Plan.
Together, the CDBG entitlement communities of Contra Costa County and the Urban
County have formed the Contra Costa Consortium to jointly plan for the housing and
community development needs of the County. The Consortium develops an established
five-year Consolidated Plan and has a single process to request funding and to evaluate
requests for funds. The Consortium maximizes the impact of available resources and
assures a more efficient distribution of funds. This is most notable in the provision of
countywide services and the ability to fund large housing projects (using HOME funds)
that would be beyond the capacity of any single member.
This AI is one of several ways in which Consortium members are fulfilling their
obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. This AI includes an analysis of local
factors that may impact fair housing choice, the identification of specific impediments to
fair housing choice, and a plan to address those impediments. The Consortium must
also assure equal access to services and programs it provides or assists.
Please note that each member jurisdiction prepares its own Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). These CAPERs include a description of the
efforts made each year to affirmatively further fair housing. These documents may be
consulted for an evaluation of actions taken by individual jurisdictions.
GEOGRAPHIC TERMS
Throughout this document the following geographic terms will be used. To assist the
reader, below is an explanation of each.
Contra Costa County “County” (countywide): Includes all 19 jurisdictions
within the County as well as the unincorporated area of the County (Antioch,
Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette,
Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, Richmond,
San Pablo, San Ramon, the unincorporated area of the County, and Walnut
Creek).
Urban County: Includes all jurisdictions which are not entitlement jurisdictions
(Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez,
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-2
Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, San Ramon, and the
unincorporated area of the County).
Unincorporated County: Includes unincorporated area of the County (this area
is not a part of any municipality).
Entitlement Cities: The CDBG entitlement cities in the County are Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and Walnut Creek.
HOME Consortium: The members of the HOME Consortium are Antioch,
Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek.
WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?
Federal law prohibits discrimination in the provision of housing or access to housing
based on membership in certain protected classes of persons or personal status. These
protections apply to race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, religion, familial status,
and mental and physical handicap (disability).
California state law codifies the federal protections and adds sexual orientation, marital
status, use of language, source of income, HIV/AIDS, and medical condition. State law
also prohibits discrimination based on any arbitrary status (the Unruh Act).
Equal access to housing is fundamental to each person in meeting essential needs and
pursuing personal, education, employment, or other goals. Federal and state fair
housing laws prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, lease , or negotiation for real
property based on a person’s protected status.
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same
housing market have a like range of choice available to them, regardless of personal
status.
WHAT IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE?
As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair
Housing Planning Guide (1996), impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color,
ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial
status, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the
availability of housing choices; or
Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting
housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race,
color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status,
familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-3
To affirmatively further fair housing, a community must work to remove impediments
to fair housing choice.
PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
The purpose of an AI is to review conditions in the jurisdiction that may impact the
ability of households to freely choose housing and to be treated without regard to race,
ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, source of income, age, disability, or other
protected status. The AI reviews the general state of fair housing, the enforcement of fair
housing law, efforts to promote fair housing, access to credit for the purpose of housing,
and general constraints to the availability of a full range of housing types.
An AI examines the affordability of housing in the jurisdiction with an emphasis on
housing affordable to households with annual incomes classified as low income and
less. (Low income is defined as equal to or less than 80 percent of the adjusted Area
Median Income as most recently published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.)
The document has three major goals:
To provide an overview of the Consortium and current conditions as they
impact fair housing choice.
To review the policies and practices of the Consortium as they impact fair
housing choice and the provision of housing, specifically affordable housing
and housing for special needs households.
To identify impediments to fair housing choice and actions the Consortium
will take to remove those impediments or to mitigate the impact those
impediments have on fair housing choice.
Fulfilling these goals includes the following:
A review of the laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and
practices of the Consortium.
An assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and
accessibility of housing.
An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing
choice.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
1-4
CONTRA COSTA CONSORTIUM CONSOLIDATED PLAN
This AI has been prepared in coordination with the 2010–2015 Consolidated Plan for the
Contra Costa Consortium. The Consolidated Plan outlines the Consortium’s priority
housing and community development needs, as well as the objectives and strategies for
meeting those needs. The Consolidated Plan is a requirement of recipients of housing
and community development funds from HUD.
One of the major focuses of the Consolidated Plan is the provision of affordable housing
opportunities for lower-income households and persons with special needs, many of
whom may be victims of housing discrimination. As part of the Consolidated Plan, the
County and member jurisdictions must certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair
housing choice for all residents by:
Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice;
Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments
identified through the analysis; and
Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken.
This Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) constitutes the Consortium
members’ effort to identify impediments to fair housing and actions to overcome the
effects of the identified impediments. Through the annual planning process, Consortium
members will incorporate specific actions to be undertaken to remove impediments and
to further fair housing choice.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-1
BACKGROUND
This section presents a summary of the demographic profile, economic, income distribution,
and housing characteristics for the County of Contra Costa.
POPULATION
Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate a few notable growth trends in the Bay Area and in Contra Costa
County and its cities. The estimated annual percentage growth rate from 2000 to 2010 decreased
with respect to the actual annual growth percentage rate from 1990 to 2000 for the C ounty and
cities.
From 1990 to 2000, the actual growth percentage rate in the County (18.1 percent), Antioch (46.0
percent), Pittsburg (19.5 percent), and Richmond (14.1 percent) exceeds the percentage growth
for the Bay Area (12.6 percent) as a whole.
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2007, the
population in Contra Costa County is expected to reach 1,061,900 by 2010 and grow to 1,105,600
by 2015. Between 2010 and 2015 the County’s population is estimated to grow by 4.3 percent.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-2
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction 1990 1 2000 1 2010 2 2015 2 2020 2
Bay Area 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,412,500 7,730,000 8,069,700
Urban County
Brentwood 7,563 23,284 51,300 56,900 67,400
Clayton 7,317 10,792 11,300 11,700 12,000
Danville 31,306 42,127 44,000 44,400 45,000
El Cerrito 22,869 23,179 23,600 23,900 24,500
Hercules 16,829 19,299 23,900 25,200 26,400
Lafayette 23,501 23,463 24,500 24,700 25,300
Martinez 32,038 36,167 37,600 38,600 39,600
Moraga 15,852 16,642 16,700 16,900 17,500
Oakley 3 18,225 25,465 31,950 34,050 35,850
Orinda 16,642 17,446 18,000 18,200 18,500
Pinole 17,460 19,394 20,100 20,300 20,700
Pleasant Hill 31,585 32,847 33,900 34,400 34,900
San Pablo 25,158 30,121 31,400 31,700 32,100
San Ramon 35,303 44,477 58,200 64,400 70,300
Unincorporated County 151,690 159,650 165,550 173,050 179,050
Urban County Subtotal 377,247 427,978 592,000 618,400 649,100
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 62,195 90,814 106,000 111,400 115,000
Concord 111,348 121,710 125,800 129,400 135,400
Pittsburg 47,564 56,820 65,900 67,900 71,000
Richmond 87,425 99,716 104,700 109,800 115,600
Walnut Creek 60,569 64,583 67,500 68,700 70,900
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 746,348 861,621 1,061,900 1,105,600 1,157,000
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equ al 100.
1 Data provided by the 1990 and 2000 Census.
2 Data provided by ABAG.
3 Oakley was incorporated as a city July 1, 1999; therefore, the data under 1990 is from the Oakley Census Designated Place
(CDP).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-3
TABLE 2
RATE OF CHANGE IN CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
Jurisdiction
1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2015
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Annual
Growth
Total
Growth
Urban County
Brentwood 20.8% 207.9% 12.0% 120.2% 3.2% 16.2%
Clayton 4.7% 47.5% 0.5% 5.0% 0.7% 3.5%
Danville 3.5% 34.6% 0.6% 5.5% 0.2% 0.9%
El Cerrito 0.1% 1.4% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.3%
Hercules 1.5% 14.7% 2.3% 22.7% 1.1% 5.4%
Lafayette 0.0% -0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 0.1% 0.8%
Martinez 1.3% 12.9% 0.4% 4.8% 0.5% 2.7%
Moraga 0.5% 5.0% 0.3% 2.5% 0.2% 1.2%
Oakley 3.9% 39.5% 2.5% 24.7% 1.3% 6.6%
Orinda 0.5% 4.8% 0.2% 2.3% 0.2% 1.1%
Pinole 1.1% 11.1% 0.6% 5.6% 0.2% 1.0%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.0% 0.3% 3.2% 0.3% 1.5%
San Pablo 2.0% 19.7% 0.4% 3.9% 0.2% 1.0%
San Ramon 2.6% 26.0% 3.0% 30.1% 2.1% 10.7%
Unincorporated County 0.5% 5.2% 0.9% 9.1% 0.9% 4.5%
Urban County Total 1.4% 13.6% 1.5% 14.9% 0.4% 4.46%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 4.6% 46.0% 1.7% 17.1% 0.8% 4.2%
Concord 0.9% 9.3% 0.3% 3.3% 0.6% 2.9%
Pittsburg 1.9% 19.5% 1.6% 16.1% 0.6% 3.0%
Richmond 1.4% 14.1% 0.6% 5.5% 1.0% 4.9%
Walnut Creek 0.7% 6.6% 0.5% 5.0% 0.4% 1.8%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 1.8% 18.1% 1.2% 11.9% 0.9% 4.3%
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P1; Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2007
POPULATION BY AGE
Table 3 shows population by age group. Of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Walnut
Creek had the largest share of persons over 65 (25.0 percent), followed by El Cerrito (20.7
percent) and Orinda (18.4 percent). Oakley had the largest percentage of persons under the age
of 18 (34.7 percent), followed by Brentwood (33.8 percent) and Antioch (33.7 percent). Contra
Costa County had a total of 27.7 percent of persons under 18 and 11.3 percent of persons
over 65.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-4
TABLE 3
POPULATION BY AGE
Jurisdiction
Percentage
of Persons
Under 18
Percentage
of Persons
Over 18
Percentage
of Persons
Age 19–64
Percentage
of Persons
Over 65
Urban County
Brentwood 33.8% 66.1% 56.5% 9.6%
Clayton 26.9% 72.5% 63.4% 9.1%
Danville 29.5% 70.5% 60.2% 10.3%
El Cerrito 16.6% 83.4% 62.7% 20.7%
Hercules 28.7% 71.3% 64.5% 6.8%
Lafayette 26.4% 73.6% 59.6% 14.0%
Martinez 24.0% 76.0% 65.8% 10.2%
Moraga 25.6% 74.4% 59.2% 15.2%
Oakley 34.7% 64.6% 58.8% 5.8%
Orinda 26.4% 73.6% 55.2% 18.4%
Pinole 26.6% 73.5% 59.4% 14.1%
Pleasant Hill 22.6% 77.4% 64.3% 13.1%
San Pablo 33.0% 67.0% 58.1% 8.9%
San Ramon 27.4% 72.6% 66.4% 6.2%
Unincorporated County 27.2% 72.8% 61.9% 10.9%
Urban County Total 27.4% 72.6% 60.1% 11.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 33.7% 66.3% 59.0% 7.3%
Concord 26.5% 72.4% 61.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 31.3% 67.9% 59.7% 8.2%
Richmond 28.7% 71.2% 61.6% 9.6%
Walnut Creek 18.0% 81.6% 56.6% 25.0%
Contra Costa County (countywide) Total 27.7% 72.3% 61.0% 11.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8
Note: Due to rounding errors, total percentage of persons under 18 and over 18 for individual jurisdictions may not equal 100.
RACE/ETHNICITY
Although Contra Costa County is generally diverse, the particular racial and ethnic composition
varies by community. Please see Tables 4 and 5.1 Of the nineteen cities in the County, there are
eight with a White population of over 80 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Martinez,
1 Race is shown for persons who reported being of that race alone. Persons reporting more than one race are included
in “two or more races.” Persons who indicated they were of only one race but did not report a race in one of the five
categories shown are included in “some other race.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-5
Moraga, Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek), and six with a minority population near or
greater Thant 50 percent (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Richmond).
In a similar fashion, four communities have an Hispanic or Latino population over 25 percent
(Brentwood, Oakley, San Pablo, Richmond), and six have an Hispanic or Latino population of
less than 6 percent (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Walnut Creek).
The communities that are predominantly White tend to be those located in the central portion of
the County, in the Interstate Highway 680 corridor. The predominantly minority and Hispanic
or Latino communities tend to be in the industrial and agricultural areas of the eastern and
western regions of the County.
Areas of Minority Concentration
Data on race and ethnicity were examined at the block group level to determine areas of
minority and ethnic concentration (2000 U.S. Decennial Census, Summary File 3). Minority
population is defined as the total population less those who responded “White alone” to the
U.S. Census. Block group areas where the percentage of total minority population exceeds the
group’s countywide total percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of “minority concentration.” Areas that have a minority population at least 1.5 times the
countywide total percentage are considered to be areas of “high minority concentration.” Note
that of all the entitlement jurisdictions, Walnut Creek does not have any areas of minority
concentration, therefore a map was not included. Please see Maps 1 through 5 in Appendix 1.
(Please note that although Census tract boundaries are contiguous with County boundaries,
block group area boundaries within tracts may not be contiguous with current city boundaries.)
It should be noted that in all areas which show an overall minority concentration, the
predominant minority group is Black/African American.
Since the U.S. Census enumerates Hispanic as a distinct ethnic category, this characteristic was
examined separately. Block group areas where the percentage of total Hispanic population
exceeds the countywide percentage by at least one percentage point are considered to be areas
of Hispanic concentration. The average countywide percentage of Hispanic population is 17.6
percent. Areas that have a Hispanic population at least 1.5 times the countywide percentage are
considered to be areas of high Hispanic concentration. Note that of all the entitlement
jurisdictions, Walnut Creek does not have any areas of Hispanic concentration, therefore a map
was not included. Please see Maps 6 through 10 in Appendix 2.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-6
TABLE 4
RACE AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
other race
Two or
more
races
Urban County
Brentwood 74.0% 1.5% 0.5% 3.3% 0.2% 14.0% 6.6%
Clayton 87.7% 1.2% 0.1% 5.5% 0.4% 1.3% 3.8%
Danville 86.3% 1.0% 0.2% 8.5% 0.0% 0.9% 3.0%
El Cerrito 57.0% 8.1% 0.6% 24.3% 0.5% 3.4% 6.2%
Hercules 28.0% 18.8% 0.6% 43.0% 0.2% 5.1% 4.6%
Lafayette 88.0% 0.5% 0.2% 7.0% 0.1% 0.9% 3.3%
Martinez 81.0% 3.3% 0.8% 6.4% 0.1% 3.4% 5.0%
Moraga 80.0% 1.3% 0.4% 13.0% 0.1% 1.6% 4.1%
Oakley 76.0% 3.0% 0.7% 3.0% 0.0% 11.1% 6.6%
Orinda 87.0% 0.3% 0.2% 8.7% 0.2% 0.8% 3.0%
Pinole 55.0% 10.9% 0.5% 21.1% 0.9% 5.8% 6.0%
Pleasant Hill 82.0% 1.1% 0.5% 10.0% 0.3% 1.9% 4.3%
San Pablo 31.0% 18.3% 1.1% 16.3% 0.2% 26.0% 7.0%
San Ramon 76.0% 2.1% 0.4% 15.3% 0.2% 2.2% 3.8%
Unincorporated
County 66.1% 9.9% 0.8% 10.9% 0.6% 5.9% 5.7%
Urban County Total 65.3% 9.2% 0.6% 10.9% 0.4% 8.2% 5.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 65.2% 9.5% 0.8% 7.3% 0.4% 9.2% 7.5%
Concord 70.7% 3.0% 0.8% 9.4% 0.5% 9.7% 5.9%
Pittsburg 43.5% 18.9% 0.8% 12.7% 0.9% 16.1% 7.2%
Richmond 31.4% 36.1% 0.7% 12.3% 0.5% 13.9% 5.3%
Walnut Creek 83.9% 1.1% 0.3% 9.4% 0.2% 2.0% 3.3%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
65.5% 9.4% 0.6% 11.0% 0.4% 8.1% 5.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P6
Note: Rounding may lead to row totals slightly more or less than 100%.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-7
TABLE 5
HISPANIC ORIGIN AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Jurisdiction Hispanic or Latino (all races) Not Hispanic or Latino (all races)
Urban County
Brentwood 28.9% 71.1%
Clayton 5.7% 94.3%
Danville 4.9% 95.1%
El Cerrito 7.9% 92.1%
Hercules 10.8% 89.2%
Lafayette 4.3% 95.7%
Martinez 10.6% 89.4%
Moraga 4.6% 95.4%
Oakley 24.6% 75.4%
Orinda 3.5% 96.5%
Pinole 14.4% 85.6%
Pleasant Hill 8.2% 91.8%
San Pablo 44.5% 55.5%
San Ramon 7.2% 92.8%
Unincorporated County 20.6% 79.4%
Urban County Total 17.7% 82.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 22.0% 78.0%
Concord 21.9% 78.1%
Pittsburg 32.0% 68.0%
Richmond 26.8% 73.2%
Walnut Creek 5.8% 94.2%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 17.7% 82.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P7
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-8
INCOME
In this plan, income will be discussed using the terms as defined in Table 6 below. These terms
correspond to the income limits published annually by HUD. HUD bases these income
categories on the Decennial Census with adjustment factors applied using the annual American
Community Survey. Income categories take into consideration family size. The income limit for
a family of four is shown for illustration.
TABLE 6
INCOME CATEGORIES
Term Percentage AMI1 2009 Income Limit, Family of 42
Extremely low income 30% $26,790
Very low income 50% $44,650
Low income 80% $66,250
Moderate income3 120% $107,160
1 AMI = area median family income
2 Oakland-Fremont HMFA (HUD Metropolitan FMR Area) including Contra Costa County.
3 HUD does not publish a “moderate income” limit. It is calculated as 2.4 times the published very low -income limit.
Table 7 provides a summary of income statistics as reported by the 2000 Census for all
jurisdictions within Contra Costa County except the unincorporated area of the County. The
2000 Census does not provide information for the unincorporated area but does include data for
a Census-designated place (CDP). A CDP comprises a densely settled concentration of
population that is not within an incorporated place but is locally identified by a name. Contra
Costa County has 22 different CDPs. To get a better idea of the incomes for the unincorporated
area, Table 8 provides data for each CDP in the unincorporated County.
The communities of Contra Costa County have a significant disparity of household income
between them. Four cities and three CDPs have annual median household incomes above
$100,000 (Clayton, Danville, Lafayette, Orinda, Alamo, Blackhawk-Camino/Tassajara, and
Diablo). None of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions.
Three cities and eight CDPs have annual median household incomes near or below $50,000 (San
Pablo, Pittsburg, Richmond, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Byron, Crockett, El Sobrante, Pache co,
Rollingwood, and Vine Hill). Two of these communities are CDBG entitlement jurisdictions,
eight are un-incorporated CDPs.
Higher income communities in the County tend to be in the central region, lower income
communities are more likely to be in the industrial and agricultural communities of the eastern
and western regions.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-9
TABLE 7
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR INCORPORATED JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Urban County
Brentwood $69,198 $24,909
Clayton $101,651 $42,048
Danville $114,064 $50,773
El Cerrito $57,253 $32,593
Hercules $75,196 $27,699
Lafayette $102,107 $54,319
Martinez $63,010 $29,701
Moraga $98,080 $45,437
Oakley $65,589 $21,895
Orinda $117,637 $65,428
Pinole $62,256 $25,170
Pleasant Hill $67,489 $33,076
San Pablo $37,184 $14,303
San Ramon $95,856 $42,336
Unincorporated County See Table 8
Urban County Total n/a n/a
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch $60,359 $22,152
Concord $55,597 $24,727
Pittsburg $50,557 $18,241
Richmond $44,210 $19,788
Walnut Creek $63,238 $39,875
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total $63,675 $30,615
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-10
TABLE 8
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Census Designated Place Median Household Income Per Capita Income
Alamo CDP $137,105 $65,705
Bay Point CDP $44,951 $16,743
Bayview-Montalvin CDP $50,750 $16,056
Bethel Island CDP $44,569 $26,739
Blackhawk-Camino Tassajara CDP $154,598 $66,972
Byron CDP $35,938 $21,231
Clyde CDP $66,875 $30,822
Crockett CDP $48,574 $27,469
Diablo CDP $197,904 $95,419
Discovery Bay CDP $89,915 $41,313
East Richmond Heights CDP $57,500 $27,873
El Sobrante CDP $48,272 $24,525
Kensington CDP $93,247 $55,275
Knightsen CDP $58,929 $22,191
Mountain View CDP $51,986 $26,071
Pacheco CDP $45,851 $26,064
Port Costa CDP $61,429 $33,563
Rodeo CDP $60,522 $21,432
Rollingwood CDP $48,229 $13,428
Tara Hills CDP $56,380 $22,946
Vine Hill CDP $48,125 $17,985
Walden CDP $58,552 $41,093
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P53 and P82
Areas of Low- and Very Low-Income Concentration
Data on income was examined at the block group level to determine areas of low- and very low-
income concentration (2009 HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary Data).
Low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more low-income persons.2 The exception
is the Urban County and entitlement communities within the County which have been
designated by HUD as “exception grantees.” In those communities, the HUD exception
2 Using the LOWMODPCT variable which is defined as “the percentage of persons who are of low/moderate income;
calculated by LOWMOD/LOWMODUNIV times 100.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-11
threshold was used to determine low-income areas.3 Please see Maps 11 through 16 in
Appendix 3. Very low-income areas are those that have 51 percent or more very low-income
persons or a percentage of very low-income persons that exceeds the applicable exception
threshold. 4 Please see Maps 17 through 18 in Appendix 3.
POVERTY
In addition to reporting income, the 2000 Census reports the number of persons and families
that have incomes that fall below the federal poverty level. 5 The poverty level is adjusted for
family size and composition making it a more relative measure than household income. Persons
and families that are below the poverty level are in general very poor. Please see Table 9 for
data on persons and families who fall below the poverty line. The table also shows children
who are below the poverty line.
The cities of San Pablo and Richmond, as well as the unincorporated areas of the County, are
notable for the level of poverty as is the un-incorporated area of the County. The un-
incorporated area of the County also has a notably high level of children in poverty.
3 Defined by HUD as an area “within the highest quartile of all areas within the jurisdiction . . . in terms of the degree
of concentration of persons of low and moderate income.” This threshold is 42.60% for the Urban County; 47.9% for
Concord; 32.5% for Walnut Creek.
4 Calculated as “PVLOW/LOWMODUNIV times 100.” PVLOW = “The total number of persons below the very low-
income threshold. LOMODUNIV = “Persons with the potential for being deemed Low Mod.”
5 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau based on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the total income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-12
TABLE 9
SHARE OF POPULATION BELOW POVERTY
Jurisdiction Persons Persons Under
18 Years of Age Families
Urban County
Brentwood 5.8% 2.5% 5.1%
Clayton 2.6% 1.0% 1.9%
Danville 2.2% 0.5% 1.2%
El Cerrito 6.7% 1.3% 3.8%
Hercules 3.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Lafayette 2.9% 0.6% 2.0%
Martinez 5.2% 1.0% 3.0%
Moraga 2.9% 0.9% 2.0%
Oakley 5.0% 1.8% 3.7%
Orinda 1.9% 0.3% 1.1%
Pinole 5.0% 1.4% 3.3%
Pleasant Hill 5.0% 0.8% 2.3%
San Pablo 18.1% 7.5% 15.5%
San Ramon 2.0% 0.4% 1.4%
Unincorporated County 47.8% 16.8% 36.7%
Urban County Total 17.6% 6.0% 13.3%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 8.5% 3.8% 7.2%
Concord 7.6% 2.4% 5.6%
Pittsburg 11.5% 4.3% 9.6%
Richmond 16.2% 6.4% 13.5%
Walnut Creek 3.7% 0.6% 1.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 7.6% 10.3% 5.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3 (persons and families for whom poverty status is determined), Table P87 and P89
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-13
EDUCATION
Education level plays a critical role in determining the income level of a household. Table 10
provides a summary of educational attainment for persons aged 25 years and older for the share
of the population in the state and in each jurisdiction. Both Clayton and Orinda had ze ro
persons who reported no schooling, with Moraga and Danville following close behind (0.1
percent). San Pablo (6.6 percent) and Richmond (3.4 percent) had the greatest number of
persons who reported no schooling. For the share of persons having a college degree, only 6 of
the 19 jurisdictions in Contra Costa County were below the state percentage (33.7 percent).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-14
TABLE 10
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR PERSONS AGED 25 YEARS AND OLDER
Jurisdiction % No
Schooling
% Some
Schooling
(nursery–11th
grade)
% High
School
(without
diploma)
% High
School
Graduate
and
Equivalent
% Some
College (no
degree)
% College
Degree
State of California 3.2% 15.3% 4.7% 20.1% 22.9% 33.7%
Urban County
Brentwood 1.9% 11.4% 3.9% 25.4% 28.7% 28.8%
Clayton 0.0% 1.3% 1.2% 15.1% 22.9% 59.5%
Danville 0.1% 2.1% 1.3% 11.2% 19.0% 66.4%
El Cerrito 1.0% 4.5% 1.9% 13.0% 17.6% 62.0%
Hercules 1.4% 4.8% 3.2% 16.8% 27.2% 46.5%
Lafayette 0.2% 1.2% 0.9% 8.7% 15.8% 73.1%
Martinez 0.4% 5.3% 3.3% 20.3% 28.8% 42.0%
Moraga 0.1% 1.7% 1.2% 8.3% 16.3% 72.4%
Oakley 0.8% 10.3% 4.1% 30.4% 32.4% 22.0%
Orinda 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 5.5% 12.7% 79.6%
Pinole 1.1% 7.7% 3.0% 24.1% 28.1% 36.1%
Pleasant Hill 0.4% 4.4% 2.1% 17.5% 24.1% 51.5%
San Pablo 6.6% 24.2% 6.8% 26.1% 21.2% 15.1%
San Ramon 0.3% 1.7% 1.5% 11.8% 23.8% 60.9%
Unincorporated
County 1.5% 8.8% 3.5% 20.4% 24.7% 41.1%
Urban County Total 1.3% 7.9% 3.2% 19.3% 24.2% 44.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 1.1% 9.2% 4.1% 28.6% 29.9% 27.1%
Concord 1.7% 10.0% 3.6% 23.2% 26.9% 34.6%
Pittsburg 2.6% 16.2% 5.5% 25.9% 27.8% 22.1%
Richmond 3.4% 15.4% 5.8% 21.8% 24.4% 29.2%
Walnut Creek 0.3% 3.3% 1.4% 12.6% 21.1% 61.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 1.4% 8.4% 3.4% 19.8% 24.4% 42.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P37
Note: Due to rounding, the total percentage for each jurisdiction may not equal 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-15
EMPLOYMENT
Table 11 provides a summary of the civilian labor force, employment (the number employed),
unemployment (the number unemployed), and the unemployment rate for 2007 and 2008–2009
for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The 2007 data is the annual average, and the 2008–
2009 data was collected from March 2008 through December 2009. When comparing the 2007
data to the 2008–2009 data for Contra Costa County as a whole, due to the current economic
condition the unemployment rate has increased dramatically from 4.7 percent in 2007 to 11
percent in 2008–2009. This increased unemployment rate is the trend for all jurisdictions in the
County, with every jurisdiction seeing an increase in unemployment.
The jurisdictions that had the greatest increase in unemployment rates for 2008–2009 were San
Pablo (11.7 percent increase) and Richmond and Moraga (each with an approximate 10 percent
increase). The Department of Finance does not provide a breakdown of occupation for
individual jurisdictions; therefore the 2000 U.S. Census was used. As shown in Table 12,
management, professional, and related occupations represent the largest share of occupations
for the Urban County and entitlement jurisdictions, followed by sales and office occupations.
Persons employed in farming, fishing, and forestry represent the smallest share of the
workforce.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-16
TABLE 11
EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
Jurisdiction
2008–2009 2007
Labor
Force Employment Unemployed Labor
Force Employment Unemployed
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Urban County
Brentwood 10,900 9,900 1,100 9.8% 10,900 10,400 400 4.1%
Clayton 6,200 6,000 100 2.3% 6,400 6,400 100 0.9%
Danville 23,100 21,700 1,300 5.8% 23,500 23,000 600 2.4%
El Cerrito 14,000 12,600 1,400 9.8% 13,900 13,300 600 4.1%
Hercules 11,300 10,400 800 7.4% 11,400 11,000 400 3.1%
Lafayette 12,600 12,100 500 4.0% 12,900 12,700 200 1.6%
Martinez 21,900 20,000 1,900 8.8% 21,900 21,100 800 3.7%
Moraga 9,400 7,800 1,600 16.5% 8,900 8,300 700 7.3%
Oakley 13,700 12,600 1,100 8.0% 13,800 13,300 500 3.3%
Orinda 8,600 8,300 300 3.9% 8,900 8,700 100 1.6%
Pinole 10,500 9,800 700 7.1% 10,600 10,300 300 3.0%
Pleasant Hill 20,300 18,500 1,800 9.0% 20,300 19,600 800 3.8%
San Pablo 14,400 11,300 3,100 21.5% 13,200 11,900 1,300 9.8%
San Ramon 28,100 26,800 1,300 4.6% 28,900 28,300 500 1.9%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 49,500 43,400 6,200 12.4% 48,400 45,800 2,600 5.3%
Concord 70,500 62,100 8,400 11.9% 69,100 65,600 3,500 5.1%
Pittsburg 31,000 25,700 5,300 17.2% 29,300 27,100 2,200 7.6%
Richmond 54,000 44,500 9,500 17.6% 51,000 47,000 4,000 7.8%
Walnut Creek 34,200 31,600 2,600 7.5% 34,500 33,400 1,100 3.1%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 527,100 469,100 58,000 11.0% 519,700 495,400 24,300 4.7%
Source: Economic Development Department, Labor Force and Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2008 –2009.
Note: The data is not seasonally adjusted; therefore the employment and unemployment numbers may not be the total labor force.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-17
TABLE 12
OCCUPATION AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE WORKFORCE
Jurisdiction
Management,
professional,
and related
Service
Sales
and
office
Farming,
fishing,
and
forestry
Construction,
extraction, and
maintenance
Production,
transportation,
and material
moving
Urban County
Brentwood 35.9% 15.0% 25.6% 1.2% 14.1% 8.1%
Clayton 54.5% 9.3% 27.0% 0.0% 4.6% 4.6%
Danville 58.1% 5.7% 28.5% 0.1% 4.0% 3.6%
El Cerrito 58.2% 8.6% 24.2% 0.1% 4.0% 4.9%
Hercules 39.6% 9.6% 35.1% 0.0% 6.0% 9.7%
Lafayette 64.3% 7.8% 20.1% 0.1% 4.2% 3.6%
Martinez 41.3% 10.1% 31.0% 0.1% 10.6% 7.0%
Moraga 61.2% 7.8% 24.7% 0.1% 2.3% 3.9%
Oakley 25.2% 15.9% 29.9% 0.4% 15.7% 12.9%
Orinda 66.4% 6.3% 22.2% 0.3% 2.0% 2.8%
Pinole 34.3% 16.1% 29.6% 0.0% 9.7% 10.2%
Pleasant Hill 48.9% 10.7% 26.9% 0.1% 8.2% 5.2%
San Pablo 20.2% 23.4% 25.8% 0.7% 13.8% 16.2%
San Ramon 54.8% 6.0% 30.6% 0.0% 4.5% 4.0%
Unincorporated
County 41.2% 13.5% 26.9% 0.5% 9.3% 8.7%
Urban County Total 47.8% 10.3% 27.8% 0.2% 7.4% 6.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 29.1% 15.1% 31.2% 0.2% 13.2% 11.3%
Concord 34.0% 17.8% 27.9% 0.1% 10.9% 9.3%
Pittsburg 24.0% 19.1% 29.8% 0.1% 13.2% 13.7%
Richmond 32.9% 18.1% 26.4% 0.2% 9.0% 13.3%
Walnut Creek 55.5% 9.0% 27.6% 0.1% 4.1% 3.6%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
41.0% 13.4% 28.0% 0.2% 8.9% 8.5%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P50
Note: Due to rounding errors, total employment shares for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-18
HOUSEHOLDS
The type, size, and composition of a household can affect the type of housing and services that
are needed. The following section provides an analysis of the household profiles for all
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, as well as in the unincorporated County.
Table 13 presents household size, percentage of persons living alone, and percentage of persons
over age 65. San Pablo had the largest average household size (3.25 persons) of all the
jurisdictions, with the second largest household size (3.23 persons) reported in Oakley. Based on
the 2000 U.S. Census, Walnut Creek had the largest share of persons living alone (38.4 percent)
and householders over the age of 65 (35.8 percent).
TABLE 13
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION, 2009
Jurisdiction Average Household
Size (persons)1
% of Single Persons Living
Alone2
% Headed by Person
65 and Older2
Urban County
Brentwood 3.04 14.5% 18.2%
Clayton 2.73 14.5% 15.9%
Danville 2.75 15.7% 16.7%
El Cerrito 2.23 30.9% 30.8%
Hercules 2.99 17.8% 8.6%
Lafayette 2.57 18.9% 21.6%
Martinez 2.39 27.3% 16.0%
Moraga 2.56 19.9% 26.2%
Oakley 3.23 12.9% 11.5%
Orinda 2.63 16.4% 30.4%
Pinole 2.76 20.0% 23.2%
Pleasant Hill 2.33 28.9% 20.1%
San Pablo 3.25 22.4% 16.3%
San Ramon 2.60 21.1% 9.8%
Unincorporated County 2.69 21.7% 18.9%
Urban County Total -- 21.3% 18.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 3.04 15.8% 13.3%
Concord 2.71 23.2% 17.8%
Pittsburg 3.13 18.3% 15.2%
Richmond 2.79 25.9% 17.7%
Walnut Creek 2.07 38.4% 35.8%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 2.75 22.9% 19.3%
Source: 1 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10 and H1; 2 Department of Finance 2009, E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-19
Table 14 presents the number of family households and the share of family households that are
married, single parents, and have children under 18 years of age for all jurisdictions in Contra
Costa County.
Of the 344,129 households in the County, 243,971 (70.9 percent) were family households.6 Of the
family households, 123,948 (50.8 percent) had children under 18. When looking closer at the
jurisdictions in the County: Oakley (63.4 percent), San Pablo (61.1 percent), and Antioch (59.8
percent) had the largest share of families with children under 18; Orinda (91.5 percent), Clayton
(90.5 percent), and Lafayette (90.1 percent) had the largest share of married couples ; and San
Pablo (21.7 percent) and Richmond (18.9 percent) had the largest share of single parents. These
percentages exceed that of the County for each category: families with children under 18,
married couples, and single parents.
6 Comprising related individuals.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-20
TABLE 14
FAMILY HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Jurisdiction Family Households % Married % With Children
Under 18 % Single Parent
Urban County
Brentwood 6,231 87.0% 58.7% 9.3%
Clayton 3,212 90.5% 48.1% 5.4%
Danville 12,054 89.0% 52.1% 6.1%
El Cerrito 6,047 78.5% 34.5% 7.7%
Hercules 4,993 78.9% 55.2% 11.4%
Lafayette 6,805 90.1% 49.1% 6.3%
Martinez 9,279 78.6% 48.0% 11.6%
Moraga 4,361 88.6% 47.1% 5.7%
Oakley 6,483 86.4% 63.4% 8.8%
Orinda 5,231 91.5% 46.1% 4.2%
Pinole 5,148 77.3% 46.3% 9.6%
Pleasant Hill 8,435 80.6% 46.9% 10.3%
San Pablo 6,672 63.1% 61.1% 21.7%
San Ramon 12,077 86.1% 53.3% 8.4%
Unincorporated
County 39,370 79.1% -- 11.1%
Urban County Total 136,398 82.1% 42.1% 9.7%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 23,307 77.5% 59.8% 14.8%
Concord 30,637 75.6% 51.4% 12.8%
Pittsburg 13,509 72.9% 55.1% 14.7%
Richmond 23,403 63.4% 51.0% 18.9%
Walnut Creek 16,717 85.0% 39.1% 7.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 243,971 78.7% 50.8% 11.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, P10
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-21
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – NON-HOMELESS
Certain groups may have more difficulty finding housing and may require specialized services
or assistance. Owing to their special circumstances, they are more likely to have extremely low,
very low, low, or moderate incomes. These groups include the elderly, frail elderly, persons
with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug
addiction, victims of domestic violence, large households, and single parent-headed (female
and male) households.
Elderly and Frail Elderly
The three jurisdictions with the largest share of senior households were Walnut Creek (36.1
percent), Orinda (31.9 percent), and El Cerrito (31.4 percent). Please see Table 15.
Of all jurisdictions in the County, both San Pablo (52.6 percent) and Pittsbur g (50.7 percent) had
over half of their senior population reporting a disability, compared to the total County with
39.6 percent of the senior population reporting a disability.
Seniors are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the increase in evictions in
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted during foreclosure. Seniors are more likely to be on fixed
incomes and fall into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that
they can afford.7
7 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-22
TABLE 15
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction % Senior
Population
% Senior
Households
% Renter
Households
% Owner
Households
% With a
Disability*
Urban County
Brentwood 9.6% 19.4% 9.2% 90.8% 34.9%
Clayton 9.1% 16.2 % 1.6% 98.4% 34.1%
Danville 10.3% 17.6% 11.5% 88.5% 37.8%
El Cerrito 20.7% 31.4% 16.5% 83.5% 38.0%
Hercules 6.8% 8.8% 18.0% 82.0% 39.3%
Lafayette 14.0% 21.5% 11.8% 88.2% 25.4%
Martinez 10.2% 16.3% 23.9% 76.1% 42.0%
Moraga 15.2% 27.8% 8.2% 91.8% 28.4%
Oakley 5.8% 12.0% 18.8% 81.2% 45.8%
Orinda 18.4% 31.9% 8.7% 91.3% 22.3%
Pinole 14.1% 22.6% 20.7% 79.3% 44.1%
Pleasant Hill 13.1% 20.3% 31.3% 68.7% 42.7%
San Pablo 8.9% 16.8% 36.3% 63.7% 52.6%
San Ramon 6.2% 9.3% 22.0% 78.0% 35.0%
Unincorporated
County 10.9% 19.1% 16.8% 83.2% 37.5%
Urban County Total 11.1% 21.2% 19.5% 80.5% 37.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 7.3% 13.8% 26.0% 74.0% 44.0%
Concord 10.8% 17.6% 21.5% 78.5% 41.9%
Pittsburg 8.3% 15.9% 25.5% 74.5% 50.7%
Richmond 9.6% 18.0% 22.6% 77.4% 47.2%
Walnut Creek 25.0% 36.1% 15.1% 84.9% 37.0%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 11.3% 19.5% 18.9% 81.1% 39.6%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P8, P11, P41 and H14
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-23
Persons with Disabilities
Table 16 presents data from the 2000 Census for persons with disabilities in the state, in the
Urban County (all non-entitlement jurisdictions), and in the entitlement jurisdictions. Of the
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, San Pablo (25.5 percent) had the greatest share of the
persons with a disability for all persons over 5 years of age, followed by Richmond (21.6
percent). Moraga (9.7 percent) had the smallest share of persons with a disability, followed by
Lafayette (9.8 percent).
Of the disabled persons in the County, 24.1 percent reported an employment disability and 23.5
percent reported a physical disability. These percentages were consistent with the state and
most jurisdictions in the County.
Disabled persons are among several groups especially adversely impacted by the increase in
evictions during 2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon.
There is little legal recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Disabled
persons find it more difficult to find housing that can accommodate their needs than
nondisabled persons and are more likely to fall into a low-income category, making it more
difficult to find new housing that meets their needs and that they can afford.8
8 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, September 18,
2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 18, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-24
TABLE 16
DISABILITY STATUS AND TYPES
Jurisdiction
Number of
Disabled
Persons
% of
Persons
Disabled
% of Disabled
Population –
Sensory*
% of Disabled
Population –
Physical*
% of Disabled
Population –
Mental*
% of Disabled
Population –
Self-care*
% of Disabled
Population –Go-
outside-home*
% of Disabled
Population –
Employment
Disability*
State of California 5,923,361 19.2% 9.3% 21.0% 13.3% 7.2% 23.0% 26.2%
Urban County
Brentwood 3,232 15.4% 9.5% 24.6% 13.6% 6.5% 21.1% 24.6%
Clayton 1,128 11.2% 10.7% 21.4% 13.0% 4.7% 23.8% 26.5%
Danville 4,330 11.1% 10.7% 22.6% 16.5% 8.7% 19.5% 22.1%
El Cerrito 3,746 16.9% 12.3% 25.0% 14.7% 9.8% 21.7% 16.4%
Hercules 2,595 14.3% 9.0% 20.5% 11.9% 6.7% 20.4% 31.5%
Lafayette 2,167 9.8% 15.0% 25.2% 16.0% 6.3% 15.8% 21.7%
Martinez 5,322 16.2% 10.1% 28.1% 15.8% 6.6% 16.1% 23.2%
Moraga 1,540 9.7% 12.3% 26.9% 14.5% 7.7% 21.1% 17.5%
Oakley 3,604 15.4% 8.5% 25.7% 16.2% 7.8% 18.4% 23.4%
Orinda 1,881 11.4% 11.9% 23.4% 15.1% 7.3% 21.1% 21.2%
Pinole 3,255 17.7% 11.7% 26.6% 14.7% 8.1% 21.5% 17.4%
Pleasant Hill 4,486 14.7% 11.5% 25.2% 13.7% 7.5% 20.0% 22.1%
San Pablo 6,915 25.5% 8.5% 17.6% 12.3% 7.0% 26.2% 28.4%
San Ramon 4,135 10.0% 9.9% 23.0% 13.0% 7.2% 20.3% 26.6%
Unincorporated County 23,268 16.6% 10.2% 23.1% 14.2% 7.4% 21.0% 24.1%
Urban County Total 71,604 15.0% 10.4% 23.5% 14.3% 7.4% 20.8% 23.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 13,488 16.3% 9.2% 24.6% 15.7% 6.8% 18.7% 25.0%
Concord 21,184 18.9% 9.6% 23.2% 13.1% 7.2% 20.5% 26.4%
Pittsburg 10,981 21.1% 7.5% 21.3% 12.5% 8.1% 22.6% 28.0%
Richmond 19,666 21.6% 8.8% 22.0% 14.0% 7.9% 21.9% 25.4%
Walnut Creek 10,649 17.4% 14.6% 27.3% 15.2% 8.5% 19.9% 14.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 147,572 16.8% 10.0% 23.5% 14.1% 7.5% 20.8% 24.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P41 and P42
*People may have reported more than one disability, resulting in numbers over 100 percent in this column.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-25
Large Households
Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons who are rela ted.
Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is a limited supply
of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs.
Table 17 provides data for large households for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The
jurisdictions with the greatest share of large households (households with five or more persons)
were San Pablo (24.7 percent), Pittsburg (19.9 percent), and Oakley (19.2 percent). Walnut Creek
had the smallest share of large households (4.4 percent). As shown in Table 17, of all the
housing units countywide with three or more bedrooms, 77.3 percent were owner-occupied
housing units and 24.4 percent were renter-occupied housing units.
The supply of housing units with three or more bedrooms available for ownership and rental is
in excess of the number of large owner and rental households (please see table below). This
suggests that there is not a numerical shortage of available housing units to meet the needs of
large households. However, lower-income large households may be priced out of the larger
housing units.
Some service providers noted that there has been growth in large households as households
have been adversely financially impacted by job loss and reduction in work hours. Increasingly,
multigenerational family members are living together as large households to reduce housing
costs.9
Large households are also among several groups impacted by the increase in evictions during
2008 and 2009 that resulted from property owners being foreclosed upon. There is little legal
recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of foreclosure. Large households find it more
difficult to find housing that can accommodate their household size and are more likely to fall
into a low-income category, making it more difficult to find new housing that meets their needs
and that they can afford.10
9 SHELTER, Inc., September 17, 2009.
10 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-26
TABLE 17
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Large
Households
% Large
Households
% of Total
Owner-
Occupied
Households
%of Total
Renter-
Occupied
Households
% of Total
Owner
Housing Units
w/3+
Bedrooms
% of Total
Renter
Housing Units
w/3+
Bedrooms
Urban County
Brentwood 1,368 17.1% 13.4% 3.7% 72.6% 34.0%
Clayton 403 9.7% 9.3% 0.4% 90.2% 72.4%
Danville 1,567 10.3% 9.3% 1.0% 91.1% 48.4%
El Cerrito 553 5.5% 4.2% 1.3% 69.1% 16.4%
Hercules 1,117 16.9% 14.0% 2.8% 70.5% 44.0%
Lafayette 729 7.9% 7.3% 0.6% 91.4% 22.4%
Martinez 1,123 7.1% 5.6% 1.5% 81.1% 21.6%
Moraga 465 8.5% 7.7% 0.8% 85.3% 33.5%
Oakley 1,552 19.2% 15.6% 3.6% 87.0% 51.5%
Orinda 522 8.4% 7.4% 1.0% 91.0% 43.0%
Pinole 868 12.2% 8.9% 3.3% 85.7% 28.2%
Pleasant Hill 851 6.3% 4.9% 1.4% 82.5% 21.3%
San Pablo 2,259 24.7% 12.4% 12.3% 42.4% 13.6%
San Ramon 1,480 8.6% 7.0% 1.7% 87.6% 22.8%
Unincorporated
County 6,725 12.3% 8.7% 3.5% 75.4% 26.7%
Urban County Total 43,359 11.3% 8.5% 2.8% 80.3% 25.5%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 5,173 17.6% 13.0% 4.6% 88.0% 30.8%
Concord 5,580 12.7% 6.8% 5.9% 78.0% 26.4%
Pittsburg 3,533 19.9% 12.5% 7.4% 79.7% 27.7%
Richmond 5,488 15.8% 7.8% 8.0% 60.9% 19.8%
Walnut Creek 1,330 4.4% 3.3% 1.1% 58.3% 15.5%
Contra Costa
County
(countywide) Total
42,355 12.3% 8.4% 3.9% 77.3% 24.4%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H16 and H42
* Numbers in this table do not include persons in group quarters.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-27
Single-Parent Households
Nearly three-quarters of single-parent households in the state are headed by a female. As
shown in Table 18, the share of female-headed households is much larger than the share of
male-headed single-parent households for all jurisdictions in the County.
The share of female-headed households at or below the poverty level is also much greater than
male-headed households at or below the poverty level.11 The share of single-parent households
at or below the poverty level in the state (29.0 percent) is much higher than in the jurisdictions
in the Urban County and the entitlement jurisdictions.
TABLE 18
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
Jurisdiction Total Percentage
in Poverty
Female-
headed
% Female-
headed in
Poverty
Male-
headed
% Male-
headed in
Poverty
Antioch 5,250 17.7% 3,712 20.9% 1,538 9.9%
Concord 7,476 11.4% 5,305 13.9% 2,171 5.3%
Pittsburg 3,656 18.6% 2,626 21.3% 1,030 11.7%
Richmond 8,575 23.0% 6,674 24.8% 1,901 16.6%
Walnut Creek 2,508 6.8% 1,942 7.7% 566 2.9%
Urban County 51,891 14.8% 37,740 16.8% 14,151 9.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 43,682 14.5% 32,054 16.6% 11,628 8.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table P12, P89
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Like most other jurisdictions throughout the state, the most significant trend in the Contra
Costa County housing market has been the decrease in single -family home sales prices and the
corresponding decrease in the value of single-family housing. Combined with an environment
of historically low interest rates, this has reduced the gap between the cost to buy a home and
the price which households at the lower end of the range of incomes can afford. Although this
“affordability gap” has been reduced when it comes to home purchase, the combination of
instability in the job market, stagnating real wages, and the general tightening of credit has not
necessarily made home purchase easier for lower income households.
The rental market has seen continued low vacancy rates and rents have been stable and
trending upward.
11 The “poverty level” is a measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau based on a set of money income
thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If the tota l income for a family or unrelated individual falls
below the applicable poverty threshold, that family or person is classified as being below the “poverty level.”
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-28
The following discussion identifies housing characteristics, trends, and needs for County
jurisdictions.
Housing Growth
Between 2000 and 2009 the number of housing units in the state increased 10.78 percent.
Table 19 displays housing growth in all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. Of all the
jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, Brentwood had the largest increase in housing units
(126.9 percent). Second to that was San Ramon with an increase of 43.1 percent. Of the
entitlement cities, Pittsburg had the largest increase with 13.9 percent.
Tenure
Housing tenure refers to whether a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied. Table 20
provides a summary of housing tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. As shown,
Clayton had the greatest share of owner-occupied households and San Pablo had the greatest
share of renter-occupied housing units. It is important to note that the level of single -family
foreclosures may have significantly shifted the owner/renter distribution.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-29
TABLE 19
HOUSING UNITS, 2000–2009
Jurisdiction 2000 Housing Units 2009 Housing Units Percentage Change
2000–2009
Urban County
Brentwood 7,788 17,671 126.9%
Clayton 3,924 4,006 2.1%
Danville 15,130 15,795 4.4%
El Cerrito 10,462 10,705 2.3%
Hercules 6,546 8,319 27.1%
Lafayette 9,334 9,511 1.9%
Martinez 14,597 14,972 2.6%
Moraga 5,760 5,791 0.5%
Oakley 7,946 10,987 38.3%
Orinda 6,744 6,849 1.6%
Pinole 6,828 7,032 3.0%
Pleasant Hill 14,034 14,505 3.4%
San Pablo 9,354 9,953 6.4%
San Ramon 17,552 25,113 43.1%
Unincorporated County 57,609 65,604 13.9%
Urban County Total 193,608 226,813 17.2%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 30,116 33,982 12.8%
Concord 45,084 46,638 3.4%
Pittsburg 18,300 20,848 13.9%
Richmond 36,044 38,433 6.6%
Walnut Creek 31,425 32,473 3.3%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 354,577 399,187 12.6%
Source: Department of Finance, 2000 and 2009 E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-30
TABLE 20
HOUSING TENURE
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Urban County
Brentwood 80.7% 19.3%
Clayton 94.1% 5.9%
Danville 89.4% 10.6%
El Cerrito 60.9% 39.1%
Hercules 84.2% 15.8%
Lafayette 75.8% 24.2%
Martinez 69.0% 31.0%
Moraga 84.5% 15.5%
Oakley 85.0% 15.0%
Orinda 91.6% 8.4%
Pinole 74.5% 25.5%
Pleasant Hill 63.7% 36.3%
San Pablo 49.8% 50.2%
San Ramon 71.1% 28.9%
Unincorporated County 73.5% 26.5%
Urban County Total 70.4% 29.6%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 70.9% 29.1%
Concord 62.6% 37.4%
Pittsburg 62.8% 37.2%
Richmond 53.4% 46.6%
Walnut Creek 68.1% 31.9%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 69.3% 30.7%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H7
Housing Type
Table 21 exhibits the percentage of housing units as a share of total housing units by the
number of units in the structure and tenure for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County,
separating out the Urban County jurisdictions and entitlement jurisdictions. Demand for
owner-occupied housing is primarily met through the supply of single-family housing, while
renter-occupied housing demand is primarily met through a combination of single-family
housing and multi-family units.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-31
TABLE 21
TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Single-
family
Units
Multi-
family (2–
4 units)
Multi-
family (>5
units)
Mobile
Homes
Boat,
RV, Van,
etc.
Single-
family
Units
Multi-
family (2–
4 units)
Multi-
family (>5
units)
Mobile
Homes
Boat,
RV, Van,
etc.
Urban County
Brentwood 96.8% 0.4% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0% 52.4% 14.7% 29.6% 3.0% 0.4%
Clayton 99.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 91.5% 2.7% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Danville 98.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.8% 6.5% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0%
El Cerrito 97.7% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 38.7% 29.4% 31.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Hercules 94.2% 1.9% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 71.1% 13.5% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Lafayette 99.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.5% 12.8% 44.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Martinez 97.8% 1.0% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 47.6% 17.0% 35.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Moraga 97.2% 1.2% 1.5% 0.2% 0.0% 40.3% 15.6% 44.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Oakley 98.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 84.4% 6.7% 2.7% 5.9% 0.2%
Orinda 99.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 68.3% 9.0% 21.3% 1.5% 0.0%
Pinole 98.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 43.6% 18.5% 37.7% 0.0% 0.2%
Pleasant Hill 97.3% 0.4% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 34.6% 12.6% 52.5% 0.2% 0.0%
San Pablo 83.6% 5.4% 4.7% 6.0% 0.2% 41.6% 22.3% 33.9% 2.1% 0.1%
San Ramon 96.6% 0.9% 2.3% 0.2% 0.0% 36.6% 13.1% 50.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Unincorporated County 93.7% 0.8% 0.9% 4.5% 0.2% 56.5% 11.3% 28.6% 3.4% 0.2%
Urban County Total 96.1% 0.9% 1.2% 1.8% 0.1% 49.7% 14.9% 33.6% 1.7% 0.1%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 98.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 50.0% 17.0% 32.8% 0.1% 0.0%
Concord 91.0% 2.3% 3.8% 2.9% 0.1% 35.5% 12.8% 51.0% 0.7% 0.1%
Pittsburg 96.1% 0.6% 0.3% 3.0% 0.0% 48.8% 17.8% 32.6% 0.8% 0.0%
Richmond 95.2% 3.0% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% 40.5% 27.6% 31.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Walnut Creek 79.9% 7.0% 12.9% 0.1% 0.0% 29.6% 16.2% 54.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 94.5% 1.6% 2.2% 1.6% 0.1% 44.3% 17.2% 37.5% 0.9% 0.1%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H33
Due to rounding, total percentages of renter and owner housing types for each jurisdiction may not total 100.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-32
Vacancy Rate
Vacancy trends in housing are analyzed using a “vacancy rate” which establishes the
relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is
greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate is low and the price of h ousing will
most likely increase. Additionally, the vacancy rate indicates whether or not the community has
an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility. HUD standards indicate that a
vacancy rate of 5 percent is sufficient to provide choice and mobility.
Table 22 provides the total number of vacant housing units as well as the percentage of vacant
housing units in 2009 for all of the jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, separating out the
Urban County jurisdictions and the entitlement jurisdictions. Please note the state Department
of Finance (DOF) estimate is for all housing unit types and does not exclude seasonal,
recreational, or occasional use and all other vacant units. The DOF also does not provide
vacancy by tenure. To provide vacancy by reason for vacancy, 2000 Census data was used (see
Table 23).
Overall, the 2009 data (Table 22) indicate that the County has a very low vacancy rate. Several
communities in the Urban County have vacancy rates below 5 percent, which is extremely low.
Historical data from the 2000 Census (Table 26) indicate that in several communities
(Brentwood, Clayton, and Moraga) the share of vacant units that are for rent is well below the
overall County share (30.5%). These communities also have a very low share of renter-occupied
units. The data suggest that renters might be challenged to find affordable housing in these
communities.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-33
TABLE 22
VACANCY STATUS, 2009
Jurisdiction Total Vacant Housing Units % of Total Housing Units Vacant
Urban County
Brentwood 649 3.67%
Clayton 41 1.02%
Danville 328 2.08%
El Cerrito 259 2.42%
Hercules 156 1.88%
Lafayette 185 1.95%
Martinez 304 2.03%
Moraga 98 1.69%
Oakley 322 2.93%
Orinda 149 2.18%
Pinole 86 1.22%
Pleasant Hill 291 2.01%
San Pablo 308 3.09%
San Ramon 868 3.46%
Unincorporated County 2,711 4.13%
Urban County Total 6,755 2.98%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 878 2.58%
Concord 1,098 2.35%
Pittsburg 634 3.04%
Richmond 1,514 3.94%
Walnut Creek 1,161 3.58%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 12,040 3.02%
Source: Department of Finance, 2009 E-5 Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-34
TABLE 23
VACANCY STATUS, 2000
Jurisdiction
Total
Vacant
Housing
Units
% of Total
Housing
Units
Vacant
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for Rent
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are for Sale
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are
Rented/
Sold, Not
Occupied
% of Total
Vacant
Units that
Are Vacant
for Other
Reasons
Urban County
Brentwood 239 3.2% 4.2% 30.5% 31.8% 33.5%
Clayton 46 1.2% 2.3% 26.1% 56.5% 13.0%
Danville 309 2.1% 15.9% 29.4% 23.6% 31.1%
El Cerrito 260 2.5% 23.1% 35.8% 28.8% 12.3%
Hercules 124 1.9% 14.5% 77.4% 0.8% 7.3%
Lafayette 183 2.0% 29.5% 35.0% 12.0% 23.5%
Martinez 278 1.9% 34.5% 30.2% 8.3% 27.0%
Moraga 105 1.8% 4.8% 21.0% 31.4% 42.9%
Oakley 128 1.6% 15.6% 62.5% 0.0% 21.9%
Orinda 155 2.3% 11.0% 20.6% 18.7% 49.7%
Pinole 78 1.1% 38.5% 48.7% 3.8% 9.0%
Pleasant Hill 274 2.0% 29.9% 17.2% 13.1% 39.8%
San Pablo 282 3.1% 29.4% 20.6% 14.2% 35.8%
San Ramon 620 3.7% 38.2% 9.5% 20.8% 31.5%
Unincorporated County 2,376 4.3% 17.5% 18.0% 15.7% 48.8%
Urban County Total 5,457 1.3% 21.6% 23.4% 17.2% 37.8%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 800 2.7% 41.6% 38.8% 3.5% 16.1%
Concord 1,018 2.3% 44.2% 21.7% 8.2% 25.9%
Pittsburg 587 3.2% 46.5% 21.0% 17.4% 15.2%
Richmond 1,446 4.0% 43.8% 23.8% 11.6% 20.8%
Walnut Creek 1,140 3.6% 27.5% 23.3% 15.7% 33.5%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) Total 10,448 3.0% 30.5% 24.3% 14.4% 30.9%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H8
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-35
Age of Housing Stock
Table 24 displays the share of housing units constructed by age and tenure for the state and for
all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. With the exception of El Cerrito, Lafayette and Orinda
most housing in each jurisdiction was built after 1960.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-36
TABLE 24
AGE OF HOUSING BY TENURE
Jurisdiction
1939 or earlier 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1994 1995 to March 2000
Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total Renter Owner
State of California 9.5% 4.6% 4.9% 23.5% 9.6% 13.9% 37.2% 17.5% 19.7% 24.1% 9.7% 14.4% 5.7% 1.6% 4.1%
Urban County
Brentwood 1.8% 1.0% 0.8% 6.9% 2.9% 4.0% 15.2% 4.7% 10.4% 29.2% 4.7% 24.5% 47.0% 6.0% 41.0%
Clayton 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% 3.2% 42.7% 2.0% 40.7% 29.7% 2.4% 27.3% 22.8% 0.7% 22.1%
Danville 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 10.0% 0.9% 9.1% 44.4% 4.5% 39.9% 32.3% 4.0% 28.3% 12.9% 1.1% 11.8%
El Cerrito 12.9% 3.4% 9.5% 52.6% 15.3% 37.3% 25.4% 15.2% 10.3% 7.9% 4.7% 3.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.6%
Hercules 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.5% 24.6% 4.1% 20.6% 70.2% 9.6% 60.6% 3.8% 1.6% 2.2%
Lafayette 4.7% 1.2% 3.5% 47.6% 8.7% 38.8% 37.6% 11.9% 25.7% 8.4% 1.9% 6.5% 1.7% 0.5% 1.2%
Martinez 10.5% 5.3% 5.2% 16.7% 6.0% 10.7% 38.1% 10.4% 27.6% 31.5% 9.0% 22.5% 3.3% 0.3% 3.0%
Moraga 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 8.0% 1.7% 6.3% 74.7% 12.1% 62.6% 16.3% 1.5% 14.9% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%
Oakley 2.6% 0.8% 1.7% 6.1% 1.9% 4.3% 15.7% 4.2% 11.4% 60.6% 5.8% 54.8% 15.0% 2.2% 12.8%
Orinda 7.9% 0.6% 7.3% 48.0% 2.3% 45.7% 31.5% 2.4% 29.1% 10.0% 2.1% 7.9% 2.5% 0.9% 1.6%
Pinole 3.8% 1.4% 2.4% 18.8% 3.5% 15.3% 48.9% 12.6% 36.3% 27.0% 7.9% 19.1% 1.6% 0.1% 1.4%
Pleasant Hill 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% 32.8% 5.3% 27.5% 34.6% 17.4% 17.2% 28.1% 11.3% 16.8% 3.1% 1.4% 1.7%
San Pablo 4.8% 1.8% 2.9% 33.5% 14.3% 19.2% 36.3% 23.3% 13.0% 22.2% 8.6% 13.6% 3.3% 2.2% 1.1%
San Ramon 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 37.0% 6.2% 30.8% 47.2% 18.6% 28.6% 14.8% 3.7% 11.1%
Unincorporated County 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 27.5% 6.5% 21.0% 29.8% 8.3% 21.5% 29.1% 7.8% 21.3% 5.8% 1.3% 4.5%
Urban County 3.9% 1.4% 2.5% 20.6% 4.7% 15.8% 35.8% 9.8% 26.0% 30.6% 7.7% 22.9% 9.1% 1.6% 7.4%
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 2.9% 1.4% 1.5% 14.3% 5.6% 8.7% 30.9% 11.1% 19.8% 38.0% 9.8% 28.2% 13.9% 1.3% 12.6%
Concord 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 25.7% 7.3% 18.3% 54.9% 21.1% 33.8% 16.3% 7.9% 8.5% 1.6% 0.4% 1.2%
Pittsburg 3.6% 1.6% 2.0% 17.7% 7.2% 10.4% 37.6% 11.2% 26.3% 34.0% 14.3% 19.6% 7.2% 2.8% 4.5%
Richmond 10.7% 3.8% 7.0% 37.8% 14.7% 23.1% 28.6% 16.3% 12.3% 20.0% 10.7% 9.3% 2.9% 1.2% 1.7%
Walnut Creek 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 15.0% 4.9% 10.1% 62.1% 18.9% 43.2% 19.1% 6.9% 12.2% 2.1% 0.5% 1.6%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) 4.6% 1.7% 2.9% 22.9% 6.6% 16.3% 38.6% 12.7% 25.9% 27.3% 8.5% 18.8% 6.7% 1.3% 5.4%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H36
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-37
Housing Cost
Table 25 provides a summary of home sales prices for all jurisdictions. The County has
experienced a sharp decrease in the median sales price for homes with the exception of
Hercules, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill, which have all seen a year-to-year increase in median
sales price. It is important to note that as a measure of central tendency median sales price is
sensitive to sales volume in market sub-sectors as much as it is to overall price trends. An
increase in the volume of sales of higher priced homes relative to overall sales volume can lead
to an increase in median sales price even though overall prices remain low.
As shown, as of February 2010, San Pablo had the lowest median sales price ($152,344) and
Orinda the highest ($829,500). San Ramon, San Pablo, and Brentwood experienced the sharpest
declines in the median sales price of homes from November 2008 to November 2009.
In December 2009, a survey of local Contra Costa newspapers and online rental listings was
conducted for both single-family homes and multi-family units for all jurisdictions in the
County. The results are presented in Table 26. According to the results of the survey, average
rental rates in San Ramon are the most expensive at $1,662, followed by Lafayette at $1,533 and
Walnut Creek at $1,518. These cities are the most expensive for all unit sizes and housing types.
The most expensive rents occur in the central portion of Contra Costa County, with the least
expensive in the east. The west has considerably lower rents than the central part of the County.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development publishes annual Fair Market Rents
(FMR), which include an estimated utility cost, and the annual income required to afford them.
Table 27 shows the Fair Market Rents for 2009 for Contra Costa County.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-38
TABLE 25
MEDIAN HOME SALE LISTINGS
Jurisdiction Three Month Median Sales Price
(Sep – Nov 2009)
Year-to-Year Change
(Nov 2008 – Nov 2009) Number of Homes
for Sale (Jan 2010) Dollars Percentage
Urban County
Brentwood $290,000 $-50,000 -14.7% 189
Clayton 525,000 -72,500 -12.1% 26
Danville 807,500 -30,000 -3.6% 195
El Cerrito 539,500 -28,500 -5.0% 21
Hercules 325,000 -25,000 8.3% 54
Lafayette 805,000 -55,000 -6.4% 76
Martinez 333,000 5,750 1.8% 90
Moraga 810,000 -40,000 -4.7% 34
Oakley 232,850 -17,100 -6.8% 119
Orinda 829,500 -109,500 -11.7% 49
Pinole 267,354 -27,646 -9.4% 32
Pleasant Hill 439,500 -30,500 7.5% 54
San Pablo 152,344 -27,360 -15.2% 45
San Ramon 559,500 -155,500 -21.7% 169
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch 199,000 -18,150 -8.4% 208
Concord 246,000 -9,000 -3.5% 173
Pittsburg 180,000 -15,000 -7.7% 112
Richmond 157,000 -17,500 -10.0% 177
Walnut Creek 447,500 -64,500 -12.6% 202
Source: Trulia.com, February 2010
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-39
TABLE 26
MEDIAN RENTAL LISTINGS
Place/Community Type: Bedroom (BR)/Bath (BA) Overall
Average Rent Studio 1BR/1 BA 2 BR/1 BA 2 BR/1+ BA 3 BR/1+ BA
East
Antioch $762 $750 $1,178 $1,167 $1,512 $1,074
Bay Point $595 $650 $1,183 $1,391 $1,400 $1,045
Pittsburg $762 $750 $941 $1,039 $1,512 $1,001
Central
Concord none $875 $1,073 $1,369 $1,725 $1,261
Lafayette $950 $1,359 $1,303 $2,034 $2,020 $1,533
Martinez $723 $1,137 $1,204 $1,512 $1,860 $1,287
Pleasant Hill $989 $1,202 $1,236 $1,478 $2,004 $1,382
San Ramon $1,448 $1,908 $1,307 $1,728 $1,921 $1,662
Walnut Creek $1,122 $1,075 $1090 $1,578 $2,725 $1,518
West
El Cerrito $756 $1,217 $1,260 $1,515 $1,387 $1,227
El Sobrante $1,256 $1,247 $1,264 $1,639 $1,406 $1,362
Pinole $800 $944 $1,082 $1,793 $1,610 $1,246
Richmond $985 $888 $1,026 $1,510 $2,450 $1,372
San Pablo $870 $899 $1,247 $1,908 $1,751 $1,335
Countywide
Average $952 $1,096 $1,170 $1,559 $1,837 $1,323
Source: PMC Rental Survey, December 2009
TABLE 27
FAIR MARKET RENTS, 2009
Unit Size FMR Annual Income to Afford
Studio $905 $36,200
1-bedroom $1,093 $43,720
2-bedroom $1,295 $51,800
3-bedroom $1,756 $70,240
4-bedroom $2,174 $86,960
Source: U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, 2009 FMR; 2009 “Out of Reach” Report
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-40
Housing Affordability by Tenure and Household Type
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of U.S.
Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the “CHAS”
tables obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System” (SOCDS). These data are
presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing problems” by households and the other
presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing units. Tables 28 and 29 provide a summary,
and the full tables can be found in Appendix 4. The needs of renter and owner households are
examined separately.12
The CHAS housing problems table presents the number of households paying more than 30
percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type, and income
category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to as the housing “cost
burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost burden over 30 percent has
a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over 50 percent have a “severe” cost
burden.
Overpayment is a concern for low-income households since they may be forced to live in
overcrowded situations or cut other necessary expenditures, such as health care, in order to
afford housing. The HUD definition of housing cost includes not only monthly rent and
mortgage payments but an estimate of utilities.
Renter Households
Household Type
Overall, approximately 40 percent of renter households in the County have a high cost burden.
Less than 18 percent have a severe cost burden. This is roughly consistent in all jurisdictions
with the exception of Walnut Creek which has 34 percent of renter households with high cost
burdens.
Elderly one- and two-person renter households tend to experience a higher degree of high cost
burden (58 percent) and severe cost burden (32 percent) countywide. Antioch is alone with a
significantly higher number experiencing severe cost burden (41 percent). Both Pittsburg and
Richmond have a lower number experiencing severe cost burden (21 percent and 24 percent,
respectively).
Large renter households (five or more persons) experience cost burdens at roughly the same
rate as all renter households as do small related (two to four persons) and the balance of renter
households.
12 Data tables are provided in Appendix 4 for the State of California, Contra Costa County, the Urban County area,
and the five entitlement communities. Because of the nature of the Consortium, data tables were acquired according
to the CDBG geography. Although this best approximates the jurisdictional boundaries within the Consortium, it
does introduce a significant level of rounding in the data. Please see
http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-41
Income Groups
Low-income renter households (>50 to ≤80 percent area median income *AMI]) experience a
high cost burden at close to the same rate (44 percent) as do all renter households countywide.
The severe cost burden is significantly lower (6 percent). Very low -income (>30 percent to ≤50
percent AMI) and extremely low-income renter households (≤30 percent AMI) experience cost
burdens much higher than all renters (71 percent and 76 percent, respectively). The rate of
severe cost burden for the very low-income population (25 percent) is slightly higher than all
renters. The extremely low-income population has a rate of severe cost burden (58 percent)
more than three times that of all renters. The rate of high cost burden for renter households with
incomes above low income (>80 percent AMI) is 9 percent.
The Urban County and Concord have cost burden rates among the income groups very similar
to the County as a whole. Notable exceptions are a higher rate of severe cost burden for low -
income households in the Urban County (9 percent); a lower rate of severe cost burden for low -
income households in Concord (3 percent); and a higher rate of high cost burden for very low-
income households in Concord (78 percent).
Antioch is similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high cost
burden for low-income (32 percent) and lower rates of severe cost burden for very low-income
households (17 percent). Antioch also has a generally lower cost burden for households with
incomes above low income (4.6 percent).
Much like its neighbor Antioch, Pittsburg is more affordable for lower-income households than
the County as a whole, with 2.8 percent of low-income households experiencing a severe cost
burden (43 percent high cost burden) and virtually no above low-income renter households
experiencing a significant cost burden.
Richmond has much lower rates of cost burden for lower-income renter households across all
income categories: 54 percent high and 13 percent severe for very low-income; 33 percent high
and 2 percent severe for low-income. Cost burden rates for the extremely low-income are
comparable to the County as a whole.
Although the cost burden for extremely low-income households is consistently high across the
County as a whole, Walnut Creek stands out with a rate of 68 percent. It is similarly higher for
cost burden rates of very low-income (85 percent high, 53 percent severe), low-income (60
percent and 10 percent), and above low-income (12 percent high) households.
Owner Households
Household Type
Approximately one-third (29 percent) of owner households in the County have a high cost
burden. Approximately 10 percent have a severe cost burden. This is consistent across all
jurisdictions.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-42
Elderly one- and two-person owner households tend to experience a slightly higher degree of
severe cost burden (12 percent) countywide, although this rate is the same as the rate of all
households. The rate of high cost burden is 26 percent.
Large owner households (five or more persons) experience a cost burden at roughly the same
rate as all owner households as do small related (two to four persons). Antioch, and Walnut
Creek have lower rates of severe cost burden for large owner households (5.5 and 3.5 percent,
respectively) than other jurisdictions. Pittsburg is notable for its higher rate of severe cost
burden for owner households (12.9 percent).
Income Groups
Low-income owner households (>50 to ≤80 percent AMI) experience a high cost burden at a
higher rate (52 percent) than do all households countywide (29 percent). The severe cost burden
is nearly twice as high for low-income owners (19 percent) as for all owners (10 percent). Very
low-income owners (>30 percent to ≤50 percent AMI) experience high and severe cost burdens
much higher than the general population (59 percent and 36 percent). Extremely low-income
households (≤30 percent AMI) are even more cost burdened (72 percent high, 56 percent
severe). The rate of cost burden for owner households with incomes above low income (>80
percent AMI) is lower than the overall population (20 percent high, 3 percent severe).
The Urban County area has cost burden rates by income roughly the same as the County as a
whole.
Antioch has among the highest overall cost burden rates for lower-income owner households,
with 58 percent of low-income homeowners experiencing a high cost burden and 14 percent
severe. Very low-income homeowners in Antioch have a 66 percent high cost burden rate and a
43 percent severe rate. Extremely low-income owner households in Antioch have rates similar
to the County as a whole.
Concord has a pattern similar to the County as a whole with the exception of low-income
households having a lower rate of severe cost burden (15 percent).
Pittsburg has a pattern similar to Concord. It also has a lower rate of cost burden for above low -
income households (16 percent high, 1 percent severe).
Richmond has a generally lower rate of cost burden for low-income owner households (46
percent high, 12 percent severe). It is otherwise similar to the County as a whole.
Walnut Creek is also similar to the County as a whole with the exception of a lower rate of high
cost burden for low-income owners (39 percent).
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-43
TABLE 28
COST BURDEN SUMMARY, RENTERS
Jurisdiction All Renters Elderly Large Above low-
income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-
income
High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe
Antioch 43.8% 20.4% 58.6% 40.6% 41.9% 19.0% 4.6% 0.4% 31.5% 5.5% 72.8% 17.0% 77.4% 58.0%
Concord 39.8% 16.4% 61.2% 30.8% 33.4% 14.7% 5.6% 0.1% 43.6% 3.0% 78.2% 22.2% 78.0% 62.4%
Pittsburg 41.5% 18.5% 53.2% 21.4% 32.2% 15.3% 3.2% 0.0% 42.8% 2.8% 73.4% 22.2% 72.3% 54.6%
Richmond 40.6% 19.3% 52.3% 24.2% 40.3% 18.0% 6.2% 0.2% 33.2% 1.9% 53.8% 13.0% 77.4% 55.2%
Walnut Creek 33.8% 16.4% 56.2% 35.3% 34.5% 12.0% 11.8% 2.2% 59.8% 10.1% 85.2% 53.3% 76.9% 67.7%
Urban County 36.0% 16.3% 58.5% 32.9% 32.9% 13.0% 10.7% 1.4% 46.6% 9.4% 72.7% 29.0% 74.1% 56.7%
Countywide 38.4% 17.4% 57.5% 32.1% 35.6% 15.3% 9.1% 1.0% 43.5% 6.4% 70.9% 24.48% 75.7% 57.6%
Source: 2000 CHAS data
TABLE 29
COST BURDEN SUMMARY, OWNERS
Jurisdiction All Owners Elderly Large Above low-
income Low-income Very low-income Extremely low-
income
High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe High Severe
Antioch 29.3% 8.0% 28.3% 14.4% 28.5% 5.5% 19.7% 1.5% 57.8% 13.9% 65.6% 42.8% 67.3% 54.5%
Concord 27.9% 8.8% 28.6% 13.9% 26.9% 6.1% 17.9% 1.6% 50.4% 15.2% 56.9% 35.0% 76.6% 57.4%
Pittsburg 29.4% 11.0% 28.6% 12.6% 32.7% 12.9% 15.7% 1.0% 51.2% 14.7% 60.9% 36.8% 70.7% 60.9%
Richmond 30.7% 11.3% 25.1% 13.6% 28.5% 7.0% 17.2% 2.2% 45.7% 11.2% 56.3% 27.9% 67.6% 51.4%
Walnut Creek 26.2% 9.8% 26.5% 11.2% 26.6% 3.5% 17.0% 3.4% 38.7% 18.6% 63.9% 32.2% 76.3% 60.9%
Urban County 28.1% 9.4% 23.9% 11.0% 30.0% 8.5% 21.0% 3.4% 54.7% 23.7% 57.1% 37.9% 71.7% 55.9%
Countywide 28.6% 9.7% 25.9% 12.0% 29.7% 8.2% 19.8% 2.8% 51.9% 19.3% 58.8% 35.7% 71.7% 56.0%
Source: 2000 CHAS data
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-44
Overcrowding
Table 30 illustrates the share of households by person per room for owners and renters
in the state and entitlement cities. Households with more than 1 per son per room are
considered overcrowded. Households with more than 1.5 persons per room are
considered severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 30, renter-occupied households
have a higher incidence of overcrowding than owner-occupied households. In both
categories (owner and renter), Walnut Creek has the smallest share of overcrowded
households.
TABLE 30
PERSONS PER ROOM
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
<1.0 persons 1.01 to 1.5
persons >1.5 persons <1.0 persons 1.01 to 1.5
persons >1.5 persons
State of California 91.4% 4.3% 4.3% 76.1% 8.5% 15.4%
Contra Costa County
(countywide) 95.8% 2.5% 1.7% 85.3% 6.7% 8.0%
Antioch 96.1% 2.2% 1.8% 85.0% 9.3% 5.7%
Concord 96.0% 2.3% 1.7% 81.9% 7.6% 10.8%
Pittsburg 89.9% 6.2% 3.9% 77.3% 9.8% 12.9%
Richmond 90.0% 5.6% 4.4% 78.7% 9.1% 12.1%
Walnut Creek 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 92.5% 3.7% 3.8%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 3, Table H20
Note: Due to rounding errors, the total percentage for owner or renter occupied may not total 100.
Foreclosures
A foreclosure is a term used to describe the procedure followed in enforcing a creditor’s
rights when a debt secured by any lien on property is in default. According to
DataQuick, in Contra Costa County (countywide) there were 5,017 households with a
notice of default (first stage in the foreclosure process) in the second quarter of 2009, a
decrease of 0.6 percent over the same quarter in 2008. In the second quarter of 2009 there
were 2,048 homes lost to foreclosure, representing a decrease of 30.9 percent from the
same quarter in 2008.
The Contra Costa County Recorder keeps an inventory of notices of defaults, notices of
trustee sales, and trustee’s deed upon sale (see definitions of each below). Table 31
provides the number of homes with each status for the entire year. Please note that one
housing unit may be counted more than once per year.
Notice of Default: A written document that gives constructive notice of a
trustor’s failure to perform his/her obligation under a deed of trust. This
document must be recorded.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
2-45
Notice of Trustee’s Sale: A written document that sets forth the day, date, and
time of the trustee’s sale and describes the property to be sold. This document is
prepared by the trustee and must be recorded with the county recorder in the
county in which the property is located at least 14 days prior to the scheduled
sale date.
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale: A written document which is prepared and signed by
the trustee when the secured property is sold at a trustee’s sale. This document
transfers ownership to the successful bidder at the sale and must be recorded
with the county recorder in the county in which the property is located.
TABLE 31
FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY
Year Total Notices
of Defaults
Total Notices
of Trustee Sales
Total Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale
2009 18,323 14,623 8,360
2008 17,714 14,932 11,679
2007 11,837 6,666 4,189
2006 4,380 1,479 502
2005 2,519 777 131
2004 2,413 864 163
2003 2,713 1,020 205
2002 2,815 1,076 190
2001 2,351 881 209
2000 2,207 1,034 398
Source: Contra Costa County Recorder, 2009
One of the most significant increases in demand for a range of services has come as a
result of low-income tenants being evicted from their homes because the property owner
has been foreclosed upon. Most often the tenants are unaware that the foreclosure is
under way and find themselves without housing. Due to the costs of moving, security
deposit requirements, and the rent qualification process, they find it difficult or
impossible to find new housing, particularly if they have experienced a job loss and
have little or no income to qualify for a new rental and little in the way of savings.
Seniors, disabled persons, and large families are especially adversely impacted when
evicted. There is little legal recourse for tenants who are evicted as a result of
foreclosures.13
13 Bay Area Legal Aid, Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009; Contra Costa Senior Legal Services,
September 17 and 18, 2009; Loaves and Fishes of Contra Costa County, September 17 and 18, 2009.
Contra Costa Consortium February 2010
3-1
MORTGAGE LENDING (HM DA DATA)
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), enacted by Congress in 1975 and
implemented by the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation C, requires lending institutions
to report public loan data. Analyzing these data can reveal patterns of lending by race
and location that may indicate discriminatory practices in mortgage lending.
To prepare this analysis, 20,875 records of lender actions were pulled from all the lender
actions reported in the 2008 HMDA data set for Contra Costa County. These represent
actions taken by lenders in response to a request from a consumer for a new home loan
to purchase a primary residence.
Lender actions related to home improvement loans, re-financing, and to purchase
properties that will not be owner-occupied were excluded. Lender actions that did not
show a loan type were also excluded as were records of loan transactions between banks
and “pre-approval” requests.1
LENDING ACTION VOLUME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide a summary of the results of home loan applications by race
and ethnicity for Contra Costa County. As shown in Table 3-1, persons reporting White
make up more than 50 percent of loan applications in the County. As shown in Table
3-2, roughly 16 percent of loan applicants are for persons reporting ethnicity as Hispanic
or Latino.
1 Please see the note at the end of this section for a technical discussion of how the raw HMDA data was
filtered to create the data set analyzed.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-2
TABLE 3-1
LENDING ACTION BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Race Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
American Indian or
Alaskan Native 203 48 99 104
Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander 351 73 157 194
Black or African
American 1,087 260 505 582
Other or No Info
Provided 3,212 651 1,527 1,685
Asian 3,974 732 1,797 2,177
White 12,048 2,073 4,738 7,310
Total 20,875 3,837 8,823 12,052
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
TABLE 3-2
LENDING ACTION BY ETHNICITY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Race Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
Hispanic or Latino 3,409 897 1,686 1,723
Not Hispanic or Latino 14,619 2,370 5,802 8,817
Other or no info 2,847 570 1,328 1,512
Total 20,875 3,837 8,816 12,052
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide a visual comparison of the share of loan applications by race
in 2008 (Figure 3-1) to the share of the whole population by race in 2000 (Figure 3-2).
When compared to the general population of Contra Costa County (2000 U.S. Decennial
Census), the data set is roughly representational. Notable exceptions are that persons
reporting race as White and Black or African American are underrepresented as loan
applicants, while persons reporting race as Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Asian, and
Other are overrepresented as loan applicants.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-3
FIGURE 3-1
2008 LOAN APPLICATIONS BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FIGURE 3-2
2000 POPULATION BY RACE, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
American Indian
or Alaskan
Native
1%
Asian
19%
Black or African
American
5%
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
2%
White
58%
Other or No Info
Provided
15%
American Indian
or Alaskan
Native
1%
Asian
11%
Black or African
American
9%
Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
0%
White
66%
Other or No Info
Provided
13%
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-4
LENDING ACTION RATES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
To reveal differences in lending action rates by race and ethnicity, histograms were
created to compare the rate of outcomes by race and ethnicity.2 The histograms are
scaled to be roughly equal in size so that differences in lending volume are minimized.
In the overall data set (Figure 3-3), approximately 1 in 5 of all applications are denied
and 42 percent “fail,” meaning that they do not result in a loan origination. Fifty-seven
percent of all applications do result in a loan origination.
FIGURE 3-3
ALL LOAN APPLICATIONS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
American Indian or Alaskan Native
For persons in the American Indian or Alaskan Native racial category, the origination
rate is slightly lower than the overall population and the failure rate is slightly higher.
The denial rate is nearly 1 in 4. Within this group, loan origination is more likely and
failure less likely. Forty-eight (48) percent of loan failures are due to denial.
As shown in Table 3-3, Antioch has the largest share of denied loan applications,
followed by the Urban County, Pittsburg, and Richmond.
2 It should be noted that the variable used to segregate the data by race and ethnicity was “Applicant Race
1” and “Applicant Ethnicity.” Co-applicant information and other races reported by the applicant were not
considered.
20,875
3,837
8,823
12,052
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (18.4%)Loan "failures"
(42.3%)
Originations
(57.7%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-5
FIGURE 3-4
LENDING ACTIONS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE
203
48
99 104
0
50
100
150
200
250
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (23.6%)Loan "failures"
(48.8%)
Originations
(51.2%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-6
TABLE 3-3
LENDING ACTION FOR AMERICAN INDIAN
OR ALASKAN NATIVE BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 53 16 33% 29 29% 24 23%
Concord 18 4 8% 6 6% 12 12%
Pittsburg 28 5 10% 10 10% 18 17%
Richmond 20 5 10% 12 12% 8 8%
Walnut Creek 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 1%
Urban
County 64 14 29% 32 32% 32 31%
Other
Jurisdictions 19 4 8% 10 10% 9 9%
Total 203 48 100% 99 100% 104 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts
that share multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general
areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
For persons in the Hawaiian or Pacific Islander racial category, the origination rate is
slightly lower and the denial rate slightly higher than the overall population. The
combined loan failure rate is slightly higher than the aggregate. Given that those
reporting race as Hawaiian or Pacific Islander are overrepresented in the data, the
analysis could be misleading.
As shown in Table 3-4, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Pittsburg, Antioch, and Concord.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-7
FIGURE 3-5
LENDING ACTION BY HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
TABLE 3-4
LENDING ACTION FOR HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 62 12 16% 28 18% 34 18%
Concord 47 10 14% 25 16% 22 11%
Pittsburg 44 15 21% 29 18% 15 8%
Richmond 28 8 11% 13 8% 15 8%
Walnut
Creek 5 1 1% 3 2% 2 1%
Urban
County 134 22 30% 48 31% 86 44%
Other
Jurisdictions 31 5 7% 11 7% 20 10%
Total 351 73 100% 157 100% 194 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
351
73
157
194
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.8%)Loan "failures"
(44.7%)
Originations (55.3%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-8
Black or African American
For persons in the Black or African American racial category, the origination rate is
slightly lower than the overall population and the denial rate is higher. Lenders deny
approximately 1 in 4 loan applications. The overall failure rate is slightly higher than the
failure rate for the overall population. Nearly 52 percent of loan failures are due to
denial. Overall, it is more likely that a loan is originated for an applicant reporting race
as Black or African American.
As shown in Table 3-5, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Antioch, Pittsburg, and areas outside of the Consortium.
FIGURE 3-6
LENDING ACTION BY BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
1,087
260
505
582
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (23.9%)Loan "failures"
(46.5%)
Originations (53.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-9
TABLE 3-5
LENDING ACTION FOR BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 237 59 23% 108 21% 129 22%
Concord 33 4 2% 11 2% 22 4%
Pittsburg 149 36 14% 73 15% 76 13%
Richmond 93 20 8% 44 9% 49 8%
Walnut Creek 9 1 >1% 4 >1% 5 >1%
Urban County 445 112 43% 207 41% 238 41%
Other
Jurisdictions 121 28 11% 58 11% 63 11%
Total 1,087 260 100% 505 100% 582 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
Other or No Information
For persons in the Other or No Information racial category, the records that indicated a
race of “other” or where no race information was provided have slightly higher denial
rates than the overall population. Failure rates are higher and origination rates lower
than the overall population. Forty-three (43) percent of loan applications resulting in
failure are due to denial. Applicants reporting race as “other” or not providing race
information are more likely to originate a loan.
As shown in Table 3-6, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial, followed by Antioch, areas outside of the Consortium, Richmond,
and Pittsburg.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-10
FIGURE 3-7
LENDING ACTION BY OTHER OR NO INFORMATION
TABLE 3-6
LENDING ACTION FOR OTHER OR NO INFORMATION BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 541 125 19% 252 17% 289 17%
Concord 342 60 9% 157 10% 185 11%
Pittsburg 255 71 11% 144 9% 111 7%
Richmond 369 88 14% 206 13% 163 10%
Walnut Creek 176 22 3% 66 4% 110 7%
Urban County 926 174 27% 439 29% 487 29%
Other
Jurisdictions 603 111 17% 263 17% 340 20%
Total 3,212 651 100% 1,527 100% 1,685 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
3,212
651
1,527 1,685
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.3%)Loan "failures"
(47.5%)
Originations
(52.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-11
Asian
For persons in the Asian racial category, the distribution of loan applications is similar to
the overall population. The same share of applications is denied, while slightly more fail
and slightly less originate. About 40 percent of loan failures are due to denial and it is
more likely that a loan request will originate than fail for persons reporting race as
Asian.
As shown in Table 3-7, the Urban County has the largest share of denied loan
applications, followed by Antioch and areas outside of the Consortium.
FIGURE 3-8
LENDING ACTION BY ASIAN
3,974
732
1,797 2,177
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (18.4%)Loan "failures"
(45.2%)
Originations (54.8%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-12
TABLE 3-7
LENDING ACTION FOR ASIAN BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 445 102 14% 203 11% 242 11%
Concord 269 55 8% 126 7% 143 7%
Pittsburg 188 43 6% 85 5% 103 5%
Richmond 344 68 9% 160 9% 184 8%
Walnut Creek 122 16 2% 53 3% 69 3%
Urban County 2,010 355 48% 926 51% 1,084 50%
Other
Jurisdictions 596 93 13% 244 14% 352 16%
Total 3,974 732 100% 1,797 100% 2,177 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts
that share multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general
areas of the County.
White
For persons in the White racial category, the origination rate is higher than the overall
population and higher than all other subgroups. Denials and failures are lower than the
aggregate and other subgroups. Of loan applications resulting in failure, 44 percent are
due to denial. It is more likely that a loan is originated for an applicant reporting race as
White.
As shown in Table 3-8, the Urban County has the largest share of loan applications
resulting in denial followed by Antioch, areas outside of the Consortium, Richmond,
and Concord.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-13
FIGURE 3-9
LENDING ACTION BY WHITE
TABLE 3-8
LENDING ACTION FOR WHITE BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 2,073 366 18% 795 17% 1,278 17%
Concord 1,266 210 10% 495 10% 771 11%
Pittsburg 902 195 9% 407 9% 495 7%
Richmond 1,306 268 13% 556 12% 750 10%
Walnut Creek 762 98 5% 273 6% 489 7%
Urban County 3,459 628 30% 1,396 29% 2,063 28%
Other
Jurisdictions 2,280 308 15% 816 17% 1,464 20%
Total 12,048 2,073 100% 4,738 100% 7,310 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
12,048
2,073
4,738
7,310
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (17.2%)Loan "failures"
(39.2%)
Originations
(60.7%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-14
Hispanic
When the data is grouped by applicants that responded as Hispanic, Not Hispanic, and
No information provided for Hispanic ethnicity, we fin d that denial, failure, and
origination rates vary from the aggregate. Applicants who reported Hispanic or who did
not provide a response showed a greater share of denials and failures and a smaller
share of approvals when compared to the aggregate.
Applicants reporting ethnicity as Hispanic have the greatest share of denied loans
amongst all subgroups (more than 1 in 4). Of loans that fail to originate for Hispanic
applicants, 54 percent are due to denial. Though it is more likely that a loan origina tes
for Hispanic applicants, this subgroup has the smallest share of applications reaching
origination.
As shown in Table 3-9, Antioch has the largest share of denied loan applications,
followed by Richmond, the Urban County, and Pittsburg.
FIGURE 3-10
LOAN ACTION BY HISPANIC
3,409
897
1,686 1,723
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (26.3%)Loan "failures"
(49.5%)
Originations (50.5%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-15
FIGURE 3-11
LOAN ACTIONS FOR NON-HISPANIC
FIGURE 3-12
LOAN ACTIONS FOR ETHNICITY NO INFORMATION PROVIDED
14,619
2,370
5,802
8,817
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (16.2%)Loan "failures"
(39.7%)
Originations (60.3%)
2,847
570
1,328 1,512
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Total applications
(100%)
Denials (20.0%)Loan "failures"
(46.6%)
Originations (53.1%)
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-16
TABLE 3-9
LENDING ACTION FOR HISPANIC BY AREA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total
Applications
Denials Failures Originations
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Antioch 759 197 22% 353 21% 406 24%
Concord 284 69 8% 145 9% 139 8%
Pittsburg 544 145 16% 273 16% 271 16%
Richmond 631 186 21% 335 20% 296 17%
Walnut Creek 35 3 >1% 9 >1% 26 2%
Urban County 653 159 18% 312 19% 341 20%
Other
Jurisdictions 503 138 15% 259 15% 244 14%
Total 3,409 897 100% 1,686 100% 1,723 100%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA reports data at the census tract level, making it difficult to distinguish loan action for tracts that share
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. However, the data provided in the table describes general areas of the County.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
MORTGAGE LENDING BY AREA
The same data set used to analyze mortgage lending by race and ethnicity was used to
analyze mortgage lending by area. The HMDA data reports loans by the U .S. Census
tract area of the home being purchased. The goal of this analysis is to detect whether
there are geographic patterns of mortgage credit availability.
Loan applications were analyzed by census tracts and mapped. All areas in Contra
Costa County were mapped by quartile and show the volume and rate of each lending
action: origination, denial, and failure. Lending action maps are located in Appendix 5.
HMDA data is organized into the 168 countywide census tracts (2000 U.S. census tract
boundaries). Fifty-eight (58) percent of loan applications across all census tracts in the
County result in origination, 42 percent result in failure, and 18 percent result in denial.
The lending action data tells us that origination is more likely than failure for the County
as a whole; however at the census tract level, some areas in the County have much
smaller shares of loan origination.
As shown in the origination rate map (mapped rates of origination by countywide
quartiles), the areas that fall within the highest quartile (66 pe rcent to 100 percent loan
origination rates) are located in the communities of Lafayette, Oakley, San Ramon,
Walnut Creek, Moraga, El Cerrito, and East Richmond.
Areas that fall within the mid-range quartiles for rates of origination (54 percent to 65
percent) include communities in the eastern portion of the County (Oakley, Brentwood,
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-17
and Knightsen) as well as in pocketed areas in the central portion of the County
(Danville, Orinda, Rheem Valley, and Glorietta).
The lowest quartile for rates of origination is made up of census tracts with 53 percent or
less of actions resulting in loan origination. The areas making up the lowest quartile rate
of origination include portions of the Delta region in the eastern part of the County, with
the largest concentration located in the western portion of the County. Of those census
tracts that fall within the lower quartile, 24 have a share of less than 50 percent
origination, meaning it is more likely for loan applications to result in failure than
origination. Table 3-10 displays census tracts with less than 50 percent loan origination.
Five if the census tracts shown in Table 3-10 have significantly low rates of origination:
3160 (25 percent), 3280 (14 percent), 3650.02 (33 percent), 3750 (36 percent), and 3770 (31
percent). Two of these census tracts have so few application records, the resulting rates
are meaningless (3160 and 3280). The three remaining census tracts are located in the
City of Richmond.
It is important to put each of the census tracts with low origination rates into context
with the characteristics of each census tract. These characteristics include minority
concentration, Hispanic concentration, and low/moderate-income concentration.
Minority Concentration
Each of the three census tracts (3650.02, 3750, and 3770) has a highly concentrated
population of minorities (see Figures 1 through 5 of the Consolidated Plan). Each of the
census tracts with low rates of loan origination has minority population shares greater
than 63.2 percent.
Hispanic Concentration
Two of the three census tracts (3750 and 3770) with low loan origination rates are also
census tracts with a highly concentrated population of Hispanic individuals (see Maps 1
through 6 of the Consolidated Plan). The concentration of Hispanic persons in both
census tracts is greater than 26.5 percent of the census tract populations.
Low/Moderate-Income Concentration
As described in the Consolidated Plan, areas with a low/moderate-income population
share of 51 percent are considered target areas, with exceptions for the Urban County
(42.6 percent), Concord (47.9 percent), and Walnut Creek (32.5 percent). Each of the
three census tracts with low loan origination rates is located in low/moderate-income
areas.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-18
TABLE 3-10
LENDING ACTION FOR CENSUS TRACTS WITH LESS THAN 50 PERCENT ORIGINATION RATE,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Census Tract Location Total
Applications Denials Failures Originations
3072.01 Antioch 44 28% 56% 44%
3080.01 Antioch 164 29% 53% 47%
3131.01 Pittsburg 121 26% 53% 47%
3132.01 Pittsburg 188 28% 51% 49%
3141.02 Pittsburg/Urban
County 126 29% 52% 48%
3141.04 Bay Point/ Urban
County 101 35% 58% 42%
3160 1 Martinez 4 0% 75% 25%
3280 1 Concord 14 29% 86% 14%
3361.01 Concord 39 33% 56% 44%
3362 Concord 108 24% 53% 47%
3521.02 Moraga/Urban
County 74 16% 51% 49%
3540.01 Orinda/Urban
County 33 21% 55% 45%
3560.02
Hercules/Martinez/
Richmond/Urban
County
112 29% 52% 48%
3640.01 Pinole/Urban
County 115 23% 52% 48%
3650.02 Richmond/Urban
County 163 32% 67% 33%
3660.01 San Pablo/Urban
County 91 29% 53% 47%
3671 Richmond 105 26% 57% 43%
3680 San Pablo 120 25% 53% 47%
3690.01 San Pablo 55 25% 53% 47%
3730 Richmond 66 29% 56% 44%
3750 Richmond 45 42% 64% 36%
3760 Richmond 79 27% 54% 46%
3770 Richmond 72 36% 69% 31%
3810 Richmond 111 36% 55% 45%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: The share of failure loan actions include the share of loans resulting in denial.
1 These census tracts have so few total loan applications, the rates are essentially meaningless.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-19
Geographic Distribution of High Priced Loans
Under Regulation C, lenders are required to report the difference between the Annual
Percentage Rate (APR) of originated loans and the Average Prime Offer Rate. The prime
rate is the rate that prime borrowers can expect to receive. Subprime borrowers receive
higher APRs than prime borrowers, meaning that subprime borrowers pay more for
mortgage financing.
The HMDA data set reports the rate spread for all originated loans. The rate spread
represents the difference between the APR and the prime rate at the time of loan
purchase. Essentially, the rate spread reports the rate that borrowers pay in excess of the
prime rate. For first-lien loans, lenders are required to report the rate in excess of 1.5
percent of the prime rate, and for subordinate-lien loans lenders are required to report
the rate in excess of 3.5 percent. For example, if a borrower secures a first -lien mortgage
with an 8 percent APR when the prime rate is 5 percent, then the r ate spread reported in
the HMDA data set is 1.5 percent [8-(1.5+5)=1.5]. Loans with a reported rate spread are
considered “high cost” or “subprime” loans.
Table 3-11 reports the share of high priced loans originated for owner-occupied home
purchases in Consortium jurisdictions and the remainder of the County, including non-
Consortium jurisdictions for 2008. Because HMDA data is reported by census tract, there
may be some overlap of reporting between jurisdictions; however there are no
duplicated loan records reported. As shown, 6.9 percent of originated loans in the
County are high priced loans. Of Consortium jurisdictions, Antioch (12.2 percent) has
the largest share of high cost loans and Walnut Creek (6.8 percent) the lowest.
Interestingly, Walnut Creek has the greatest number of high cost subordinate loans,
which is likely attributable to higher priced housing in Walnut Creek.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-20
TABLE 3-11
HIGH PRICED LOANS FOR CONSORTIUM JURISDICTIONS,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Total Loan
Originations
First-Lien High
Cost Loans
Subordinate-
Lien High Cost
Loans
Total High
Cost Loans
Percentage
High Cost
Loans
Antioch 1,996 232 12 244 12.2%
Concord 1,155 93 5 98 8.5%
Pittsburg 818 60 0 60 7.3%
Richmond 1,169 91 3 94 8.0%
Walnut Creek 676 36 10 46 6.8%
All Other
Areas 6,238 262 28 290 4.6%
Total 12,052 774 58 832 7.9%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data.
Note: HMDA data is reported by Census Tract, which typically cross boundaries amongst jurisdictions. Loan records
were assigned to jurisdictions primarily represented by a census tract which may cause error in allocating loan recor ds
to particular jurisdictions. Loan records are not duplicated.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages in columns may not sum to 100%.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In general, it is more likely that loan application requests result in origination, meaning
that a greater share of loan applications originate than fail. Loan applications for each
race do not vary greatly from the aggregate results of lending actions for the County,
though areas with much lower than expected origination rates are also highly
concentrated with minority populations.
Applicants reporting ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino experience lower rates of
origination than all other subgroups. Nearly one-half of all loan applications for
Hispanic persons fail to originate. Of loan applications that fail for Hispanic persons, 53
percent do so because of denial. More than one-quarter of loan applications are denied
for Hispanic persons because of higher than accepted debt-to-income ratios.
Unfavorable credit history and lack of collateral make up the reasons 22 percent of loan
applications were denied for Hispanic persons.
About 40 percent of denied loan applications for Hispanic persons were because of
incomplete applications, unverifiable applicant information, and for “other” reasons.
The higher than expected rate of denied loan applications for Hispanic persons signifies
an opportunity to direct policies toward making homeownership opportunities more
available, through pre-purchase counseling, financial literacy, non-traditional credit
building, credit counseling, and alternative credit rating.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
3-21
Areas of low origination rates tend to be in the western portion of the County, mainly in
the North Richmond area. These are areas that also have high concentrations of
minorities and high concentrations of low- and very low-income households. The three
census tracts (3650.02, 3750, and 3770) with the lowest rate of loan originations have a
large share of loans that fail due to applicants withdrawing loan applications in the
midst of the approval process and applicants withdrawing loan applications after loan
approval. A small share of applications in these census tracts fail due to incomplete
applications.
Also, most loan applications that are denied in each of these census tracts are denied
because applicants are not qualified (debt-to-income ratios and credit history). Programs
should be directed toward increasing homebuyer knowledge in areas of low loan
origination rates.
Contra Costa Consortium Mach 23, 2010
4-1
PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES
This section discusses the efforts to determine and evaluate the practices of the private
sector as they relate to fair housing choice, including the policies and practices of real
estate agents, property managers, and mortgage lenders. Mortgage lending patterns are
discussed in the preceding Section 3.
REAL ESTATE SALES PRACTICES
In the State of California, to engage in the business of real estate sales, a broker or
salesperson must be licensed by the Department of Real Estate (DRE). The DRE also
enforces violations of California real estate law.
The real estate industry in California is highly professionalized. Almost all real estate
brokers and salespersons are affiliated with a real estate trade association. The two
largest are the California Association of Realtors (CAR), associated with the National
Association of Realtors (NAR), and the California Association of Real Estate Brokers
(CAREB), associated with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB).
Members of NAREB are licensed to use the professional designation “Realtist.” The use
of the term “Realtor” is restricted by NAR as a registered trademark.
NAR has a professional code of conduct which specifically prohibits unequal treatment
in professional services or employment practices on the basis of, “race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin” (Article 10, NAR Code of Ethics). Both
prohibit members from promulgating deed restrictions or covenants based on race.
Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that “Realtors shall not deny equal
professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap,
familial status, or national origin. Realtors shall not be a party to any plan or agreement
to discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin.”
A Realtor pledges to conduct business in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Code
of Ethics. Article 10 imposes obligations upon Realtors and is also a firm statement of
support for equal opportunity in housing. A Realtor who suspects discrimination is
instructed to call the local Board of Realtors. Local Boards of Realtors will accept
complaints alleging violations of the Code of Ethics filed by a home seeker who alleges
discriminatory treatment in the availability, purchase , or rental of housing. Local Boards
of Realtors have a responsibility to enforce the Code of Ethics through professional
standards procedures and corrective action in cases where a violation of the Code of
Ethics is proven to have occurred.
The California Association of Realtors has many local associations. Contra Costa County
is served by the Contra Costa Association of Realtors, the Bay East Association of
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-2
Realtors, the Delta Association of Realtors, and the West Contra Costa Association of
Realtors.
CAR offers continuous online courses dealing with fair housing requirements and
issues. According to the course description, the course will provide an overview of the
federal fair housing laws and an in-depth discussion of the individual laws and their
application to the practice of real estate. The course also provides CAR members with a
study of the State of California fair housing laws and regulations. The course
emphasizes anti-discriminatory conduct which all licensees should practice and
concludes by discussing the voluntary affirmative action marketing program and why
promoting fair housing laws is a positive force at work in California and throughout the
nation.
NAREB Realtists follow a strict code of ethics that states “any Realtist shall not
discriminate against any person because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, National Origin,
Disability, Familial Status or Sexual Orientation” (Part I, Section 2, NAREB Code of
Ethics):
In the sale or rental of real property.
In advertising the sale or rental of real property.
In the financing of real property.
In the provision of professional services.
Part I, Section 2 of the NAREB Code of Ethics continues to state that any “Realtist shall
not be instrumental in establishing, reinforcing or extending any agreement or provision
that restricts or limits the use or occupancy of real property to any person or group of
persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status
or sexual orientation.”
RENTAL AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the country’s largest statewide trade
association for rental property owners and managers. CAA incorporated in 1941 to serve
rental property owners and managers throughout California. CAA represents rental
housing owners and professionals who together manage more than 1.5 million rental
units.
CAA supports the spirit and intent of all local, state, and federal fair housing laws for all
residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical
disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the
California Apartment Association agree to abide by the following provisions of their
Code for Equal Housing Opportunity:
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-3
We agree that in the rental, lease, sale, purchase, or exchange of real property,
owners and their employees have the responsibility to offer housing
accommodations to all persons on an equal basis;
We agree to set and implement fair and reasonable rental housing rules and
guidelines and will provide equal and consistent services throughout our
resident’s tenancy;
We agree that we have no right or responsibility to volunteer information
regarding the racial, creed, or ethnic composition of any neighborhood, and we
do not engage in any behavior or action that would result in steering; and
We agree not to print, display, or circulate any statement or advertisement that
indicates any preference, limitations, or discrimination in the rental or sale of
housing.
The CAA offers a Certificate in Residential Management (CRM), which includes a course
on fair housing law. In addition, the CAA website provides links to the Fair Housing
Institute and Fair Housing Network.
CAA has a local association with offices in Pleasant Hill. The CAA of Contra Costa
/Napa/Solano serves Contra Costa County, Napa, and Solano counties.
ADVERTISEMENT
In January 2010 a review of rental housing advertisements for all of Contra Costa
County was conducted to identify any fair housing impediments. All advertisements
were examined for language that explicitly or implicitly indicated that housing would
not be made available to persons without regard to membership in a protected class or
that there would be a preference for or a bias against persons belonging to a protected
class. No advertisements were found that would comprise an illegal or unfair housing
opportunity. The review looked at advertisements in the Contra Costa Times newspaper
(159 listings) and online websites (1,728 listings from craigslist.com and 169 listings from
Rent.com). Of the advertisements reviewed, there were no impediments identified in
Contra Costa County.
USE OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
Covenants that restrict the ownership or use of real property based on membership in a
protected class are prohibited under state and federal law. Nonetheless, recorded
documents with these terms persist.
Today, the California Department of Real Estate reviews Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for all subdivisions of five or more lots, or condominiums of five
or more units. This review is authorized by the Subdivided Lands Act and mandated by
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-4
the Business Professions Code, Section 11000. The review includes a wide range of
issues, including compliance with fair housing law.
Since 2000, California state law has required that any person or entity that provides
declarations, deeds, and other governing documents related to the use of real property
must place a cover page over the document or a stamp on the first page of the document
containing a statement that any restrictive covenants that may appear in the document
are null and void and that any person with an interest in the property has the right to
request that the language be removed.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT
Patterns of complaints and enforcement are useful to assess the nature and level of
potentially unfair or discriminatory housing practices in the private sector. Several
public and private agencies may receive complaints about unfair housing practices or
housing discrimination.
At the federal level, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives complaints of
housing discrimination. FHEO will attempt to resolve matters informally. FHEO may act
on those complaints if they represent a violation of federal law and FHEO finds that
there is “reasonable cause” to pursue administrative action in federal court.
At the state level, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has a
similar role to FHEO. DFEH also receives, investigates, attempts to settle, and can take
administrative action to prosecute violations of the law. HUD and DFEH have some
overlap in jurisdiction and depending on the nature of the case, may refer cases to one
another. DFEH is a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grantee, meaning
that it receives funding from HUD to enforce federal fair housing law within the state.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity
The San Francisco FHEO office provided information on fair housing complaints and
cases for the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009.1 FHEO recorded 184
fair housing complaints originating in Contra Costa County over this time period. These
cases were reported either directly to FHEO (45) or through the state DFEH (139) as part
of FHAP grant activities. (Note: single cases may report multiple bases of
discrimination.)
Of the 184 complaints received, almost half of the fair housing complaints filed were on
the basis of disability (87), 50 complaints were filed on the basis of racial discrimination,
1 Chuck Hauptman, HUD-FHEO, San Francisco.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-5
22 were based on familial status, 19 were filed on the basis of national origin, 17 based
on sex, and 1 based on religion. There were an additional 7 filed complaining of
retaliation against a person for asserting fair housing rights or for making a fair housing
complaint.
From January 2008 through December 2009, a total of 75 complaints were made, of
which the majority were based on disability (41 complaints) and race (23 complaints).
The other complaints were in the categories of national origin, sex, family status, and
retaliator.
FHEO reported a total of 187 cases closed in the same time period: 144 were closed by
FHEO and 43 by DFEH. Ninety of these complaints were based on disability, 50 on race,
23 on familial status, 20 on national origin, 18 on sex, and 2 on religion. Ten of the closed
cases were based on retaliation. Of the closed cases, 89 were found to have insufficient
cause for action, 70 were resolved without administrative action, and 23 cases were
pursued administratively. Seven of the fair housing cases involved the payment of
compensation (less than $2,000).
From January 2008 through December 2009, a total of 97 cases were closed: 71 were
closed by FHEO and 26 by FHAP. The majority of the complaints were based on race
and disability.
California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH)
The California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) provided records
of housing complaints filed within Contra Costa County for the period January 2004
through December 2009.2 The department received 187 complaints between 2004 and
2008 for the county as a whole.
Of the 187 complaints received, almost half were on the basis of a disability (96
complaints), 31 based on national origin, 31 based on sex, and 9 based on religion, with
the remaining complaints based on marital status and familial status. Nine complaints
were based on retaliation.
From January 2008 through December 2009, there were a total of 75 complaints in
Contra Costa County, of which 33 were based on disability, 6 based on sex, 2 based on
national origin, and the remaining based on familial and marital status.
Since 2004 the DFEH has closed 19 fair housing complaints through successful
mediation, closed 26 through successful conciliation, and found “no probable cause to
prove a violation of the statute” for 103 fair housing complaints. The DFHE closed 23
cases noted withdrawn with resolution.
2 Correspondence, Karen Gilbert, State-DFEH
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-6
The DFEH also noted than in 2009, they received three complaints; however
Government Code Section 6255 exempts the department from disclosing information
related to the complaint until the file is closed.
Local Reports
There are four agencies that currently may receive complaints regarding fair housing in
Contra Costa County. These are Housing Rights, Inc. (HRI), Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA),
Fair Housing of Marin (FHM), and the Contra Costa Crisis Center.
Together, the four agencies received and/or handled 727 fair housing complaints from
Contra Costa County residents since 2006. Please see the following table. The most
common basis of complaint was discrimination based on disability and refusal to make
an accommodation for a person with a disability. The second most frequent basis of
discrimination claimed was race. Other notable fair housing complaints include claims
of discrimination based on familial status, national origin, and gender. Please see Table
4-1.
TABLE 4-1
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS BY BASIS, 2006 TO PRESENT
Basis of Complaint Number Percentage
Disability and Accommodation 368 50.6%
Race 168 23.1%
Familial Status 56 7.7%
National Origin 46 6.3%
Gender 23 3.2%
Other 66 9.1%
Total 727 100.0%
The majority of complaints were resolved by providing brief services or advising the
caller during the call. Please see the following table. Others were resolved
administratively, closed by an attorney, or closed after referral to HUD or DFEH. Many
were resolved through other means or the manner of resolution was not reported. Please
see Table 4-2.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-7
TABLE 4-2
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS BY RESOLUTION, 2006 TO PRESENT
Outcome Number Percentage
Agency Advice/Brief Services 286 39.3%
Referral to Other Agency 127 17.5%
Client Stopped Case 67 9.2%
Administratively Closed 47 6.5%
Closed by an Attorney 20 2.8%
Closed by HUD 21 2.9%
Closed by DFEH 8 1.1%
Other/not specified 151 20.8%
Total 727 100.0%
The Contra Costa Crisis Center “2-1-1” line tracks calls related to tenant/landlord issues
for the City of Richmond. From July through December of 2009, 69 referrals were made
for tenant/landlord issues.
Additional details regarding the individual agencies’ fair housing complaints and closed
cases summaries can be found in Appendix 7.
CAA of Contra Costa /Napa /Solano
The local association of the California Apartment Association receives complaints
regarding unfair housing practices.3 The distribution of complaints is roughly even
across the County, with a noticeably lower level from Richmond and higher level from
Antioch.
Many fair housing complaints received by the California Apartment Association center
on federally subsidized rental units (Section 8 and public housing). The most common
classifications of discrimination included female heads of households, family
households with teenage children, persons with disabilities, and racial discrimination.
The most common forms of discrimination reported by those persons who submitted a
complaint included inappropriate verbal statements, differential treatment, and neglect
of reasonable accommodations.
3 Personal communication, Theresa Karr of the California Apartment Association.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
4-8
Summary of Complaints and Enforcement Activity
Of the complaints received over the last few years, the most common (approximately 50
percent of all complaints) have been based on disability, specifically failure to provide
reasonable accommodation within rental housing units.
The next most frequently reported classifications of discrimination were national origin,
race, sex, and familial status.
Approximately 52 percent of all complaints filed to state or federal departments were
found to have “no probable cause to prove a violation of the statute .” Furthermore, out
of the total complaints filed, approximately 37 percent were handled through successful
mediation or conciliation.
SUMMARY OF PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES
Contra Costa County does not appear to have a significant problem in the private sector
regarding unfair housing practices or housing discrimination. There does appear to be a
lack of knowledge regarding the obligation of landlords and property managers to make
reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and to rent to them without regard to
disability.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-1
GOVERNMENT BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING
Public policies established at the state, regional, and local levels can affect housing
development and therefore may have an impact on the range and location of housing
choices available to residents. This section discusses the public policies enacted by
jurisdictions within Contra Costa County and their potential impacts on housing
development. Zoning and housing-related documents (e.g., housing elements, previous
fair housing assessments, consolidated plans) were reviewed to identify potential
impediments to fair housing choice and affordable housing development.
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND COMPLIANCE
As part of evaluating potential impediments to fair housing choice and housing
development, each jurisdiction’s Housing Element was reviewed. California state
housing element law requires that local governments adequately plan to meet the
existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
California state housing element law requires each jurisdiction to:
Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning
and development standards and with the services and facilities needed to
facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all
income levels in order to meet the city’s regional housing needs.
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely
low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock.
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with special needs such as the elderly and those with disabilities must have
access to housing in a community. Community care facilities provide a supportive
housing environment to persons with special needs in a group situation. Restrictions
that prevent these types of facilities from locating in a community may impede equal
access to housing for the special needs groups.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-2
Licensed Community Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code) states that mentally and physically disabled
persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and that the use of
property for the care of six or fewer disabled persons is a valid residential use for zoning
purposes.
Housing element law requires that jurisdictions permit community care facilities with
six or fewer persons by right in all residential zones. Group homes of seven or more
residents, however, are often subject to special requirements. Current housing element
law requires local governments to permit group homes of seven or more in at least one
zone; a conditional use permit can be required.
There are many different types of licensed care facilities within the county. Below is a
description of the different types of care facilities within these jurisdictions.
Adult day care facilities (ADCF) provide programs for frail elderly and
developmentally disabled and/or mentally disabled adults in a day care setting.
Adult residential facilities (ARF) are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-
hour nonmedical care for adults ages 18 through 59, who are unable to provide
for their own daily needs. Adults may be physically handicapped,
developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled.
Group homes are facilities of any capacity and provide 24-hour nonmedical care
and supervision to children in a structured environment.
Residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE) provide care, supervision, and
assistance with daily living activities to persons 60 years of age and over and
persons under 60 with compatible needs.
Small family homes (SFH) provide care 24 hours a day in the licensee’s family
residence for six or fewer children who are mentally disabled, developmentally
disabled, or physically handicapped and who require special care and
supervision as a result of such disabilities.
A social rehabilitation facility is any facility that provides 24-hour-a-day
nonmedical care and supervision in a group setting to adults recovering from
mental illnesses who temporarily need assistance, guidance, or counseling.
The Transitional Housing Placement Program provides care and supervision for
children at least 17 years of age participating in an independent living
arrangement.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-3
Please see Appendix 8 for a summary of the number of licensed care facilities by type
and their capacity by jurisdiction.
Reasonable Accommodation
Under state and federal law, local governments are required to “reasonably
accommodate” housing for persons with disabilities when exercising planning and
zoning powers. Jurisdictions must grant variances and zoning changes if necessary to
make new construction or rehabilitation of housing for persons with disabilities feasible,
but they are not required to fundamentally alter their zoning ordinance.
Although most local governments are aware of state and federal requirements to allow
reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a
jurisdiction, disabled residents may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated
against.
All of the jurisdictions examined provide flexibility in development standards to
reasonably accommodate the housing needs of residents with disabilities. The degree of
formalization varies by jurisdiction.
HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS
Transitional and Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) as a project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services
to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months.
Permanent supportive housing is defined by HUD as long-term community-based
housing and supportive services for homeless persons with disabilities. The intent of this
type of supportive housing is to enable this special needs population to live as
independently as possible in a permanent setting. The supportive services may be
provided by the organization managing the housing or provided by other public or
private service agencies. There is no definite length of stay.
California Senate Bill 2 (Cedillo, 2007) requires that both the transitional and supportive
housing types be treated as a residential use and be subject only to those restrictions that
apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Both transitional and
supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in the zoning code. Please see
Appendix 9 for a table illustrating whether or not transitional housing is permitted or
requires a use permit.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-4
Emergency Shelter
California Senate Bill 2 (Cedillo, 2007) also requires jurisdictions to allow emergency
shelters without any discretionary action in at least one zone that is appropriate for
permanent emergency shelters (i.e., with commercial uses compatible with residential or
light industrial zones in transition). The goal of SB 2 is to ensure that local governments
are sharing the responsibility of providing opportunities for the development of
emergency shelters. To that end, the legislation also requires that jurisdictions
demonstrate site capacity in the zone identified to be appropriate for the development of
emergency shelters. Within the identified zone, only objective development and
management standards may be applied, given they are designed to encourage and
facilitate the development of or conversion to an emergency shelter.
Please see Appendix 9 for a table illustrating whether or not permanent emergency
shelters are permitted.
BUILDING CODE
Building codes are essential to preserve public health and safety and to ensure the
construction of safe housing. On the other hand, excessive standards can constrain the
development of housing. Building codes are typically reviewed on an ongoing basis to
evaluate whether changes are necessary or desirable and consistent with changing state
law.
A review of the building codes for local jurisdictions in the County was completed, and
it was found that none of the building codes or amendments to the building codes create
an undue constraint on housing development. Please see Appendix 10 for a description
of the local building codes currently adopted.
RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Local jurisdictions may provide resources and incentives for the development of
affordable housing in order to assure the greatest possible availability of housing types
for all persons and all income groups. Resources include local, state, and federal funding
as well as local programs that provide incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Please see Appendix 11 for a listing of the funding programs available.
Two of the most significant incentive programs are inclusionary housing and the so-
called density bonus.
Inclusionary Housing
An inclusionary housing program requires a percentage of new residential housing
units to be offered for sale or rent at prices affordable to lower-income households. In an
effort to generate a mix of income levels within residential areas and to offer access to
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
5-5
public and commercial services without regard to economic status and income level, the
affordable units are expected to be dispersed throughout the development. The number
of inclusionary units is determined as a percentage of the total units in the development.
Developers may choose to pay a fee or to provide a combination of fee and units in lieu
of providing the units on-site. Fees collected are allocated to an Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. Please see Appendix 12 for a listing of affordable housing resources and
programs.
Density Bonus
Senate Bill 1818 (Hollingsworth, 2004) altered the state density bonus provisions.
Effective January 1, 2005, SB 1818 increased the maximum bonus from 25 to 35 percent
and changed the eligibility thresholds for projects. The bill also required localities to
grant additional incentives and allowed bonuses for land donation. Under the new
density bonus law, there are provisions for projects that include affordable housing (to
low- and very low-income households), senior housing, donations of land,
condominium conversions, and child-care facilities. The law also allows for concessions
and incentives that have the effect of reducing the cost of development. A developer
may apply for one to three concessions or incentives depending on how many
affordable units are being constructed. Such concessions or incentives may include
modification of or relief from development standards such as minimum parking
requirements, minimum building setback and separation distances, maximum floor area
ratios, architectural design requirements, or others.
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-1
IDENTIFICATION OF IM PEDIMENTS AND
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
This section describes the impediments to fair housing choice that have been identified
by this analysis. The identified impediments are grouped into four broad categories:
affordable housing, mortgage lending, governmental barriers, and fair housing
enforcement and education.
Within each category are one or more impediments followed by one or more actions the
Consortium member jurisdictions plan to undertake to address each impediment. It is
important to note that the identification of an impediment does not necessarily identify a
deficiency. By identifying the presence of an impediment, this analysis is stating the
nature of a problem which the actions to address will serve to mitigate. These may be
affirmative actions as much as responses to current conditions.
To facilitate reporting of accomplishments and the association of planned activities with
impediments and actions to address, each impediment and action is identified by
number. Actions are labeled according to the impediment they address.
Please note that state law requires local jurisdictions in California to assess barriers to
affordable housing as part of the General Plan Housing Element. Programs to address
impediments to fair housing may be addressed through the Housing Element.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The provision of affordable housing and the support of existing and new affordable
housing is critical to assuring that all households have access to quality housing.
Contra Costa County has a relatively high cost of housing with significant numbers of
households that experience a high cost burden. This is particularly the case wi th the
elderly and the very low-income. Although the level of need varies across the County,
there is a near universal need for increased affordable housing. Market forces alone will
not assure a sufficient supply of quality affordable housing.
Affordable housing must also be dispersed throughout the County to avoid the
concentration of low-income households. The geographic concentration of lower income
households tends to exacerbate problems such as disinvestment.
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create
new affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-2
Plan programs of the Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG,
HOME, and HOPWA.
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable
housing. Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus”
provisions. (See housing element programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of
affordable housing. (See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County,
Richmond and Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of
Housing Choice Vouchers, and will monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers
to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative
resources may be given to projects and programs which expand affordable
housing opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable
housing in relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of
low-income, poverty and minority concentration.
MORTGAGE LENDING
The analysis of home mortgage lending patterns revealed that persons re porting as
Hispanic had a higher likelihood of not receiving requested mortgage credit. The
analysis suggested that this might be due to poor preparation prior to application for
credit.
The mortgage lending analysis also suggests that those who request mortgage credit to
purchase homes in areas that have concentrations of lower income households and
concentrations of minority households are less likely to receive that credit. The analysis
suggests that this is related to the quality of the applications (credit risk, debt to income,
loan to value).
Two general strategies are suggested from the analysis; pre-purchase counseling for
home buyers and the encouragement of lenders to reach out to under -represented
populations.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-3
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and
location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending
by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in
local programs, member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of “Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may
exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or “Substantial
Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition,
member jurisdictions may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA
reporting as most recently published by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders
and the mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower
income and minority households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home
buyer education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households.
Minority households include Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market their loan products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and
minority households. Minority households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration
and low-income concentration.
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to
households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origin ation
rates under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly
market their loan products to households who wish to purchase homes in
Census Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent according to the most
recently published HMDA data.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-4
FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Promoting fair housing includes both education and enforcement. Consortium member
jurisdictions should continue to support both education and enforcement efforts.
This analysis has indicated that housing discrimination is most prevalent in the rental
housing industry. The reported incidence of unfair housing practices in the residential
sales market is relatively low. This can be assumed to be the case because the level of
professionalization in the sales industry is high and because parties tend to have
professional representation. Enforcement efforts will be targeted to rental housing.
Similarly, this analysis indicates that there is a general lack of awareness in the rental
housing industry when it comes to the requirement to provide reasonable
accommodation to persons with disabilities.
Evolving federal fair housing priorities and indications from local advocates support the
need for focused education and enforcement with regard to housing discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
The preparation of this analysis suggests that improved collection and reporting of
housing discrimination complaints by local agencies would provide a more useful and
accurate assessment of the state of fair housing in Contra Costa County. Specifically,
information should be collected with regard to complaints of housing discrimination
based on sexual orientation and complaints that landlords have not provided reasonable
accommodation.
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to
persons who have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against
persons based on sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with
disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental
properties regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-5
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to
reasonable accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities
who have been refused reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing
discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report
trends annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination
complaints. All agencies who provide this information should do so in the same
format with the same level of detail. Information should be available by the
quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based
on sexual orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities.
GOVERNMENT BARRIERS
Local government can play a critical role to providing a full range of housing types and
to assuring the availability of housing suitable to all sectors of the public. Not all
member jurisdictions have formal policies and procedures that describe how a member
of the public may request and receive a reasonable accommodation to local regulations.
A formal policy is an important commitment to the policy of reasonable
accommodation. It also provides the public with a clear road map to reasonable
accommodation.
Local land use policy should include provisions for all housing types including those
intended for the homeless. This analysis indicates that not all member jurisdictions allow
housing for the homeless by right.
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and
procedures for persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations
to local planning and development standards.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Contra Costa Consortium March 23, 2010
6-6
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a
residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential
uses of the same type in the same zone, and is not explicitly permitted in the
zoning code.
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
treat transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only
to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone, and to explicitly permit both transitional and supportive housing
types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least
one appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to
permit transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential
zoning district.
APPENDIX 1.
AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 1
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_NON-WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:23:28 PM2 0 2
MILES Minority Concentration - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 2
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:21:30 PM2,600 0 2,600
FEET Minority Concentration - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 3
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:22:31 PM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Minority Concentration - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 4
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_NON_WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:25:19 PM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Minority Concentration - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 5
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_NON-WHITE_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:26:32 PM2,900 0 2,900
FEET Minority Concentration - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Minority Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (42.10%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (63.15%).
APPENDIX 2.
AREAS OF HISPANIC CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 6
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:01:19 AM2 0 2
MILES Hispanic Concentration - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 7
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 9:58:20 AM2,700 0 2,700
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 8
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:00:14 AM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 9
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:03:37 AM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 10
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_HISPANIC_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/9/2010 @ 10:05:06 AM2,900 0 2,900
FEET Hispanic Concentration - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Hispanic Concentration
Concentrated
Highly Concentrated
A concentration is defined as a census block group with agreater percentage than that group's overall percentagein Contra Costa County (17.68%). A high concentration isdefined as a census block group with 1.5x the group'soverall percentage representation in the County (26.52%).
APPENDIX 3.
AREAS OF LOW-INCOME AND VERY
LOW-INCOME CONCENTRATION
(MAPS)
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 11
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_CDBG_TARGET_AREA.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:15:02 PM2 0 2
MILES Low Income Areas - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Contra Costa County is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 42.60%
355106 303100
301000
303200
302002
313202
302003
355303
309000
313103
302004
304000
355304
305000
306002
304000
355101
314102
314103
308002
308001
313101 306001
313201
307205
355305
307101
313102
310000
311000
307102
307204
307201
314104
312000
355200
355200
307202
355301
355104
333100
Map 12
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\ANTIOCH_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:12:22 PM2,600 0 2,600
FEET Low Income Areas - Antioch
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups thathave a concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod incomepopulation.
355200
313202
355106
315000
355304
355301
347000
320002
320001
327000
355303
321102
355302
322000
337300
313103
333100
338201
321101
324000
338202
313201
337200
332000
321103
325000
331000
329000
338100
337100
355305
334004
326000
340001
333200
321200
314104
330000
340002
336200
323000
313101
335000
338301
311000
314102
334003
334001
328000
336101336102
319000
310000
334005
338302339000
314200
Map 13
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\CONCORD_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:14:03 PM2,000 0 2,000
FEET Low Income Areas - Concord
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Concord is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 47.90%.
355200
313202
309000
313103
305000
314103
314200
314102
355106
313101
313201
307205
314104
315000
313102
310000
307101
311000
307204
307201
312000
307102
355106
307202
333200
332000
355304333100
308001
Map 14
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\PITTSBURG_CDBG_TARGET_AREAS.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:16:05 PM1,500 0 1,500
FEET Low Income Areas - Pittsburg
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups thathave a concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod incomepopulation.
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 15
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_LOW_MOD.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:17:05 PM2,750 0 2,750
FEET Low Income Areas - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area Low income areas are defined as census block groups that havea concentration of 51 percent or more low/mod income population.
355303
347000
346102
346201352101
355301
351200
348000
346101
351100
350000
355302
340002
352201
338302
343003
342000
345201
338202
337300
341000
338201
355304
349000
339000
343002
356002
325000
355305
340001
343001
324000
338100
326000
338301
337200
344000
352202
323000 334003 334004
355104352102352102
337100
353001
354002
353001
354002
355104
336200
353002
Map 16
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\WALNUT_CREEK_TARGET_AREA_CONCENTRATION.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:19:44 PM2,100 0 2,100
FEET Low Income Areas - Walnut Creek
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are low and moderateincome. Walnut Creek is an exception grantee and itslow/moderate income threshold is 32.50%.
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
345110
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109
355304
359202
360100
348000
305000
306002
358000
355301
350000
351200
346101
351100
320002
327000
355302
345108
314103
355101
359101
352201
345202
340002
338302
380000
343003
365002
314102
321102
342000
321103
353002
363000
321101
322000
337300
338202
308002
333100
341000
345105
308001
338201
324000
313101
349000
306001
339000 343002
345103
359203
313201
337200
319000
307205332000
316000
325000
359204
331000
338100
337100
355305
334004
340001
343001
385100
333200
314104
360200
345101
307101
359102
364002 313102
338301
381000
323000
367100
335000
379000
311000
369001
384000
372000
307204
307201
334003
377000
329000
326000
321200
330000
310000
336200
382000
345102
364001
317000
307102
369002
312000
368000
391000383000
362000371000
334001
367200
376000
328000
344000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
307202
336101
389100
388000
336102
375000
385200
390200
334005
389200
Map 17
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\COUNTYWIDE_VERY_LOW_INCOME.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 12:24:17 PM2 0 2
MILES Very Low Income Areas - Contra Costa County
Legend
Census Tract
Very Low Income Area
CDBG law authorizes an exception for grantees with no or veryfew areas in which 51 percent of residents are very low income. Contra Costa County is an exception grantee and its very lowincome threshold is 42.60%
356002
378000
361000
365001
356001
359202
360100
354001
359101
380000
365002
363000
359203
359204
385100
360200
359102
364002
381000
382000
367100
379000
364001
369001
384000
372000
369002368000
391000
383000
362000
371000
367200
377000
376000
366002
386000
366001
390100
370000374000
392000
373000
387000
358000
354002
389100
388000
375000
385200
390200
389200
357000
Map 18
Source: Bing Maps, 2009; Contra Costa County, 2009T:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\CDBG\RICHMOND_VERY_LOW_MOD.MXD - 3/10/2010 @ 1:07:05 PM2,800 0 2,800
FEET Very Low Income Areas - Richmond
Legend
Census Tract
City Limit
Very Low Income Area Very Low income areas are defined as census block groups that havea concentration of 51 percent or more very low income population.
APPENDIX 4.
“CHAS” TABLES
Page | 1
Appendix 4 - CHAS Housing Problems Tables
The assessment of Contra Costa County’s housing needs relies on custom tabulations of
U.S. Decennial Census data provided by HUD. These tabulations are referred to as the
“CHAS” tables. They are obtained using HUD’s “State of the Cities Data System”
(SOCDS). These data are presented in two main tables, one presenting “housing
problems” by households and the other presenting “affordability mismatch” by housing
units. The needs of renter and owner households are examined separately.
The following are the housing problems tables for the State of California, Contra Costa
County, the Urban County area, and the five entitlement communities. Because of the
nature of the Consortium, data tables were acquired according to the CDBG geography.
Although this best approximates the jurisdictional boundaries within the Consortium, it
does introduce a significant level of rounding in the data.1
The CHAS housing problems tables present the number of households paying more
than 30 percent and 50 percent of gross income for housing by tenure, household type,
and income category. This cost of housing as a percentage of gross income is referred to
as the housing “cost burden.” According to HUD, a household which has a housing cost
burden over 30 percent has a “high” housing cost burden. Those with a cost burden over
50 percent have a “severe” cost burden.
1 Please see http://socds.huduser.org/chas/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 344,660 646,560 335,000 486,800 1,813,020 411,249 210,095 114,040 120,730 856,114 2,669,134
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 209,065 332,745 161,320 297,120 1,000,250 180,589 92,950 40,400 70,075 384,014 1,384,264
3. % with any housing problems 70.9 87.8 97 74.9 81.9 68.1 79.1 92.6 70.1 73.7 79.6
4. % Cost Burden >30%68.6 81.5 85.6 72.2 76.7 67.6 75.9 80.9 68.8 71.3 75.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 51.7 69.7 65.1 64.7 63.7 48.9 68.1 72.1 59.8 58 62.1
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 135,595 313,815 173,680 189,680 812,770 230,660 117,145 73,640 50,655 472,100 1,284,870
7. % with any housing problems 74.8 87.2 95.3 87.5 86.9 46.3 78.7 93.1 73.6 64.6 78.7
8. % Cost Burden >30%71.7 77.3 63.2 84.7 75.1 46 74.7 77.9 72.6 60.9 69.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 27.3 13.8 43.9 30 25.3 55 47.1 54.5 39.2 33.4
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 102,155 410,305 200,510 288,425 1,001,395 314,849 271,170 163,865 91,565 841,449 1,842,844
11. % with any housing problems 58.5 63.2 87.2 59.9 66.6 30.9 70.4 86.2 67.5 58.4 62.8
12.% Cost Burden >30%54.8 41.3 22.2 54.8 42.8 30.6 65.8 59.2 66.4 51.4 46.7
13. % Cost Burden >50% 15.6 4.9 1.7 9.6 6.7 14.1 29.7 16.9 34.9 22 13.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 146,954 908,040 259,900 822,215 2,137,109 932,389 2,556,075 736,380 623,820 4,848,664 6,985,773
15. % with any housing problems 22.1 24.1 66.3 14.6 25.4 14.1 23.7 46.3 29.8 26.1 25.9
16.% Cost Burden >30%18.6 7.3 3.7 10.3 8.8 13.9 20.8 18.4 28.9 20.1 16.7
17. % Cost Burden >50%4.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 3.5 3.3 2.4 5.7 3.5 2.7
18. Total Households 593,769 1,964,905 795,410 1,597,440 4,951,524 1,658,487 3,037,340 1,014,285 836,115 6,546,227 11,497,751
19. % with any housing problems 57.6 53.1 84.1 42.7 55.3 27.7 31.7 58 40 35.8 44.2
20. % Cost Burden >30 54.6 38.2 38 38.7 40.3 27.4 28.6 31.8 39 30.1 34.5
21. % Cost Burden >50 30.6 17.4 16.7 19.4 19.5 13.5 9.7 10.8 16.4 11.7 15
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 8,060 14,650 6,045 9,715 38,470 15,035 7,060 2,779 4,470 29,344 67,814
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 5,333 7,845 2,945 5,770 21,893 6,897 3,015 989 2,480 13,381 35,274
3. % with any housing problems 70.7 81.3 94.6 75.5 79 63.8 85.2 93.9 75.6 73.1 76.7
4. % Cost Burden >30%69 77.9 84.6 74.3 75.7 63.2 83.7 86.9 74.6 71.7 74.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 60.7 55.9 62.4 57.6 43 74.5 76.8 61.3 56 57
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 2,727 6,805 3,100 3,945 16,577 8,138 4,045 1,790 1,990 15,963 32,540
7. % with any housing problems 76 79.5 88.9 85.7 82.1 43 78.4 89.9 71.6 60.8 71.7
8. % Cost Burden >30%75.7 72.4 46.3 84.3 70.9 42.9 75.4 79.1 71.6 58.8 64.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 39.2 19 10.3 36.1 24.8 22.7 50.4 41.3 54 35.7 30.1
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 1,918 7,413 2,445 5,879 17,655 8,968 8,785 3,520 3,108 24,381 42,036
11. % with any housing problems 57.5 51.4 80.8 54.8 57.3 29.9 71 80.3 66.1 56.6 56.9
12.% Cost Burden >30%56.5 38.9 26 52.3 43.5 29.8 67.8 55.7 66.1 51.9 48.3
13. % Cost Burden >50% 17.9 4.3 2.5 7 6.4 12.3 26.2 11.6 28.4 19.3 13.9
14. Household Income >80% MFI 3,399 22,535 4,749 18,760 49,443 32,594 105,105 22,354 24,614 184,667 234,110
15. % with any housing problems 29.1 17.9 53.3 11.4 19.6 12.9 21.7 35 28.8 22.7 22
16.% Cost Burden >30%25.6 8.2 3.3 8.6 9.1 12.7 20.1 19.2 28.4 19.8 17.5
17. % Cost Burden >50%7.9 0.4 0 0.8 1 2.8 2.8 1.9 3.9 2.8 2.4
18. Total Households 13,377 44,598 13,239 34,354 105,568 56,597 120,950 28,653 32,192 238,392 343,960
19. % with any housing problems 59.3 44 75.9 38.1 48 26.1 28.8 46 38.6 31.5 36.6
20. % Cost Burden >30 57.5 35.4 35.6 35.8 38.4 25.9 27 29.7 38.2 28.6 31.6
21. % Cost Burden >50 32.1 14.5 15.3 16.2 17.4 12 7.9 8.2 13.8 9.7 12.1
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Contra Costa County, California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 768 1,831 668 789 4,056 1,013 658 299 237 2,207 6,263
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 542 934 350 433 2,259 507 309 125 122 1,063 3,322
3. % with any housing problems 65.3 81.5 97.1 76.2 79 55.6 78.3 100 77 69.9 76.1
4. % Cost Burden >30%64.6 78.9 94.9 76.2 77.4 54.8 78.3 80.8 77 67.3 74.2
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.9 61.6 60.9 59.6 58 38.7 72.5 80.8 47.5 54.5 56.9
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 226 897 318 356 1,797 506 349 174 115 1,144 2,941
7. % with any housing problems 65.5 89.4 88.7 86 85.6 40.9 90.5 86.2 79.1 66.8 78.3
8. % Cost Burden >30%65.5 83.2 41.8 78.9 72.8 40.9 90.5 78.2 79.1 65.6 70
9. % Cost Burden >50% 37.6 13.3 8.8 20.5 17 30 59.6 35.1 60 42.8 27
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 120 851 206 342 1,519 620 1,178 528 163 2,489 4,008
11. % with any housing problems 52.5 41.8 77.7 32.2 45.4 30 70.5 78.8 60.7 61.5 55.4
12.% Cost Burden >30%52.5 30.9 25.2 29.2 31.5 30 69.3 63.8 60.7 57.8 47.8
13. % Cost Burden >50% 45.8 1.6 0 4.1 5.5 4.5 20.6 5.9 26.4 13.9 10.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 135 1,565 392 698 2,790 1,245 9,862 2,938 1,803 15,848 18,638
15. % with any housing problems 28.1 10 50 6.3 15.6 11.5 21.6 27.8 25 22.4 21.3
16.% Cost Burden >30%28.1 3.6 3.6 2.9 4.6 11.5 20.5 17 25 19.7 17.4
17. % Cost Burden >50%7.4 0 0 0 0.4 3.1 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.5 1.3
18. Total Households 1,023 4,247 1,266 1,829 8,365 2,878 11,698 3,765 2,203 20,544 28,909
19. % with any housing problems 58.9 48.9 77.3 43.2 53.2 28.4 30.1 40.1 33.4 32 38.2
20. % Cost Burden >30 58.6 42.5 41.9 40 43.8 28.3 29 28.5 33.4 29.3 33.5
21. % Cost Burden >50 40.6 16.7 19 18.9 20.4 14.4 7 5.5 9.2 8 11.6
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Antioch(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 1,159 2,302 991 1,480 5,932 1,823 719 244 716 3,502 9,434
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 773 1,011 380 897 3,061 888 313 51 421 1,673 4,734
3. % with any housing problems 68.4 85.1 98.9 80.9 81.4 76.4 86.9 92.2 68.4 76.8 79.8
4. % Cost Burden >30%65.2 79.2 97.9 79.3 78 76.4 85.6 92.2 68.4 76.6 77.5
5. % Cost Burden >50% 48.1 63.1 78.7 67.1 62.4 51.4 74.8 84.3 53.9 57.4 60.6
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 386 1,291 611 583 2,871 935 406 193 295 1,829 4,700
7. % with any housing problems 77.2 89.1 97.1 94.2 90.2 41.1 75.1 91.7 63.7 57.6 77.5
8. % Cost Burden >30%77.2 85.3 49.4 93.5 78.2 41.1 75.1 84.5 63.7 56.9 69.9
9. % Cost Burden >50% 30.1 21.8 8.2 32.2 22.2 22.7 50 48.7 44.4 35 27.1
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 251 1,381 545 1,078 3,255 1,127 1,056 360 591 3,134 6,389
11. % with any housing problems 59 51.4 86.2 61.5 61.2 30.2 67.3 86.9 58.7 54.6 57.9
12.% Cost Burden >30%57.4 37.2 27.3 56.9 43.6 30.2 66 54.2 58.7 50.4 46.9
13. % Cost Burden >50% 4 1.6 3.5 4.3 3 12.3 19.5 5.6 18.6 15.2 9
14. Household Income >80% MFI 207 3,417 961 2,403 6,988 3,347 11,666 2,357 3,235 20,605 27,593
15. % with any housing problems 21.3 18 48.3 10.2 19.6 12.1 18.3 34.7 28.5 20.8 20.5
16.% Cost Burden >30%21.3 4.8 1.2 7 5.6 12 17 16.6 28.2 17.9 14.8
17. % Cost Burden >50%0 0 0 0.2 0.1 2 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2
18. Total Households 1,617 7,100 2,497 4,961 16,175 6,297 13,441 2,961 4,542 27,241 43,416
19. % with any housing problems 63 47 76.2 44 52.2 28.7 25.5 45.7 38.4 30.6 38.6
20. % Cost Burden >30 61.2 36.3 33.4 41.1 39.8 28.6 24.2 26.9 38.2 27.9 32.3
21. % Cost Burden >50 30.8 13.3 14.7 16.9 16.4 13.9 6.2 6.1 11.3 8.8 11.6
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Concord(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 510 1,229 542 563 2,844 803 532 327 244 1,906 4,750
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 379 643 272 328 1,622 352 210 127 104 793 2,415
3. % with any housing problems 68.6 84.4 97.1 70.1 80 53.1 89 93.7 78.8 72.5 77.5
4. % Cost Burden >30%59.6 74.7 90.4 67.1 72.3 50.3 89 90.6 78.8 70.7 71.8
5. % Cost Burden >50% 31.4 64.7 66.9 51.5 54.6 32.7 83.3 90.6 75 60.9 56.7
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 131 586 270 235 1,222 451 322 200 140 1,113 2,335
7. % with any housing problems 70.2 84 96.3 92.3 86.8 39.7 73.3 100 60.7 62.9 75.4
8. % Cost Burden >30%70.2 79.4 45.6 92.3 73.4 39.7 70.2 94 60.7 60.9 67.5
9. % Cost Burden >50% 26 25.6 1.5 35.3 22.2 20.4 40.7 55 55 36.8 29.2
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 102 569 178 387 1,236 292 760 439 105 1,596 2,832
11. % with any housing problems 51 56.9 79.8 55 59.1 25.3 62.5 71.8 82.9 59.6 59.4
12.% Cost Burden >30%51 43.8 10.7 54 42.8 25.3 56.8 51 82.9 51.2 47.5
13. % Cost Burden >50% 0 0.7 0 7.8 2.8 7.5 16.4 7.5 51.4 14.7 9.5
14. Household Income >80% MFI 102 1,042 498 721 2,363 749 4,349 1,390 958 7,446 9,809
15. % with any housing problems 9.8 10.3 52.4 8.5 18.6 13 17.8 41.8 30.5 23.4 22.3
16.% Cost Burden >30%9.8 2.6 0.8 4.7 3.2 13 14.1 12.9 29 15.7 12.7
17. % Cost Burden >50%0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 1.4 4.1 1 0.8
18. Total Households 714 2,840 1,218 1,671 6,443 1,844 5,641 2,156 1,307 10,948 17,391
19. % with any housing problems 58 51.6 76.1 43.1 54.8 29.1 29.7 56.4 41.8 36.3 43.1
20. % Cost Burden >30 53.2 43 32.2 40.7 41.5 28.6 25.8 32.7 40.7 29.4 33.9
21. % Cost Burden >50 21.4 20.1 15.3 16.9 18.5 12.6 7.9 12.9 19 11 13.8
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Pittsburg(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 953 3,246 1,648 1,822 7,669 1,686 1,054 486 556 3,782 11,451
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 726 1,974 877 1,218 4,795 868 495 182 344 1,889 6,684
3. % with any housing problems 72.7 82 92 78.2 81.5 57.6 78.4 100 76.7 70.6 78.4
4. % Cost Burden >30%72.7 78.2 79.4 77.3 77.4 57.6 74.7 78.6 76.7 67.6 74.6
5. % Cost Burden >50% 41 56 50.2 65.8 55.2 35.7 67.1 51.6 68.3 51.4 54.1
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 227 1,272 771 604 2,874 818 559 304 212 1,893 4,767
7. % with any housing problems 63 62.7 83.7 70.7 70 30.3 75.8 92.1 81.1 59.4 65.8
8. % Cost Burden >30%61.2 55.4 37.6 68.4 53.8 30.3 71.6 80.9 81.1 56.3 54.8
9. % Cost Burden >50% 20.3 10.9 6.7 22.5 13 22 29.5 18.1 60.8 27.9 18.9
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 196 1,056 471 849 2,572 829 1,031 538 320 2,718 5,290
11. % with any housing problems 28.6 44.4 85.8 49.6 52.5 23.6 71.5 81.6 60 57.5 55.1
12.% Cost Burden >30%28.6 27.7 21.9 47.2 33.2 23.6 64.5 35.1 60 45.7 39.6
13. % Cost Burden >50% 0 1.7 0 3.5 1.9 8.6 15.1 4.5 16.6 11.2 6.7
14. Household Income >80% MFI 311 2,455 607 2,300 5,673 1,909 5,973 1,570 2,260 11,712 17,385
15. % with any housing problems 12.9 18.3 71.2 12.2 21.2 9.9 21.6 43.9 28.5 24 23.1
16.% Cost Burden >30%12.9 3.8 1.6 9 6.2 8.6 17.5 10.2 28.4 17.2 13.6
17. % Cost Burden >50%3.2 0 0 0 0.2 2 2.3 0.5 3 2.2 1.5
18. Total Households 1,460 6,757 2,726 4,971 15,914 4,424 8,058 2,594 3,136 18,212 34,126
19. % with any housing problems 52.5 49.3 83.9 41.9 53.2 25.6 35.2 61.3 40.6 37.5 44.9
20. % Cost Burden >30 52.3 39 40.3 39.5 40.6 25.1 30.8 28.5 40.5 30.7 35.3
21. % Cost Burden >50 24.2 18.7 18 19.5 19.3 13.6 9.8 7 15.4 11.3 15
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Richmond(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 3,643 5,228 1,926 4,077 14,874 7,093 3,517 1,282 2,150 14,042 28,916
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 2,315 2,860 956 2,425 8,556 3,111 1,416 438 1,170 6,135 14,691
3. % with any housing problems 73.1 78.3 92.9 72.7 76.9 61.8 88.1 90.6 75 72.5 75.1
4. % Cost Burden >30%71.7 76.6 78.8 71.5 74.1 61 87.3 90.6 74.2 71.7 73.1
5. % Cost Burden >50% 53.3 60 46.5 60.1 56.7 40.6 77.5 80.1 61.2 55.9 56.4
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 1,328 2,368 970 1,652 6,318 3,982 2,101 844 980 7,907 14,225
7. % with any housing problems 80.4 77.7 86.1 85.8 81.7 40 80.3 88.3 69.8 59.5 69.4
8. % Cost Burden >30%80.1 68.8 50.5 85.2 72.7 39.9 76.2 75.7 69.8 57.1 64
9. % Cost Burden >50% 38.8 21.6 15.7 39.7 29 21.9 57.1 47.4 53.9 37.9 34
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 870 3,073 920 2,522 7,385 4,266 4,338 1,485 1,523 11,612 18,997
11. % with any housing problems 59.2 52.2 75.9 54.8 56.8 29.1 74.6 82 69.9 58.2 57.7
12.% Cost Burden >30%58.7 41.8 32.9 53.3 46.6 29 71.9 62.5 69.9 54.7 51.5
13. % Cost Burden >50% 22.2 6.5 4.8 10.3 9.4 13.3 32.5 17.8 33.6 23.7 18.2
14. Household Income >80% MFI 1,880 11,511 2,078 9,702 25,171 19,134 66,362 12,993 14,283 112,772 137,943
15. % with any housing problems 32.6 17.5 48.7 12.7 19.4 13.6 22.7 34.5 29.6 23.4 22.7
16.% Cost Burden >30%26.8 9.9 3.6 10 10.7 13.4 21.3 21.3 29.3 21 19.1
17. % Cost Burden >50%8.7 0.5 0 1.2 1.4 3.4 3.3 2.5 4.6 3.4 3
18. Total Households 6,393 19,812 4,924 16,301 47,430 30,493 74,217 15,760 17,956 138,426 185,856
19. % with any housing problems 60.8 38.8 69.7 35.6 43.9 24.1 28.6 43.4 38.2 30.6 34
20. % Cost Burden >30 58.5 31.5 32.9 33.5 36 23.9 27 30 37.8 28.1 30.1
21. % Cost Burden >50 32.9 12.6 13 15.3 16.3 11 7.9 8.5 13.4 9.4 11.1
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Contra Costa County(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Elderly Small Related Large Related All Total Total
1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Renters 1 & 2 (2 to 4)(5 or more)Other Owners Households
member Households member Households
households households
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(L)
1. Household Income <=50% MFI 840 451 91 774 2,156 2,182 219 18 331 2,750 4,906
2. Household Income <=30% MFI 461 242 34 358 1,095 885 74 18 197 1,174 2,269
3. % with any housing problems 66.6 92.6 100 78.5 77.3 73.6 100 100 82.7 77.2 77.2
4. % Cost Burden >30%66.6 92.6 88.2 78.5 76.9 73.6 100 100 77.7 76.3 76.6
5. % Cost Burden >50% 52.1 82.6 58.8 78.5 67.7 56.9 86.5 77.8 67.5 60.9 64.2
6. Household Income >30% to <=50% MFI 379 209 57 416 1,061 1,297 145 0 134 1,576 2,637
7. % with any housing problems 77 88.5 82.5 95.7 86.9 60.7 82.8 N/A 82.1 64.5 73.5
8. % Cost Burden >30%77 83.7 68.4 95.7 85.2 59.9 82.8 N/A 82.1 63.9 72.5
9. % Cost Burden >50% 58.8 37.3 26.3 60.1 53.3 24.3 69 N/A 68.7 32.2 40.7
10. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 300 316 72 603 1,291 1,599 257 34 265 2,155 3,446
11. % with any housing problems 71 68 100 63 68.2 30.6 66.1 58.8 66.4 39.7 50.3
12.% Cost Burden >30%67.7 63.6 11.1 59.7 59.8 30.6 62.3 29.4 66.4 38.7 46.6
13. % Cost Burden >50% 26 8.9 5.6 3.3 10.1 12.3 47.5 29.4 27.2 18.6 15.4
14. Household Income >80% MFI 674 2,399 162 2,907 6,142 6,006 6,702 914 1,997 15,619 21,761
15. % with any housing problems 34.4 22.8 75.3 7.7 18.3 11.3 19.3 30.9 26.1 17.8 17.9
16.% Cost Burden >30%32.3 12 21.6 6.2 11.8 11.3 18.3 25.1 25.6 17 15.5
17. % Cost Burden >50%14.7 1 0 0.4 2.2 1.3 2.9 1.1 5.1 2.5 2.4
18. Total Households 1,814 3,166 325 4,284 9,589 9,787 7,178 966 2,593 20,524 30,113
19. % with any housing problems 57.6 37 84.6 29.9 39.3 26.6 23.1 33.1 37.4 27.1 31
20. % Cost Burden >30 56.2 28.1 34.5 28.5 33.8 26.5 22 26.6 36.6 26.2 28.7
21. % Cost Burden >50 35.3 10.5 12 13.1 16.4 11.2 6.7 3.5 15.4 9.8 11.9
Renters Owners
Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem
Housing Problems Output for -All Households
Name of Jurisdiction:
Walnut Creek(CDBG), California
Source of Data:
CHAS Data Book
Data Current as of:
2000
APPENDIX 5.
HMDA DATA TECHNICAL NOTES
Page | 1
Appendix 5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data Technical Note
The most recent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data set was analyzed for
lending patterns (2008 Loan Application Register (LAR) & Transmittal Sheet (TS) Raw
Data).
Data were reviewed for loan applications to purchase homes in the 2000 U.S. Decennial
Census tracts that fall within the 2008 boundaries of Contra Costa County (see the
HMDA maps for tract numbers and boundaries). There are 67,206 records in the HMDA
data set.
The analysis was only concerned with fair lending practices for home purchases in
which purchasers were the primary resident; therefore the HMDA data is limited to
home purchase transactions reported as purchases by owner-occupants.
This exclusion reduced the data set by 40,611 records to 26,595 records. The excluded
records included 3,542 home improvement records, 33,184 refinancing records, 6,812
records for properties not to be owner-occupied, and 357 “not applicable” records.
Another 5,713 loan purchase records for loans purchased by institutions (usually
through foreclosure) and 7 “pre-approval” requests were excluded. These records were
excluded because they do not represent loan types expected to include discriminatory
lending practices.
The remaining 20,875 records represent actions reported by lenders in response to a
request from a consumer for a new home loan to purchase a primary residence.
It should be noted that multiple applications by the same household may be present in
the data set. Since the data set is anonymous, it does not contain a variable that can be
used to filter out duplicates.
The HMDA data report information on the location of the property being mortgaged;
the type, purpose and intended use of the loan; characteristics of the lender and
borrower; and the “action” the lender took. This final variable is of interest to analyze
lending patterns. It tells us the result of the lenders’ decisions regarding applications for
mortgage credit.
Appendix 5. HMDA Data Technical Notes
Page | 2
The action types reported in the HMDA data are:
1 loan originated
2 application approved but not accepted
3 application denied by a financial institution
4 application withdrawn by applicant
5 file closed for incompleteness
6 loan purchased by the institution
7 pre-approval request denied by financial institution
8 pre-approval request approved but not accepted
As previously mentioned, the data analysis was limited to certain action types that are
relative to requests for new mortgage credit. Records for action types 6, 7 , and 8 have
been excluded.
The action types in the data set were organized according to three specific outcomes:
denials, failures, and originations. It is important to note that applications resulting in
denial are included in applications resulting in failure.
The analyzed outcomes were grouped as follows:
Total Applications Action types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Denials Action type 3
Failures Action types 2, 3, 4, 5
Originations Action type 1
APPENDIX 6.
MORTGAGE LENDING PATTERNS
(MAPS)
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\ORIGINATION COUNT QUARTILE.MXD - 3/24/2010 @ 12:18:32 PM2 0 2
MILES Origination Count Quartile
Legend
Origination Count Quartile
0 - 31
32 - 47
48 - 69
70 - 1009
County Boundary
Map 19
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\ORIGINATION PERCENT QUARTILE.MXD - 3/24/2010 @ 12:22:34 PM2 0 2
MILES Origination Percent Quartile
Legend
Origination Percent Quartile
0% - 53%
54% - 59%
60% - 65%
66% - 100%
County Boundary
Map 20
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\DENIAL COUNT QUARTILE.MXD - 3/24/2010 @ 11:44:31 AM2 0 2
MILES Denial Count Quartile
Legend
Denial Count Quartile
0 - 7
8 - 14
15 - 23
24 - 300
County Boundary
Map 21
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\DENIAL PERCENT QUARTILE.MXD - 3/24/2010 @ 11:47:37 AM2 0 2
MILES Denial Percent Quartile
Legend
Denial Percent Quartile
0% - 13%
14% - 17%
18% - 21%
22% - 100%
County Boundary
Map 22
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\FAILURE COUNT QUARTILE.MXD - 3/24/2010 @ 11:52:36 AM2 0 2
MILES Failure Count Quartile
Legend
Failure Count Quartile
0 - 19
20- 33
34 - 51
51 - 830
County Boundary
Map 23
355104
304000
301000
356002
355106
355303
315000
345201
303100
303200
355200
347000
302002
352102
313202
346102
309000
302003
378000
320001
346201
356001
346202
361000
354002
313103
352202
318000
354001
353001
357000
314200
365001
302004
352101
345107
345109355304
359202
360100
348000
305000 306002
355301
350000
351200
346101
35
1
1
0
0
320002
327000355302345108
314103
355101359101
3
5
2
2
0
1
3452023
4
0
0
0
2
338302
380000
343003365002 314102321102
34
2
0
0
0
32
1
1
0
3
353002321101
363000322000
337300338202308002
333100
341000345105308001
338201324000 313101349000
306001
339000343002
34
5
1
0
3
313201
3
3
7
2
0
0319000 30720
5
332
0
0
0316000359204
331000329000
33810033
7
1
0
0
35
5
3
0
5
340001343
0
0
1
385
1
0
0
314104
321200360200
34
5
1
0
1330000338301336200381000
367100 335000
379000
311000
391000Source: Bing MapsT:\_GIS\CONTRA_COSTA_COUNTY\MXDS\FORCLOSURE\FAILURE PERCENT QUARTILE.MXD - 1/12/2010 @ 11:56:30 AM2 0 2
MILES Failure Percent Quartile
Legend
Failure Percent Quartile
0% - 35%
35.1% - 42%
42.1% - 48%
48% - 100%
County Boundary
Map 24
APPENDIX 7.
MORTGAGE LENDING BY CENSUS
TRACT (HMDA)
Page | 1
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
LOAN APPLICATIONS BY CENSUS TRACT
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3010 113 0.54% 20 17.70% 48 42.48% 65 57.52%
3020.02 492 2.36% 96 19.51% 199 40.45% 293 59.55%
3020.03 245 1.17% 44 17.96% 79 32.24% 166 67.76%
3020.04 712 3.41% 134 18.82% 302 42.42% 410 57.58%
3031 650 3.11% 130 20.00% 283 43.54% 367 56.46%
3032 1035 4.96% 171 16.52% 388 37.49% 647 62.51%
3040 490 2.35% 99 20.20% 209 42.65% 281 57.35%
3050 57 0.27% 14 24.56% 27 47.37% 30 52.63%
3060.01 130 0.62% 24 18.46% 45 34.62% 85 65.38%
3060.02 90 0.43% 14 15.56% 39 43.33% 51 56.67%
3071.01 96 0.46% 29 30.21% 47 48.96% 49 51.04%
3071.02 70 0.34% 13 18.57% 32 45.71% 38 54.29%
3072.01 43 0.21% 12 27.91% 24 55.81% 19 44.19%
3072.02 43 0.21% 7 16.28% 17 39.53% 26 60.47%
3072.04 104 0.50% 22 21.15% 41 39.42% 63 60.58%
3072.05 109 0.52% 23 21.10% 45 41.28% 64 58.72%
3080.01 164 0.79% 48 29.27% 87 53.05% 77 46.95%
3080.02 178 0.85% 41 23.03% 71 39.89% 107 60.11%
3090 76 0.36% 15 19.74% 29 38.16% 47 61.84%
3100 144 0.69% 40 27.78% 72 50.00% 72 50.00%
3110 93 0.45% 22 23.66% 45 48.39% 48 51.61%
3120 36 0.17% 7 19.44% 17 47.22% 19 52.78%
3131.01 121 0.58% 31 25.62% 64 52.89% 57 47.11%
3131.02 128 0.61% 31 24.22% 63 49.22% 65 50.78%
3131.03 218 1.04% 47 21.56% 93 42.66% 125 57.34%
3132.01 188 0.90% 52 27.66% 96 51.06% 92 48.94%
3132.02 174 0.83% 30 17.24% 72 41.38% 102 58.62%
3141.02 126 0.60% 36 28.57% 65 51.59% 61 48.41%
3141.03 76 0.36% 14 18.42% 33 43.42% 43 56.58%
3141.04 101 0.48% 35 34.65% 59 58.42% 42 41.58%
3142 79 0.38% 18 22.78% 33 41.77% 46 58.23%
3150 94 0.45% 13 13.83% 32 34.04% 62 65.96%
3160 4 0.02% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00%
3170 17 0.08% 3 17.65% 8 47.06% 9 52.94%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 2
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3180 28 0.13% 2 7.14% 8 28.57% 20 71.43%
3190 81 0.39% 14 17.28% 35 43.21% 46 56.79%
3200.01 45 0.22% 9 20.00% 22 48.89% 23 51.11%
3200.02 131 0.63% 17 12.98% 38 29.01% 93 70.99%
3211.01 56 0.27% 9 16.07% 16 28.57% 40 71.43%
3211.02 95 0.46% 11 11.58% 29 30.53% 66 69.47%
3211.03 59 0.28% 2 3.39% 19 32.20% 40 67.80%
3212 57 0.27% 5 8.77% 16 28.07% 41 71.93%
3220 81 0.39% 7 8.64% 36 44.44% 45 55.56%
3230 60 0.29% 7 11.67% 20 33.33% 40 66.67%
3240 93 0.45% 14 15.05% 46 49.46% 47 50.54%
3250 77 0.37% 16 20.78% 31 40.26% 46 59.74%
3260 55 0.26% 9 16.36% 20 36.36% 35 63.64%
3270 161 0.77% 32 19.88% 80 49.69% 81 50.31%
3280 14 0.07% 4 28.57% 12 85.71% 2 14.29%
3290 111 0.53% 15 13.51% 51 45.95% 60 54.05%
3300 111 0.53% 14 12.61% 46 41.44% 65 58.56%
3310 140 0.67% 22 15.71% 55 39.29% 85 60.71%
3320 117 0.56% 17 14.53% 43 36.75% 74 63.25%
3331 117 0.56% 21 17.95% 54 46.15% 63 53.85%
3332 88 0.42% 15 17.05% 34 38.64% 54 61.36%
3340.01 66 0.32% 14 21.21% 25 37.88% 41 62.12%
3340.03 46 0.22% 7 15.22% 16 34.78% 30 65.22%
3340.04 104 0.50% 14 13.46% 33 31.73% 71 68.27%
3340.05 18 0.09% 2 11.11% 6 33.33% 12 66.67%
3350 56 0.27% 16 28.57% 25 44.64% 31 55.36%
3361.01 39 0.19% 13 33.33% 22 56.41% 17 43.59%
3361.02 73 0.35% 13 17.81% 29 39.73% 44 60.27%
3362 108 0.52% 26 24.07% 57 52.78% 51 47.22%
3371 40 0.19% 5 12.50% 15 37.50% 25 62.50%
3372 98 0.47% 13 13.27% 36 36.73% 62 63.27%
3373 94 0.45% 12 12.77% 40 42.55% 54 57.45%
3381 127 0.61% 22 17.32% 50 39.37% 77 60.63%
3382.01 61 0.29% 16 26.23% 25 40.98% 36 59.02%
3382.02 154 0.74% 20 12.99% 50 32.47% 104 67.53%
3383.01 36 0.17% 6 16.67% 15 41.67% 21 58.33%
3383.02 87 0.42% 12 13.79% 32 36.78% 55 63.22%
3390 135 0.65% 13 9.63% 42 31.11% 93 68.89%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 3
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3400.01 97 0.46% 9 9.28% 36 37.11% 61 62.89%
3400.02 128 0.61% 17 13.28% 52 40.63% 76 59.38%
3410 70 0.34% 4 5.71% 22 31.43% 48 68.57%
3420 94 0.45% 16 17.02% 38 40.43% 56 59.57%
3430.01 56 0.27% 7 12.50% 23 41.07% 33 58.93%
3430.02 64 0.31% 10 15.63% 20 31.25% 44 68.75%
3430.03 66 0.32% 12 18.18% 30 45.45% 36 54.55%
3440 18 0.09% 3 16.67% 6 33.33% 12 66.67%
3451.01 121 0.58% 21 17.36% 49 40.50% 72 59.50%
3451.02 56 0.27% 8 14.29% 19 33.93% 37 66.07%
3451.03 78 0.37% 16 20.51% 33 42.31% 45 57.69%
3451.05 54 0.26% 8 14.81% 15 27.78% 39 72.22%
3451.07 134 0.64% 11 8.21% 38 28.36% 96 71.64%
3451.08 211 1.01% 27 12.80% 68 32.23% 143 67.77%
3451.09 234 1.12% 28 11.97% 95 40.60% 139 59.40%
3451.1 183 0.88% 32 17.49% 89 48.63% 94 51.37%
3452.01 130 0.62% 19 14.62% 55 42.31% 75 57.69%
3452.02 120 0.57% 19 15.83% 48 40.00% 72 60.00%
3461.01 43 0.21% 5 11.63% 16 37.21% 27 62.79%
3461.02 100 0.48% 18 18.00% 47 47.00% 53 53.00%
3462.01 93 0.45% 16 17.20% 40 43.01% 53 56.99%
3462.02 173 0.83% 28 16.18% 73 42.20% 100 57.80%
3470 72 0.34% 7 9.72% 22 30.56% 50 69.44%
3480 66 0.32% 4 6.06% 17 25.76% 49 74.24%
3490 47 0.23% 6 12.77% 16 34.04% 31 65.96%
3500 49 0.23% 3 6.12% 16 32.65% 33 67.35%
3511 159 0.76% 10 6.29% 30 18.87% 129 81.13%
3512 87 0.42% 7 8.05% 32 36.78% 55 63.22%
3521.01 26 0.12% 3 11.54% 10 38.46% 16 61.54%
3521.02 74 0.35% 12 16.22% 38 51.35% 36 48.65%
3522.01 72 0.34% 4 5.56% 25 34.72% 47 65.28%
3522.02 49 0.23% 4 8.16% 11 22.45% 38 77.55%
3530.01 70 0.34% 10 14.29% 30 42.86% 40 57.14%
3530.02 44 0.21% 0.00% 14 31.82% 30 68.18%
3540.01 33 0.16% 7 21.21% 18 54.55% 15 45.45%
3540.02 84 0.40% 13 15.48% 35 41.67% 49 58.33%
3551.01 654 3.13% 140 21.41% 277 42.35% 377 57.65%
3551.04 1838 8.80% 300 16.32% 829 45.10% 1009 54.90%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 4
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3551.06 718 3.44% 192 26.74% 351 48.89% 367 51.11%
3552 238 1.14% 44 18.49% 100 42.02% 138 57.98%
3553.01 127 0.61% 9 7.09% 49 38.58% 78 61.42%
3553.02 45 0.22% 7 15.56% 16 35.56% 29 64.44%
3553.03 10 0.05% 2 20.00% 2 20.00% 8 80.00%
3553.04 107 0.51% 19 17.76% 29 27.10% 78 72.90%
3553.05 61 0.29% 12 19.67% 26 42.62% 35 57.38%
3560.01 65 0.31% 15 23.08% 31 47.69% 34 52.31%
3560.02 112 0.54% 33 29.46% 58 51.79% 54 48.21%
3570 30 0.14% 10 33.33% 15 50.00% 15 50.00%
3580 93 0.45% 21 22.58% 45 48.39% 48 51.61%
3591.01 379 1.82% 75 19.79% 172 45.38% 207 54.62%
3591.02 70 0.34% 8 11.43% 26 37.14% 44 62.86%
3592.02 77 0.37% 4 5.19% 25 32.47% 52 67.53%
3592.03 103 0.49% 19 18.45% 40 38.83% 63 61.17%
3592.04 71 0.34% 12 16.90% 30 42.25% 41 57.75%
3601 128 0.61% 20 15.63% 48 37.50% 80 62.50%
3602 70 0.34% 17 24.29% 31 44.29% 39 55.71%
3610 65 0.31% 5 7.69% 18 27.69% 47 72.31%
3620 36 0.17% 6 16.67% 11 30.56% 25 69.44%
3630 132 0.63% 35 26.52% 63 47.73% 69 52.27%
3640.01 115 0.55% 26 22.61% 60 52.17% 55 47.83%
3640.02 121 0.58% 23 19.01% 52 42.98% 69 57.02%
3650.01 299 1.43% 64 21.40% 137 45.82% 162 54.18%
3650.02 163 0.78% 52 31.90% 109 66.87% 54 33.13%
3660.01 91 0.44% 26 28.57% 48 52.75% 43 47.25%
3660.02 86 0.41% 15 17.44% 43 50.00% 43 50.00%
3671 105 0.50% 27 25.71% 60 57.14% 45 42.86%
3672 87 0.42% 18 20.69% 36 41.38% 51 58.62%
3680 120 0.57% 30 25.00% 64 53.33% 56 46.67%
3690.01 55 0.26% 14 25.45% 29 52.73% 26 47.27%
3690.02 50 0.24% 12 24.00% 25 50.00% 25 50.00%
3700 40 0.19% 5 12.50% 18 45.00% 22 55.00%
3710 82 0.39% 14 17.07% 33 40.24% 49 59.76%
3720 129 0.62% 23 17.83% 56 43.41% 73 56.59%
3730 66 0.32% 19 28.79% 37 56.06% 29 43.94%
3740 56 0.27% 7 12.50% 21 37.50% 35 62.50%
3750 45 0.22% 19 42.22% 29 64.44% 16 35.56%
Appendix 7. Mortgage Lending by Census Tract (HMDA)
Page | 5
2000
Census
Tract (CT)
Applica-
tions in
CT
CT
Applications
as % of
County
Denials
in CT
CT Denial
Rate
"Failures"
in CT
CT
"Failure"
Rate
Orig-
inations
in CT
CT
Origination
Rate
3760 79 0.38% 21 26.58% 43 54.43% 36 45.57%
3770 72 0.34% 26 36.11% 50 69.44% 22 30.56%
3780 74 0.35% 13 17.57% 35 47.30% 39 52.70%
3790 84 0.40% 17 20.24% 41 48.81% 43 51.19%
3800 142 0.68% 19 13.38% 55 38.73% 87 61.27%
3810 111 0.53% 40 36.04% 61 54.95% 50 45.05%
3820 97 0.46% 14 14.43% 44 45.36% 53 54.64%
3830 30 0.14% 3 10.00% 10 33.33% 20 66.67%
3840 51 0.24% 5 9.80% 14 27.45% 37 72.55%
3851 41 0.20% 6 14.63% 11 26.83% 30 73.17%
3852 25 0.12% 4 16.00% 11 44.00% 14 56.00%
3860 22 0.11% 3 13.64% 10 45.45% 12 54.55%
3870 15 0.07% 1 6.67% 6 40.00% 9 60.00%
3880 15 0.07% 0.00% 3 20.00% 12 80.00%
3891 16 0.08% 5 31.25% 6 37.50% 10 62.50%
3892 7 0.03% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 4 57.14%
3901 29 0.14% 4 13.79% 8 27.59% 21 72.41%
3902 22 0.11% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 19 86.36%
3910 29 0.14% 2 6.90% 7 24.14% 22 75.86%
3920 30 0.14% 3 10.00% 6 20.00% 24 80.00%
NA 75 0.36% 5 6.67% 25 33.33% 50 66.67%
Total 20,875 100.00% 3,837 18.38% 8,823 42.27% 12,052 57.73%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2008 LAR and TS Raw Data
Note: Loan failure includes all loan applications not originated, icluding loan denail.
APPENDIX 8.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS REPORTS
Page | 1
APPENDIX 8. FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS REPORTS
LOCAL FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
The following information was provided by local agencies regarding the amount and
type of fair housing complaints and requests for information.
Housing Rights, Inc.
Housing Rights, Inc. (HRI) provided records of housing complaints filed in Contra Costa
County from 2006 through 2009.1 HRI received a total of 317 fair housing complaints
during this time frame. Please note that HRI did not serve all jurisdictions within Contra
Costa County for all three years and has never served the City of Pittsburg.
Of the 317 complaints received, the majority were based on disability (32 percent) and
accommodation (18 percent), followed by race (13 percent), family status (11 percent),
and national origin (10 percent).
During the 2006 to 2009 time frame, the client’s decision to stop the case resulted in the
majority of closed cases (21 percent). Fifteen percent were closed by HRI (15 percent)
and only 3 percent were closed by DFEH (2 percent) and HUD (1 percent). The
remaining cases had the following outcomes:
Advice only (13 percent)
Client disappeared (12 percent)
Client refused to follow through (12 percent)
Pending referrals (7 percent)
Insufficient evidence (6 percent)
Administratively closed (5 percent)
Conciliated by other attorney/agency (4 percent)
Conciliated by HRI attorney (1 percent)
No discrimination referred to tenant/landlord counselor (1 percent)
Bay Area Legal Aid
Bay Area Legal Aid handled (i.e., closed) a total of 389 housing complaint cases in
Contra Costa County from March 1, 2007, to November 30, 2009. Bay Area Legal Aid is
currently in Quarter 12 of a three-year HUD fair housing project, and 389 cases represent
the total number of cases for the first 11 quarters.
Of the 389 cases handled, 204 (52 percent) were complaints regarding disability
discrimination and requests for reasonable accommodations. One hundred and twenty-
1 Personal communication, Wanda Remmers, Executive Director, Housing Rights, Inc.
Appendix 8. Fair Housing Complaints Reports
Page | 2
three (32 percent) of the complaints were related to race discrimination, followed by
complaints related to gender (23 complaints or 6 percent), family status (21 complaints
or 5 percent), national origin (14 complaints or 4 percent), religion (3 complaints or 1
percent), and sexual orientation (1 complaint or 1 percent).
Bay Area Legal Aid does not organize their data by county as to how each case was
settled; therefore the following data is provided for all of the fair housing cases from
four counties to indicate the pattern for the typical handling of cases.
Advice and/or brief services provided (40 percent)
Referral to other local organization or legal services provider (27 percent)
Obtained favorable resolution of fair housing complaint and settlement of issue
in litigation or settlement (19 percent)
Administratively resolved (8 percent)
Resolved by HUD (4 percent)
Other (2 percent)
Resolved by private attorney (1 percent)
Fair Housing of Marin
Fair Housing of Marin did not start working with the City of Richmond until January
2009; therefore they only have complaints recorded from January 2009 to January 2010.2
A total of 21 complaints were recorded over this time period.
Of the 21 complaints, 6 were on the basis on disability and accommodation, 4 were on
the basis of race, and the remaining complaints were related to affordable housing, late
rent, security deposit issues, rejected rental applications, and repairs. Of the cases closed,
29 percent were relevant to fair housing, of which two were closed by HUD and two
were closed by DFEH.
2 Personal communication, Caroline Peattie, Housing Director, Fair Housing of Marin.
APPENDIX 9.
LICENSED COMMUNITY CARE
FACILITIES
Page | 1
APPENDIX 9
LICENSED CARE FACILITIES BY JURISDICTION AND TYPE
Type of
Facility
Antioch Concord Urban County Pittsburg Richmond Walnut Creek Total
Number Capacit
y Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity Number Capacity
Adult Day
Care Facility 9 354 4 221 14 485 1 72 6 306 2 84 36 1,522
Adult
Residential
Facility
28 166 27 178 57 408 18 105 21 118 6 36 157 1,011
Group Home 12 74 7 56 24 180 5 30 6 36 0 0 54 376
Residential
Care Facility 42 550 92 928 194 3,399 15 101 18 216 79 1,290 440 6,484
Small Family
Homes 4 19 1 6 7 42 1 2 1 5 0 0 14 74
Social
Rehabilitation
Facility
0 0 0 0 2 32 0 0 1 16 0 0 3 48
Transitional
Housing
Placement
1 12 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27
Total 96 1,175 132 1,404 298 4,546 40 310 53 697 87 1,410 706 9,542
Source: State of California Community Care Licensing Division, September 2009
APPENDIX 10.
PERMITTED HOUSING TYPES
Page | 1
APPENDIX 10
PERMITTED HOUSING TYPES BY JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction Single
Family
Multi
Family
Residential
Care
Facilities (6
or fewer)
Residential
Care
Facilities (7
or more)
Emergency
Shelters
Single Room
Occupancy
Units
Second
Units
Transitional/
Supportive
Housing
Reasonable
Accommodation
Urban County
Brentwood P P P U U U P U Y
Clayton P P P U P U P P Y
Danville P P P U P P P P Y
El Cerrito
Y
Hercules
Lafayette P P P P P P P P Y
Martinez P P P U P P P Y
Moraga P P P ? P P P P Y
Oakley P P P U P P P P Y
Orinda
Pinole P P P U P ? P U Y
Pleasant Hill P P ? ? ? U ? ? Y
San Pablo
San Ramon P P P U P P P P Y
Entitlement Jurisdictions
Antioch P U U U P P U U Y
Concord P P P P P P P P Y
Pittsburg P P P U P U P P Y
Richmond P P P U P U P P Y
Walnut Creek P P P P P P P P Y
Contra Costa County P P P U P P P P Y
U: use permit required P: permitted use (note, if the use if permitted in one district, it will be noted as permitted in the table).
Please note, permitted uses and conditional uses are subject to different zones for each jurisdiction. Please see each jurisdictions zoning code for more detail.
APPENDIX 11.
LOCALLY ADOPTED BUILDING CODES
Page | 1
Appendix 11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
Local Building Codes
Antioch
The City of Antioch has adopted the 2007 California Building Code. The California
Building Code has established construction standards for all residential buildings, which
provide minimum standards necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
residents. The City also requires that all new residential construction comply with the
federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which includes accessibility requirements
for certain types of buildings. Specific accessibility requirements for residential buildings
are also contained in the California Building Code.
Concord
The City of Concord has adopted the California Building Code, in addition to Fire,
Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Uniform Codes, as the basis for its building
standards. The City has also adopted the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings. Permits are required for all electrical and plumbing work and
for other major home improvements and modifications.
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County has adopted the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform
Housing Code, which establish standards and require inspections at various stages
of construction to ensure code compliance. The County’s building code also requires
new residential construction to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Pittsburg
The City of Pittsburg requires all building construction standards to conform to the
California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). In
addition, new residential construction must comply with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). As a standard practice, the City does not impose
additional local requirements to the California Building Code standards; however,
the City is considering adding programs and policies into the 2009 – 2014 Housing
Element to provide incentives to exceed minimum energy efficiency standards set
forth in Title 24.
Appendix 11. Locally Adopted Building Codes
Page | 2
Richmond
The City of Richmond’s Building Department currently administers codes and code
enforcement under the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Amendments
to the UBC have been made by the City and are based on the 2001 California Building
Code.
Walnut Creek
The City of Walnut Creek has adopted the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform
Housing Code. Development must comply with applicable codes. Code enforcement is
usually triggered by complaints, but at times City personnel will initiate enforcement
activity if a structure appears to be unsafe and not in compliance with the Uniform
Housing Code. There is a very low incidence of substandard structures in the city.
APPENDIX 12.
LOCAL RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
Page | 1
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
Federal grants awarded to states
and units of general local
government on a formula basis
for housing and community
development activities which
primarily benefit low- and
moderate-income households.
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Homeless assistance
Infrastructure
Home Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME)
Federal grants awarded to states
and units of general local
government to produce or
preserve affordable housing.
New construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Rental assistance
Mortgage Credit Certificate
Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC) program assists first-time
homebuyers with the purchase of
existing or new homes. The MCC
tax credit reduces the federal
income tax of borrowers
purchasing qualified homes.
First-time homebuyer
assistance
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers
Rental assistance payments to
owners of private market-rate
units on behalf of low-income
tenants.
Rental assistance
Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
Tax credits are available to
persons and corporations that
invest in affordable housing.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Multi-Family Housing Program
(MHP)
Deferred payment loans from the
state to local governments and
nonprofit and for-profit
developers for new construction,
rehabilitation, and preservation
of permanent and transitional
rental housing for lower-income
households. This program is
currently suspended for lack of
funding.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Conversion of
nonresidential to rental
Multi-family Housing Program –
Supportive Housing
Deferred payment loans from the
state for rental housing with
supportive services for the
disabled who are homeless or at
risk of homelessness. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
New construction
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Conversion of
nonresidential to rental
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
Page | 2
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
Grants from the state to cities to
provide down payment
assistance (up to $30,000) to low-
and moderate-income first-time
homebuyers of new homes in
projects with affordability
enhanced by local regulatory
incentives or barrier reductions.
This program is currently
suspended for lack of funding.
Homebuyer assistance
CalHome Grants from the state to cities
and nonprofit developers to offer
homebuyer assistance, including
down payment assistance,
rehabilitation,
acquisition/rehabilitation, and
homebuyer counseling. Loans to
developers for property
acquisition, site development,
predevelopment and
construction period expenses for
homeownership projects. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
Predevelopment, site
development, site
acquisition
Rehabilitation
Acquisition/rehabilitation
Down payment assistance
Mortgage financing
Homebuyer counseling
Transit-Oriented Development
Program
Funding for housing and related
infrastructure near transit stations.
This program is currently
suspended for lack of funding.
Rental housing
construction.
Mortgage assistance.
Infill Incentive Grant Program Funding of public infrastructure
(water, sewer, traffic, parks, site
cleanup, etc.) to facilitate infill
housing development. This
program is currently suspended
for lack of funding.
Infrastructure to support
high density affordable
housing.
CalHFA Affordable Housing
Partnerships Program (AHPP)
Affordable senior financing from
CalHFA when combined with a
local homebuyer assistance
program.
Homebuyer assistance
CalHFA California
Homebuyer's Downpayment
Assistance Program (CHDAP)
Deferred-payment junior loan to
qualified borrowers to be used for
their down payment or closing
costs.
Homebuyer assistance
Redevelopment Housing Fund State law requires that 20% of
Redevelopment Agency funds
be set aside for a wide range of
affordable housing activities
governed by state law.
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New construction
Appendix 12. Local Resources for Affordable Housing
Page | 3
Program Name Description Eligible Housing Activities
Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae)
Fixed rate mortgages issued by
private mortgage insurers.
Mortgages which fund the
purchase and rehabilitation of a
home. Low down payment
mortgages for single-family
homes in underserved low-
income and minority cities.
Homebuyer assistance
Federal Home Loan Bank
Affordable Housing Program
Direct subsidies to nonprofit and
for-profit developers and public
agencies for affordable low-
income ownership and rental
projects.
New construction
Freddie Mac HomeWorks – First and second
mortgages that include
rehabilitation loan; city provides
gap financing for rehabilitation
component. Households earning
up to 80% MFI qualify.
Homebuyer assistance
combined with
rehabilitation
DRAFT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FY 2010/11
ACTION PLAN
Community Development Block Grant
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Emergency Shelter Grants
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
March 26, 2010
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1
Program Description....................................................................................................................... 1
Community Development Block Grant...................................................................................... 1
HOME Investment Partnerships Act .......................................................................................... 2
Emergency Shelter Grants.......................................................................................................... 2
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS .......................................................................... 2
Available Resources........................................................................................................................ 2
Community Development Block Grant...................................................................................... 3
Emergency Shelter Grants.......................................................................................................... 4
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids ........................................................................... 4
Additional Resources.................................................................................................................. 4
Activities to be Undertaken ............................................................................................................ 5
Housing....................................................................................................................................... 5
American Dream Downpayment Intitiative (ADDI).................................................................. 7
Non-housing Community Development Needs.......................................................................... 7
Fair Housing................................................................................................................................ 9
North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy.......................................................... 12
Geographic Distribution................................................................................................................ 14
Summary of FY 2010/11 Geographic Distribution .................................................................. 15
Other Actions................................................................................................................................ 16
Additional Public Policies to Remove Barriers and Obstacles to the Provision of Affordable
Housing..................................................................................................................................... 16
Lead-based Paint Hazard Implementation Plan........................................................................ 18
Decrease the Number of Poverty Level Households................................................................ 18
Develop Institutional Structure................................................................................................. 21
Enhance Coordination between Public and Private Housing ................................................... 21
Foster Public Housing Improvements and Resident Initiatives................................................ 22
Public Housing Resident Initiatives.......................................................................................... 22
Additional Requirements.............................................................................................................. 22
Monitoring Plan........................................................................................................................ 23
Limited-English Proficient Populations/Language Assistance Plan......................................... 26
Summary of Public Participation Process..................................................................................... 26
Public Notices …………………………………………………………………………………...
ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT TABLES................................................................................... 27
ATTACHMENT B – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS CHART ..................................... 28
ATTACHMENT C – CERTIFICATIONS................................................................................... 29
ATTACHMENT D—FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER'S PROGRAM........................................... 30
ATTACHMENT E—AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PROCEDURES..................................... 33
ATTACHMENT F—MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS OUTREACH PROGRAM... 36
Executive Summary
The Contra Costa County FY 2010/11 Action Plan describes recommendations for funding of
specific projects and programs to address housing, economic development, infrastructure/public
facility improvements, and public service needs utilizing Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds.
These funds are allocated annually to entitlement communities through the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to carry out a wide range of community development
activities that benefit lower income persons and households1 . In order to receive annual
allocations, jurisdictions must submit a five-year Consolidated Plan 2 and an annual Action Plan.
The FY 2010/15 3 Contra Costa Consortium Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) identifies
priority needs, strategies to meet the priority needs, and goals to be addressed during the five-
year period for housing, economic development, infrastructure/public facility, and public
services. The Action Plan must demonstrate the linkage between the use of funds and the specific
objectives developed to address needs identified in the five-year Consolidated Plan.
The County received the following allocations for FY 2010/11:
CDBG $3,736,986
HOME $3,220,509
ESG $ 151,604
HOPWA $ 450,000
Program Description
Community Development Block Grant
The primary purpose of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities by providing
decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally
for persons of low income. The County’s goal is to develop and conserve viable communities in
areas where blight and disinvestment threaten residents’ safety, vitality and productivity. County
CDBG funds can be used only for projects that benefit Urban County 4 residents. Since 1975,
1 The Contra Costa County CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs use the following income definitions: Extremely-low
income households are defined as households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income (AMI) for the
Oakland PMSA as adjusted for household size. Very-low income households are defined as households with incomes at or
below 50 percent AMI, and low-income households are households with incomes at or below 80 percent AMI. Although
CDBG regulations use the terms low and moderate income to describe households with incomes at or below 50 percent and 80
percent AMI respectively, the County has elected to use the terms very-low and low-income to be consistent with its other
programs.
2 The Consolidated Plan is available for review at the Community Development Department or visit our web site at
www.ccreach.org.
3 The Consolidated Plan covers FY 2010/11 through FY 2014/15.
4 The Urban County consists of all of Contra Costa with the exception of the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Richmond and
Walnut Creek. These cities are separate entitlement jurisdictions under the CDBG program.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
1
Contra Costa County has used the CDBG program to improve the quality of life and physical
conditions in its lower income communities.
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
The purpose of the HOME program is to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and
affordable housing for very-low and low-income households. In June of 1993, Contra Costa
County as the Urban County representative, and the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and
Walnut Creek, joined together to form a Consortium for purposes of participation in the HOME
program. The City of Richmond operates an independent HOME program. HOME funds may be
used for projects to acquire, rehabilitate, and construct housing for lower-income households in
the Consortium area.
Emergency Shelter Grants
The purpose of the ESG program is to provide emergency shelter and related services to the
County’s homeless populations. Eligible activities include: the rehabilitation and conversion of
buildings for use as emergency shelters; the provision of essential services to the homeless;
operating support for emergency shelters; and homeless prevention activities. ESG funds are
limited to projects and programs benefiting Urban County residents.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
The purpose of the HOPWA Program is to provide affordable housing, housing counseling and
advocacy programs for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS who are either homeless or have
unstable housing. The County represents all Contra Costa jurisdictions for purposes of
administering the HOPWA program.5
Available Resources
The County will have $7.5 million in federal resources for FY 2010/11. The following sections
breakdown the proposed sources and uses of those funds. Funds are allocated by the County
annually through a competitive application process to community and social service agencies,
public agencies, non-profit and for-profit housing developers, and businesses to implement
programs that provide affordable housing and strengthen and revitalize lower income
communities.
On April 27, 2010 a public meeting was held before the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors (Board) on the proposed allocation of FY 2010/11 CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds,
and FY 2008/09 HOPWA funds. The Board considered the recommendations for funding of FY
2010/11 projects from the Board’s Family and Human Services (public service and ESG
projects) and Finance (economic development and infrastructure/public facilities projects)
Committees, and the Affordable Housing Finance Committee (housing projects). Attachment A
5 Pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act, HOPWA funds are allocated on an annual basis to the City of Oakland for the
Oakland PMSA, which includes Alameda and Contra Costa County. Contra Costa receives a formula share of HOPWA funds
through the City of Oakland.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
2
summarizes projects to be funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds during FY
2010/11.
Community Development Block Grant
The Board of Supervisors has adopted funding guidelines for the annual allocation of CDBG
funds. The funding guidelines require that the annual grant award be allocated to the various
categories as follows:
Category of Use
Percent
of Grant
Housing 45.1%
Public Service 6 15.0%
Economic Development 14.0%
Infrastructure/Public Facilities 3.9%
Program Administration 20.0%
Contingency 7 2.0%
Total 100%
For FY 2010/11, the Board of Supervisors voted to use the “Contingency” to fund projects in the
Infrastructure/Public Facilities category.
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,736,986 Projects/Programs $3,419,144 8
Recaptured funds from closed
or completed projects
409,493
FY 2009/10 Housing
Development Assistance Fund
(HDAF)
76,071
Housing Development
Assistance Fund (HDAF)
336,009
Program Income (est.)
350,000
Program Administration
FY 2010/11 9
817,397
Total Available for Allocation $4,572,550 Total Funds Allocated $4,572,550
6 Statutory Cap
7 The contingency category allows Board of Supervisor flexibility in funding specific projects.
8 Includes $350,000 in Revolving Loan Funds allocated to housing rehabilitation programs.
9 The allocation to Program Administration is limited to an amount no greater than twenty percent of the sum of the entitlement
grant plus the income (regular program income and revolving loan income) received by the grantee and its subrecipients during
the program year. As stated above, revolving loan income is included in the base amount used in calculating the twenty percent
allocated to Program Administration. The Program Administration is funded out of the entitlement. The revolving loan income
remains with the revolving loan programs to be used for rehabilitation loans and rehabilitation program administration.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
3
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,220,509 Projects/Programs $2,540,000
FY 2009/10 HDAF 260,819 FY 2010/11 HDAF 619,277
Program Administration 10
322,051
Total Available for Allocation $3,481,328 Total Funds Allocated $3,481,328
If the HOME program receives program income during the fiscal year, ten percent of the
program income will be allocated to Program Administration and the remainder will be allocated
to the Housing Development Assistance Fund.
Emergency Shelter Grants
During FY 2010/11, the County will receive $151,604 in ESG funds. $145,025 will be allocated
to ESG eligible projects and five percent of the grant amount ($6,579) will be used for program
administration costs.
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids
During FY 2010/11, the County will receive approximately $450,000 in HOPWA funds. These
funds will be allocated through a separate competitive application process in the fall of 2010. Six
and a half percent of the grant amount ($29,250) will be used for program administration costs.
Additional Resources
Match
County policy requires projects funded with CDBG funds to provide a minimum match as
follows: 10 percent required from non-profit organizations, 25 percent from local government
agencies, and 100 percent from for-profit entities. Public service and economic development
projects (sponsored by non-profit organizations and public agencies) receiving multiple year
funding are further required to increase the level of match for each year of funding up to 50
percent match after year five.
In accordance with federal regulations, all projects funded with Consortium HOME funds are
required to provide a minimum 25 percent permanent match to the project from non-federal
sources. During FY 2010/11, the minimum match for HOME will be $724,615.
In accordance with federal regulations, all projects funded with ESG funds are required to
provide a minimum 100 percent match from non-federal sources. During FY 2010/11, the
estimated minimum match for ESG will be $144,025.
10 Ten percent of program income received during the fiscal year will be allocated to Program Administration. This
additional Program Administration is not included in the table.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
4
HOPWA regulations do not require matching funds. However, housing development projects
using HOPWA funds must provide HOPWA-assisted units in proportion to the amount of
HOPWA funds in the project.
Leverage
Affordable housing development projects leverage significant additional resources. HOME and
CDBG housing projects to be funded in FY 2010/11 are expected to leverage over $34 million
(including required match) in additional financing. Typical funding sources include city and
County Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds, HUD-administered resources (e.g., Section 202
and McKinney Act funds), tax-exempt bond revenues, private sector equity investment through
low-income housing tax credits, State resources (e.g., CalHFA financing, Multi-Family Housing
Program), private foundation donations, and private lender loans.
Housing choice vouchers (Section 8) are used to further enhance housing affordability. The
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) expects about $3 million for its
voucher program.
In addition to the federal resources described above, the County typically has housing and capital
development resources from the Contra Costa County RDA. County RDA funds for housing
represent 20 percent of the annual tax increment generated by the County’s five redevelopment
areas (Bay Point, Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor).
The County currently has $45 million in Mortgage Credit Certificate resources. This is a one-
time allocation. In future years the County expects 6.9 million.
CDBG projects in the Economic Development, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Public
Service categories leverage substantial additional funds from a variety of sources including
public agencies, private foundations, fundraising, redevelopment agencies, in-kind donations,
fees and income. Economic Development, Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Public Service
projects will leverage an estimated $1 million, $1.3 million and $16 million, respectively, in
additional funds during FY 2010/11.
Activities to be Undertaken
Housing
The Consolidated Plan establishes the following priorities for affordable housing programs and
projects funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds. Objectives, outcomes and
indicators are noted below each priority listed below. Also, Attachment B – Performance
Measurement Chart lists the objective, outcome, priority need and indicator for each funded
project.
AH-1: Expand housing opportunities for extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income,
and moderate-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe, and
affordable rental housing and rental assistance.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
5
Indicator: Rental units constructed and rehabilitated.
AH-2 Increase homeownership opportunities.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Homeownership units constructed, acquired, or acquired and rehabilitated;
direct financial assistance provided to homebuyers.
AH-3 Maintain and preserve the existing affordable housing stock.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Housing units rehabilitated.
AH-4 Reduce the number and impact of home foreclosures.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Public Service and Neighborhood Stabilization Program Activities
AH-5 Increase the supply of appropriate and supportive housing for special needs populations.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Housing units reserved for homeless and special needs populations.
AH-6 Preserve existing special needs housing.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Number of housing units preserved as affordable housing specifically for
special needs populations.
AH-7 Adapt or modify existing housing to meet the needs of special needs populations.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicators: Number of units reconstructed to provide accessibility improvements.
AH-8 Improve access to services for those in special needs housing.
Objective: Provide decent affordable housing.
Outcome: Affordability.
Indicator: Public Service Activities
In addition to the above priorities, the Board has established a priority for housing projects which
include units affordable to extremely-low income households. Attachment A provides
information on specific housing projects funded with FY 2010/11 CDBG and HOME funds.
ESG and HOPWA funds will be allocated later in the year through separate competitive
application processes.
In addition to the above federal resources, the County will apply to the California Debt Limit
Allocation Committee for approximately $7 million in Mortgage Revenue Bond authority. The
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
6
County intends to convert this authority into Mortgage Credit Certificates, which will assist 35 to
40 first-time homebuyers in acquiring homes.
The annual goal is to construct 165 units of rental housing, construct and/or assist 58 units of
owner-occupied housing, assist 20 homeless individuals and 30 homeless families, and assist 77
non-homeless special needs individuals.
American Dream Downpayment Intitiative (ADDI)
Description of planned use of ADDI funds: The Consortium has implemented a program that
facilitates the layering of ADDI funds with other homebuyer assistance programs including those
funded with redevelopment agency, Housing Choice Vouchers, and California State Proposition
1C funds. ADDI funds are provided in a manner consistent with 24 CFR Part 92 Subpart M—
American Dream Downpayment Initiative and the Consortium’s established HOME First-time
Homebuyer Shared Equity Loan Program as discussed in Attachment D.
Plan for conducting targeted outreach to residents and tenants of public housing and
manufactured housing: The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) has
established Self-Sufficiency and First-time Homebuyer programs. The Consortium is
coordinating ADDI outreach with the HACCC to target current and prospective participants in
those programs. The Consortium will also work with the County’s Mobile Home Advisory
Committee to market the program to residents and tenants of mobile home parks.
Description of activities to ensure suitability of ADDI recipients: ADDI recipients will be
required to complete a housing counseling training prior to purchasing a home. Additional
outreach will be targeted to participants in homeownership counseling programs, individual
development account programs, and other appropriate self-sufficiency and personal wealth
development type programs. These programs prepare low-income households for
homeownership by providing credit counseling, financial literacy classes and homeownership
workshops.
Non-housing Community Development Objectives & Homeless Objectives
Consistent with the purpose of the CDBG Program, the Board adopted the following goals in the
FY 2010/15 Consolidated Plan for programs and projects funded with CDBG and ESG funds.
The objective, outcome, and indicator are noted below each priority listed below. Also,
Attachment B – Performance Measurement Chart lists the objective, outcome, priority need and
indicator for each funded project.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
7
CD-1 General Public Services: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to improve
the quality of life and independence for lower-income persons, and ensure access to
programs that promote prevention and early intervention related to a variety of social
concerns such as hunger, substance abuse, and other issues.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-2 Seniors: Enhance the quality of life of senior citizens and frail elderly, and enable them
to maintain independence.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-3 Youth: Increase opportunities for children/youth to be healthy, succeed in school and
prepare for productive adulthood.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-4 Non-homeless Special Needs: Ensure that opportunities and services are provided to
improve the quality of life and independence for persons with special needs such as
disabled persons, victims of domestic violence, abused children, persons with
HIV/AIDS, illiterate adults, and migrant farm workers.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
CD-5 Fair Housing: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair
housing.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
8
CD-6 Economic Development: Reduce the number of persons with incomes below the
poverty level, expand economic opportunities for very-low and low-income residents,
and increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas.
Objective: Provide economic opportunity.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Number of jobs created, retained, or maintained; and/or number of businesses
assisted.
CD-8 Infrastructure/Public Facilities: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate
infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility impaired by addressing physical
access barriers to public facilities.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Facility and Infrastructure Activities.
CD-8 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.
H-1 Homeless Services: Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by
providing emergency, transitional, and permanent affordable housing with appropriate
supportive services.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
H-2 Homeless Services: Reduce incidence of homelessness and assist in alleviating the
needs of the homeless.
Objective: Creating Suitable Living Environments.
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility.
Indicator: Public Service Activities.
Attachment A provides information on specific Housing, Public Service, Infrastructure/Public
Facilities, and Economic Development projects to be funded with FY 2010/11 CDBG funds.
Fair Housing
The recommendations of the draft Contra Costa Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice (AI) are as follows:
Affordable Housing
1. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of sufficient affordable housing supply.
1.1. Action: Provide assistance to preserve existing affordable housing and to create new
affordable housing. Assistance will be provided through the Consolidated Plan programs of the
Consortium member jurisdictions. These include CDBG, HOME, and HOPWA.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
9
1.2. Action: Offer regulatory relief and incentives for the development of affordable housing.
Such relief includes that offered under state “density bonus” provisions. (See housing element
programs.)
1.3. Action: Assure the availability of adequate sites for the development of affordable housing.
(See housing element programs.)
2. IMPEDIMENT: Concentration of affordable housing.
2.1. Action: Housing Authorities within the County (Contra Costa County, Richmond and
Pittsburg) will be encouraged to promote wide acceptance of Housing Choice Vouchers, and will
monitor the use of Housing Choice Vouchers to avoid geographic concentration.
2.2. Action: Consortium member jurisdictions will collaborate to expand affordable housing
opportunities in communities in which they are currently limited.
2.3. Action: A higher priority for the allocation of financial and administrative resources may be
given to projects and programs which expand affordable housing opportunities in communities in
which they are currently limited.
2.4. Action: Member jurisdictions will report on the location of new affordable housing in
relation to the location of existing affordable housing and areas of low-income, poverty and
minority concentration.
Mortgage Lending
3. IMPEDIMENT: Differential origination rates based on race, ethnicity and location.
3.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will periodically monitor Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA) data and report significant trends in mortgage lending by race, ethnicity and location.
3.2. Action: When selecting lending institutions for contracts and participation in local programs,
member jurisdictions may prefer those with a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of
“Outstanding.” Member jurisdictions may exclude those with a rating of “Needs to Improve,” or
“Substantial Noncompliance” according to the most recent examination period published by the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). In addition, member jurisdictions
may review an individual institution’s most recent HMDA reporting as most recently published
by the FFIEC.
4. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge about the requirements of mortgage lenders and the
mortgage lending/home purchase process, particularly among lower income and minority
households.
4.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support pre-purchase counseling and home buyer
education programs.
4.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to lower
income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households. Minority households include
Hispanic households.
4.3. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly market loan
products to lower income (low and very low), immigrant, and minority households. Minority
households include Hispanic households.
5. IMPEDIMENT: Lower mortgage approval rates in areas of minority concentration and low-
income concentration.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
10
5.1. Action: Member jurisdictions will support home purchase programs targeted to households
who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination rates under 50 percent
according to the most recently published HMDA data.
5.2. Action: Member jurisdictions will encourage mortgage lenders to responsibly market loan
products to households who wish to purchase homes in Census Tracts with loan origination rates
under 50 percent according to the most recently published HMDA data.
Fair Housing Education and Enforcement
6. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of knowledge of fair housing rights.
6.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental properties
regarding their fair housing rights and responsibilities.
7. IMPEDIMENT: Discrimination in rental housing.
7.1. Action: Support efforts to enforce fair housing rights and to provide redress to persons who
have been discriminated against.
7.2. Action: Support efforts to increase the awareness of discrimination against persons based on
sexual orientation.
8. IMPEDIMENT: Failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
8.1. Action: Support efforts to educate tenants, and owners and agents of rental properties
regarding the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable accommodation.
8.2. Action: Support efforts to enforce the right of persons with disabilities to reasonable
accommodation and to provide redress to persons with disabilities who have been refused
reasonable accommodation.
9. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of information on the nature and basis of housing discrimination.
9.1. Action: Monitor the incidence of housing discrimination complaints and report trends
annually in the CAPER.
9.2. Action: Improve the consistency in reporting of housing discrimination complaints. All
agencies who provide this information should do so in the same format with the same level of
detail. Information should be available by the quarter year.
9.3. Action: Improve collection and reporting information on discrimination based on sexual
orientation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.
Government Barriers
10. IMPEDIMENT: Lack of formal policies and procedures regarding reasonable
accommodation.
10.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will adopt formal policies and procedures for
persons with disabilities to request reasonable accommodations to local planning and
development standards.
11. IMPEDIMENT: Transitional and supportive housing is not treated as a residential use subject
only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone,
and is not explicitly permitted in the zoning code.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
11
11.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to treat
transitional and supportive housing types as a residential use subject only to those restrictions
that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, and to explicitly permit
both transitional and supportive housing types in the zoning code.
12. IMPEDIMENT: Permanent emergency shelter is not permitted by right in at least one
appropriate zoning district.
12.1. Action: Jurisdictions which have not done so will amend their zoning codes to permit
transitional and supportive housing by right in at least one residential zoning district.
North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
The community of North Richmond (census tract 3650.02) is located in an unincorporated area
of West Contra Costa County near San Pablo Bay, and is surrounded by the City of Richmond
(census tracts 3650.01 and .02). North Richmond covers 900 acres of land, and has
approximately 3,000 residents, the majority of which are minorities with very low-incomes.
African American, Latino, and Asian residents make up more than 75 percent of the population.
More than 52 percent of the residents are on public assistance, and almost 55 percent have not
completed high school.
North Richmond has many indicators of economic and social distress including low income, high
unemployment, illegal dumping, vacant and boarded up housing, high rent population, violence,
high illiteracy rate and low educational achievement.
North Richmond was designated as a Redevelopment Area in July 1987. A few years later, the
North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) was formed to provide community input,
structure, and to further the well-being and interests of North Richmond residents. Today, the
MAC continues to provide recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors on policy
matters that benefit the general public and North Richmond as a whole.
In August 1996, HUD approved the North Richmond Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
(NRS). The purpose of the NRS is to create opportunities for jobs and housing, viable
neighborhood commercial areas, childcare, safe streets, and access to transportation. Since 1996
most of the objectives identified in the NRS have been met. In addition, the majority of projects
originally identified in the NRS have been completed. This includes the completion and full
occupancy of two housing developments – Community Heritage Apartments, a 52-unit senior
development completed in fall 2000, and Parkway Estates, an 87-unit single-family housing
project completed in fall 2001. The 3rd Street Corridor Transportation and Community
Streetscape Improvement project was completed in June, 2004. The Agency also provided
funding and assisted in leveraging federal funds to initiate the First Time Homebuyer and
Individual Development Account programs in North Richmond.
On February 23, 2010, the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) adopted its AB 1290 Five Year
Implementation Plan as required by California Redevelopment Law. This plan identifies the
Agency‘s goals and objectives, documents blight, and lists out accomplishments over the
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
12
previous 5 years in addition to setting future priority projects to create jobs, housing,
beautification projects, and improve the area’s infrastructure and roadway systems. This
document identifies resources and expenditures necessary to accomplish these community goals
and Agency driven initiatives.
One example is Agency staff working with private developer KB Home and local non-profit
Community Housing Development Corp. (CHDC) of North Richmond to build new low-income
housing opportunities for North Richmond with the Bella Flora subdivision. Construction of
Bella Flora was completed in 2008 on 173 units, 35 of which are affordable to very-low and
lower-income households.
Another major initiative is the North Richmond Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact
Report that is expected to guide future land use changes between Wildcat and San Pablo creeks.
The plan calls for the transformation of over 200 acres of underutilized land into a new
residential neighborhood consisting of parks, open space, residential housing, mix–use
development, commercial/retail outlets, public amenities, and infrastructure improvements.
In addition to the specific plan, the Agency continues to manage ongoing initiatives like the
North Richmond Housing MOU to promote affordable housing in North Richmond. Alliance
partners including Contra Costa County, the Redevelopment Agency of Contra Costa County,
the City of Richmond, the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency, Richmond Housing
Authority, Contra Costa County Housing Authority, Community Housing Development
Corporation of North Richmond and Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) are
developing the 4th Edition of this MOU to create new affordable housing and apartments for low
income residents over the next 10 years. Part of this development includes the revitalization of
the 224 unit Las Deltas Public Housing Development, several scattered site locations, Grove
Point which is a mixed use residential and retail development on the eastern side of Third Street,
and the North Richmond Town Center. Besides housing, other major projects include:
• Completion of the North Richmond Truck Route Project to divert big rig trucks out of the
residential neighborhood.
• Initiation of an area wide Infrastructure Improvement Plan to provide needed
infrastructure improvements in the area north of Wildcat Creek and within the existing
residential neighborhood.
• Implementation of the County’s First Source Hiring Program to link local residents with
North Richmond employers and job opportunities.
Elements of the NRS are currently being updated and blended with aspects of the North
Richmond Specific Plan, North Richmond Housing MOU, Grove Point Mixed-Use
Development, Las Deltas Revitalization and other project initiatives. The County will continue
to implement the existing programs (NRS and Specific Plan) and has allocated funding to the
following projects that are targeted and/or directly benefit the North Richmond community:
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
13
10-xx-PS North Richmond Multicultural/Senior Center
10-xx-PS Assistance in Money Management Program for Seniors
10-xx-PS After School Outreach Performing Arts Program
10-xx-PS El Cerrito High School Community Project
10-xx-PS Verde School Service Learning Program
10-xx-ED Project Independence
Geographic Distribution
CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are awarded to projects and programs on a
competitive allocation basis. The County has a two-year funding cycle for CDBG Public Service,
Infrastructure/Public Facilities, and Economic Development projects, and ESG projects.
Projects/programs funded in FY 2010/11 are awarded funds in FY 2011/12 dependent on
satisfactory performance and the availability of funds.
CDBG Housing, HOME, and HOPWA project proposals continue to be reviewed on an annual
basis. A Notice of Funding Availability for Housing, HOME and HOPWA projects was
published in local newspapers and sent to over 100 jurisdictions, public agencies, affordable
housing developers, community based organizations and interest groups active in the Urban
County and Consortium area. Projects are reviewed and funding allocations are made based on
several criteria including the project’s ability to reach and serve its target population.
Consideration is given to project location to ensure that funds are allocated throughout the
County while directing services to those areas and persons with the greatest need.
Though projects may serve the entire Urban County, as is the case with many Public Service
projects, it is the intent of the program to target services to areas with the highest need such as a
revitalization strategy area or a census tract that meets “area benefit”11 criteria. In all cases,
subrecipients must demonstrate that they will be able to serve a minimum of 51 percent very-low
and low-income persons or households. However, it has been the County’s practice to fund
projects that serve a minimum of 75 percent extremely low, very low- and low-income persons
or households. Further, established policy gives priority to housing projects that provide units
affordable to and occupied by households with extremely low-income. These policies and
practices have ensured that projects/programs serve those areas with the highest need.
Housing activities to meet Consolidated Plan priorities include new construction, rehabilitation,
and preservation of existing affordable housing. These housing projects have the potential to
either assist in neighborhood revitalization or provide de-concentration of low-income and/or
minority populations by locating in areas with little supply of affordable housing.
Attachment A for HOME and CDBG provides a list of all projects approved for funding. The
tables include the population to be served (seniors, youth, disabled, etc.) and geographic area to
be served. It should be noted that for projects involving housing rehabilitation or small business /
micro-enterprise assistance, a specific address or location cannot be provided since the location
of properties are not yet known.
11 Some areas of the Urban County meet “Area Benefit” criteria, which means at least 51 percent (or as adjusted by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development) of the residents in that area are very low and low-income persons.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
14
Summary of FY 2010/11 Geographic Distribution
Project Category West
County
East
County
Central
County
Urban
County
Affordable Housing 2 0 4 2
Economic Development 3 2 0 4
Infrastructure/Public Facilities 5 2 3 0
Public Service 8 6 5 20
Total 18 10 12 26
The highest numbers of low income and minority households are in West County, followed by
East County and Central County (see Appendix 3 of the draft Consolidated Plan). Urban County
projects are targeted to low income households throughout the County.
Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue its efforts to maintain the availability of housing
and services for the homeless in Contra Costa.
A major factor contributing to problems of the homeless and special needs populations in the
County is the lack of housing affordable to extremely-low and very-low income households as
well as an inadequate supply of accessible housing. In addition, Contra Costa has been hit hard
by the foreclosure crisis. The most recent homeless count did not show an increase of homeless
individuals or families. The Homeless Program staff believe that those who have lost their homes
due to foreclosure are either staying in hotels or with family and friends. The County’s strategies
to maintain and increase the supply of affordable housing are equally relevant as strategies to
alleviate problems of these populations 12 . As further recognition of the housing needs of
homeless and at-risk populations, in FY 1998/99, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors adopted
a policy to encourage the inclusion of units affordable to extremely-low income households in
projects funded with CDBG and HOME funds. In addition, a minimum of five percent of all new
housing built with County funds must be accessible to mobility-impaired households and an
additional two-percent must be accessible to hearing/vision impaired. Wherever feasible, the
County also requires the inclusion of accessible units in housing rehabilitation projects.
Strategies to improve housing affordability through direct payment assistance are also effective
in preventing and alleviating homelessness among lower-income and special needs households.
Therefore, the County will continue to pursue additional Section 8 vouchers, FEMA funds,
12 Affordable housing projects including units affordable to extremely-low and low-income households are listed in Attachment
A.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
15
Shelter Plus Care and other resources to assist the currently homeless and at-risk population in
obtaining and maintaining permanent housing.
In addition to strategies to increase the affordable housing supply using CDBG, HOME, and
HOPWA resources, the County will apply for McKinney Act funds to maintain and expand
programs and projects to serve the homeless, including families with children, youth leaving
foster care, victims of domestic violence, and individuals with problems of substance abuse and
mental illness. Potential projects include rental assistance for homeless individuals and families,
continued operating support for permanent and transitional housing projects and multi-service
centers, the potential development of additional permanent housing with support services for
families, and a variety of support services (e.g., outreach, case management, education/job
training, health services, counseling/parent education, substance abuse treatment and money
management).
CDBG funds in the Public Service category are also targeted to support programs that offer a
variety of services to the homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless, as well as to special
needs populations. In FY 2010/11 funds will be allocated for operating expenses of an
emergency shelter for single adults. Funds will also be allocated for supportive services at a
transitional shelter for battered women with children, as well as programs that provide a
homeless hotline, housing counseling and legal services, and food distribution. These services
are available throughout the County. Support services such as client advocacy, job skills
training, independent living skills training, respite care, counseling and case management, and
nutrition education will be provided to the frail elderly, disabled, and the visually impaired.
During FY 2010/11, the County will work with the Contra Costa Interjurisdictional Council on
Homelessness (CCICH), a working group which is the result of a merger of the Homeless
Interdepartmental Interjurisdictional Working Group and the Continuum of Care Board, as well
as non-profit community and advocacy groups, the interfaith community, business organizations
and other relevant community groups to implement key strategies identified in the five-year
Continuum of Care Plan and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. The County’s Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness includes priorities to address three types of homeless populations: the
chronically homeless, those discharged into homelessness, and the transitionally (or episodic)
homeless people. This will include programs and projects to increase income and employment
opportunities for homeless households, expand needed support services and programs to prevent
homelessness, and increase the availability of housing affordable to extremely-low income
households and homeless persons.
Other Actions
Additional Public Policies to Remove Barriers and Obstacles to the Provision of
Affordable Housing
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue its efforts to remove or ameliorate public policies,
which negatively impact affordable housing development in the Urban County. Specific efforts
to be undertaken include the following:
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
16
• Continue to expedite the development application review process for all affordable housing
projects with conforming zoning and with less than 100 units. This will lower housing
development costs by reducing the required processing time by two to three months.
Similarly, expedite the review and approval process for affordable housing appropriate for
large families.
• In conformance with the General Plan, the County will initiate zoning changes for residential
and designated agricultural sites from current zoning designations to Planned Unit
Development (P-1) in order to streamline the entitlement process for development
applications and increase design flexibility.
• In order to promote the development of affordable housing for seniors, the County will
consider flexibility in design requirements for these projects, including reduced parking,
smaller unit sizes, and common dining facilities.
• The County’s Density Bonus Ordinance is fully consistent with the State Density Bonus
Law. The County is required to grant one density bonus and incentives or concessions when
an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development,
excluding any units permitted by the density bonus that will contain at least one of the
following: ten (10) percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income
households; five (5) percent of the total units of a housing development for very low income
households; a senior citizen housing development, or a mobile home park that limits
residency based on age requirements for housing older persons; or ten (10) percent of the
total dwelling units in a common interest development for persons and families of moderate
income, provided that all units in the development are offered to the public for purchase.
• The Board of Supervisors adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The IHO
requires all developers of five or more units to provide 15 percent of the units at affordable
costs to either moderate, low, or very-low income households depending on the type of
project. Developers may pay a fee in lieu of providing the affordable units. Effective in
2009, the rental in lieu fee is suspended.
• The County will review and develop new regulations to permit the development of
agriculturally related structures on agriculturally zoned land without a use permit in order to
encourage the provision of onsite farmworker housing.
• The County Redevelopment Agency provides a full-time equivalent staff position to expedite
the planning process for affordable housing and other projects located in County
Redevelopment project areas. By definition, these projects are implemented to alleviate
blight and improve affordable housing and overall living conditions within the low-income
community.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
17
Lead-based Paint Hazard Implementation Plan
The County will continue to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing
funded with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA resources through the implementation of 24
CFR Part 35. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce or eliminate lead-based paint hazards in
federally owned housing and housing receiving federal funds. All subrecipients enter into project
agreements that include requirements for compliance with the lead-based paint regulation. The
Neighborhood Preservation Program and the Rental Rehabilitation Program have developed
program specific lead hazard reduction implementation plans. All other projects will develop
plans appropriate to the project type and level of funding received 13 .
Decrease the Number of Poverty Level Households
The County and cities within it employ a variety of strategies to help alleviate poverty, including
efforts to stimulate economic growth and job opportunities, and to provide County residents with
the skills and abilities required to take advantage of those opportunities. The County, a majority
of cities, and their Redevelopment Agencies actively work to attract and retain businesses. Many
are involved in revitalization efforts for their downtown areas utilizing a variety of strategies
such as infrastructure and façade improvement programs, the State Main Street Program, and the
preparation of revitalization plans to guide future development. The County, through its various
departments, provides services and supports programs that promote personal responsibility,
independence and self-sufficiency.
Department of Conservation & Development
One of the responsibilities of the County Department of Conservation & Development (DCD) is
the management of the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs. Many CDBG and HOME
funded programs are geared toward helping lower-income persons find and maintain stable
housing, receive training for jobs that provide a livable wage, and access support services that
are needed to attain self-sufficiency.
By Board guidelines, 14 percent of the annual grant amount is set aside for economic
development activities. Programs funded under the Economic Development category are
intended to assist businesses with expanding economic opportunities for lower-income persons
and to increase the viability of neighborhood commercial areas. As listed in Attachment A:
Economic Development, several job training and placement and microenterprise assistance
programs have been approved for funding.
In addition to economic development activities, the County works with other jurisdictions and
local non-profits to provide emergency and transitional housing, and support services necessary
to assist the homeless in achieving economic independence.
13 The requirements of 24 CFR Part 35 vary for different project types (e.g. tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and
rehabilitation). The requirements for rehabilitation depend on the level of federal assistance (e.g. less than $5,000 per unit,
$5,001 to $25,000 per unit, and over $25,000 per unit.)
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
18
Redevelopment Agency
The County Redevelopment Agency, a separate legal entity governed by the County’s Board of
Supervisors, is administered by the DCD. Redevelopment is one of the most effective ways to
breathe new life into deteriorated areas plagued by social, physical, environmental or economic
conditions, which act as a barrier to new investment by private enterprise. Through
redevelopment, the communities of Bay Point, North Richmond, Contra Costa Centre (formerly
Pleasant Hill BART), Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor receive focused attention and financial
investment to reverse deteriorating trends, create jobs, revitalize the business climate, rehabilitate
and add to the housing stock, and gain active participation and investment by citizens which
would not otherwise occur.
The Redevelopment Agency has several ongoing projects that include:
• Circulation and infrastructure improvements, housing preservation, community
enhancement, and affordable housing in North Richmond;
• Waterfront improvements, downtown revitalization activities, including mixed-use
development and streetscape improvements, and housing preservation in Rodeo;
• Waterfront improvements, including residential and water related retail/recreation; mixed
income housing development and infrastructure improvements in support of transit-
oriented development, housing preservation and neighborhood infrastructure
improvements in Bay Point;
• Housing preservation and neighborhood infrastructure and facilities in Montalvin Manor;
and
• Final implementation of transit-oriented development program with affordable housing
and transit access improvements at Contra Costa Centre.
Employment and Human Services Department
The County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is responsible for providing
services to adults, children, families, and the elderly. Bureaus within EHSD that directly relate to
the reduction of poverty include the Workforce Services, Children and Family Services, and the
Workforce Development bureaus. Other programs administered by EHSD, that indirectly support
economic self-sufficiency and are intended to provide assistance to families and persons to lead
productive lives include, but are not limited to: 1) Welcome Home, Baby, which provides
support to first-time parents in order to improve the health and development of newborns; 2) the
Family Preservation Program, which emphasizes keeping families together in a safe, nurturing
environment and providing them with skills that will last when they leave the program; and 3)
Service Integration Teams that provide services to increase the economic self-sufficiency of
families, improve family functioning, and expand community capacity to support children and
families.
Workforce Development Board
The Workforce Development Board (WDB) of Contra Costa is a public policy body appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors to oversee the strategic planning and policy development of
the County’s workforce development system. The Board is composed of business, labor,
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
19
economic development, public agencies, education, and community-based organizations. The
Board has also designated the WDB as the oversight body for the County’s CalWORKS policy
to ensure full integration of the area’s workforce development system. The WDB has
responsibility to oversee the provision of workforce services through its four One-Stop Business
and Career Centers.
One-Stop Business and Career Centers
Contra Costa County, in collaboration with Alameda County, has developed a system of One -
Stop Business and Career Centers, under the name of East Bay Works (www.eastbayworks.org),
to serve both job seekers and employers. The One-Stop Business and Career Centers offer
comprehensive workforce development and labor market information. Job seekers and workers
find resources needed to plan or advance a career, or simply to find a job. The One-Stops,
through its partner agencies offer an array of job related services which include; skills
assessment and training, career counseling and workshops, online resume posting and job
referrals, internships and on-the-job training, childcare, transportation and health care
information. Four One-Stop Career Centers have been established in the County. The WDB has
designated a consortium of agencies including; California departments of Employment
Development and Rehabilitation, Community Colleges, Adult and Continuing Education, Job
Corps, County departments of Conservation & Development and Community Services, and the
California Human Development Corporation to act as the Operators of the Centers. One-Stops
are located in the cities of San Pablo (West County), Concord (Central County) and Brentwood
and Antioch (East County). The City of Richmond also operates two One-Stops.
General Assistance
The General Assistance (GA) program provides temporary assistance to adults 18 years and
older who are ineligible for federal or state-funded cash assistance programs. The program is
designed to meet the minimum needs of County residents who are unemployed or disabled. The
GA program also provides advocacy services to permanently disabled GA recipients and
CalWORKS adults to help them through the application process for Social Security Disability,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Social Security programs. Cash assistance for the aged,
blind and disabled legal immigrants who do not qualify for federal SSI because of welfare
reform changes is also available.
Contra Costa Economic Partnership
The Contra Costa Economic Partnership (CCEP) is a coalition of business, government and
education leaders dedicated to retaining and creating quality jobs for Contra Costa to maintain
the county's quality of life. The CCEP has taken the initial leadership role in developing a plan to
locate three to five business incubators in Contra Costa County. The county-wide strategy is
intended to stimulate job creation and new business formation.
The Software Business Incubator was the first to be established and opened its doors in August,
1997. The Software Incubator closed its doors in 2004 after being responsible for assisting in the
creation of many businesses during its existence. The Telecommunications Incubator was the
second to be established and opened its doors in October, 2000. Established under the auspices
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
20
of CCEP and the City of San Ramon, the Telecommunications Incubator’s mission is to 1) foster
the growth of start-up and early-stage companies, 2) create new job opportunities for local
residents, and 3) further the economic development goals of San Ramon and the Tri-Valley
region. CCEP is currently working on developing a Biotechnology Incubator. CCEP is also
instrumental in gathering and disseminating economic and demographic data to assist local
governmental entities in their planning efforts for housing, jobs and educational needs.
Develop Institutional Structure
During FY 2010/11, the County will continue to work with the cities and other public and private
agencies and organizations to implement strategies designed to accomplish the affordable
housing and community development objectives identified in the five-year Consolidated Plan14 .
Specific actions to be undertaken by the County include the provision of resources and technical
assistance to public agencies and the non-profit and for-profit community in developing,
financing and implementing programs and projects consistent with the County’s annual and five-
year plans. In addition, the County will work with the cities and other agencies to establish an
informal cooperative network to share resources and facilitate development in the Urban County
and Consortium area. Finally, the County will work to develop further institutional capacity and
greater financial independence within the non-profit sector through the provision of HOME
funds to provide operating support for eligible Community Housing Development Organizations.
Enhance Coordination between Public and Private Housing
The County’s efforts to coordinate activities and strategies for affordable housing development
and the provision of emergency and transitional housing and supportive services include
cooperative planning efforts as well as participation in a number of countywide housing and
service provider organizations. Planning efforts to be undertaken during the current program year
include the following:
• Contra Costa Consortium members continue to work on strategies and actions designed
to overcome identified impediments and eliminate problems of housing discrimination in
Contra Costa.
• On March 11, 2008 the Board of Supervisors acted to dissolve the Contra Costa
Continuum of Care Board and formed the Contra Costa Inter-jurisdictional Council on
Homelessness Advisory Board (CCICH). CCICH works with Contra Costa jurisdictions,
public and private agencies, the interfaith community, homeless advocacy groups and
other community organizations to implement the Continuum of Care Plan, which
includes strategies and programs designed to alleviate homelessness, and the Ten Year
Plan to End Homelessness.
14 The institutional structure through which the County’s affordable housing and community development programs are
implemented is described in detail in the County’s current Consolidated Plan.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
21
In addition to the above, the County participates in a number of countywide housing and service
provider organizations, which are intended to share resources and coordinate strategies and
programs for affordable housing and community development activities. These organizations
include the Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers, the Tri-Valley Affordable
Housing Subcommittee, the Contra Costa HIV/AIDS Consortium, the Children and Families
Policy Forum, Non-Profit Housing Association, and the Workforce Development Board. Finally,
the County continues to participate in the Bay Area Regional Innovative Homeless Initiative.
The Initiative includes representatives of nine Bay Area counties and is an effort to develop a
regional approach to programs and strategies to alleviate homelessness in the San Francisco Bay
Region.
Foster Public Housing Improvements and Resident Initiatives
HACCC will continue to undertake activities to rehabilitate and maintain the County’s public
housing through HUD’s Capital Fund Program (CFP) and operating subsidy. HACCC
anticipates an allocation of $2.1 million in CFP funds for FY 2011/12.
The following improvements are planned by HACCC in the FY 2011/12 grant year:
• Management and Administration: HACCC will continue to focus on maintaining a
security presence in its developments through resident services programs such as the
Young Adult Empowerment Center and community law enforcement strategies. The
Authority will also aggressively seek to provide Section 3 opportunities for low income
persons and enhance resident training opportunities, particularly in projects funded by the
CFP grant.
• Living Environment: During FY 2010/11, approximately $3.1 million in resources will
be used by HACCC for a variety of modernization improvements at thirteen development
sites. Specific improvements include comprehensive modernization and rehabilitation of
vacant units at three of the Authority’s sites, exterior modernization at two additional
sites, and the installation of energy efficient windows, security alarm systems, parking lot
repairs and exterior painting.
Public Housing Resident Initiatives
Resident Councils: The creation of Resident Councils is an important means of obtaining
resident input and participation in public housing programs and activities, including the
identification of appropriate resident services, resolution of safety issues, and implementation of
activities designed to move households from welfare to work and greater independence.
HACCC has two active Resident Councils representing two of the thirteen Public Housing
Developments located in Contra Costa County. In addition to office facilities and materials,
HACCC provides technical assistance and sponsors quarterly town hall meetings at each
development in an effort to develop resident leaders. Over the past few months, there has been
renewed interest at other developments to create more Resident Councils. Plans have been
initiated to create active Resident Councils at El Pueblo (Pittsburg), Los Arboles (Oakley), and
Casa de Mañana (Oakley).
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
22
The Bayo Vista Resident Council (Rodeo development) has an active Resident Council.
Training for Board members related to their development and their duties and responsibilities
continues. The Bayo Vista Resident Council Board of Directors supports the YMCA of the East
Bay which operates an after school program for families at the Bayo Vista Development. In
addition, the Bayo Vista Resident Council members operate a lunch program for school age
children during the summer months when children are not attending school.
Resident Advisory Board (RAB): HACCC conducts semi-annual meetings with 10 active
Board members of the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), The RAB is comprised of members of
active Resident Councils, resident leaders from other public housing developments without a
Resident Council and a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher participant. The RAB is very active
and participatory in the planning of our 5 Year/Annual Plan, Capital Fund Program, and all other
related Resident Initiatives.
Additional Requirements
Monitoring Plan
Housing Projects and Programs
The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development (DCD) is responsible for
the administration and management of the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA programs, which
provide assistance for affordable housing and homeless shelters. All projects funded through
these programs are monitored by the Department to ensure that the projects achieve their
approved objectives in a manner consistent with federal regulations, and the Consolidated Plan.
DCD’s monitoring procedures consist of the following:
• Prior to funding consideration, all project applications are reviewed to ensure consistency
with federal regulations, the Consolidated Plan, the AI, and the County Housing Element.
• Following funding approval, project sponsors are required to attend a meeting with
County staff to discuss the project funding and implementation process, applicable
federal regulations, County affordability restrictions and procedures during the
compliance period. Following this meeting, the County and project sponsor enter into
project agreements which specify project objectives, scope of work, eligible activities,
performance targets, project budget, implementation time frame, federal regulatory
requirements15 , and monitoring and reporting requirements. In addition, all housing
development funds are provided to projects in the form of a loan with applicable federal
regulations and affordability and use restrictions incorporated into the loan documents
and effective throughout the loan term.
15 Includes compliance with federal regulations concerning: equal opportunity and fair housing; affirmative marketing;
displacement, relocation and acquisition; procurement; labor; lead-based paint; conflict of interest; debarment and suspension;
the environment; historic preservation; and flood insurance.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
23
• The County and the other entitlement jurisdictions within the County have developed a
Performance Outcome Measurement System framework in response to CPD Notice 03-
09. Performance measurement outcome statements will be included in the contract and
each project will be monitored and evaluated on meeting the performance measurement
outcome statement.
• During project implementation, project sponsors are required to submit quarterly progress
reports detailing project progress, significant development problems, project funding and
expenditures, outreach to women and minority-owned businesses, and affirmative
marketing activity. In addition, projects are monitored as applicable for compliance with
federal accounting and procurement standards, labor and construction standards,
relocation, affirmative marketing, equal opportunity, fair housing, and other federal
requirements. Projects are also subject to an onsite performance and/or financial audit
review on a selective basis.
• Following project completion, project sponsors are required to submit project completion
reports identifying: project accomplishments; population served, including data on
household characteristics (e.g., size, income, and ethnicity); rent and/or housing
affordability; and total sources and uses of funds.
• Affordable housing development projects (e.g., acquisition, rehabilitation, new
construction) must also submit annual compliance reports throughout the period of
required affordability. These reports are designed to ensure continued compliance with
federal regulations, affordability and use restrictions, and other requirements as specified
in project loan documents. In addition, all HOME and CDBG-assisted projects will be
subject to periodic onsite inspections to ensure continued compliance with federal
housing quality standards.16
• On-site property managers and supervisors are encouraged to attend an annual pre-
HOME monitoring technical assistance meeting where all aspects of the monitoring are
covered; including Housing Quality Standards, reading and understanding the regulatory
agreement, insurance requirements, proper income verification, lease requirements,
affirmative marketing, etc.
Non-Housing Community Development Projects and Programs
Monitoring procedures for non-housing projects and programs are similar to those described for
Housing projects and programs and include:
• Prior to funding consideration, all applications are reviewed for consistency with federal
regulations, Consolidated Plan, and Board of Supervisor policy. Following funding
approval, new subrecipients are required to attend a mandatory meeting to become
16 Projects with 1-4 HOME-assisted units will be inspected every third year, projects with 5-25 HOME-assisted units will be
inspected every other year, and projects with 26 or more HOME-assisted units will be inspected annually.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
24
familiar with program standards, County requirements, and federal regulations. Project
sponsors are also required to enter into agreements that specify objectives, scope of work,
applicable timelines and performance targets, budget, federal, state and local regulatory
requirements, and monitoring and reporting requirements.
• During project implementation, project sponsors are required to submit periodic progress
reports detailing project progress toward objectives, problems and/or resolution to
meeting goals, quantitative participation data by ethnicity, income, and household status.
In addition, project sponsors are required to provide updated sources and uses budgets
with each quarterly demand. Projects are also subject to an onsite performance and
financial audit review. Staff completes a Grantee Monitoring Risk Analysis for each
project to determine those that will undergo an onsite monitoring.
• The County and the other entitlement jurisdictions within the County have developed a
Performance Outcome Measurement System framework in response to CPD Notice 03-
09. In addition, agencies applying for FY 2010/11 funds were required to develop a work
plan including a description of program components, expected outcomes, and
performance measurements. Specific performance measurements will be included in the
contract for services and each project will be monitored and evaluated on meeting those
performance measurements.
• Periodic reports and payment requests are reviewed for compliance with the Project
Agreement, budget consistency and documentation of expenditures. Project Sponsors are
advised of any procedural errors and/or ineligible activities, and provided with technical
assistance as needed.
• Upon project completion, project sponsors are required to submit completion reports
identifying: program/project accomplishments, quantitative data, including number of
persons or households served, ethnicity, income level, and a final sources and uses
budget.
In the Public Services category, the County seeks to coordinate activities for the efficient
provision of services in the following ways:
• In order to streamline and minimize paperwork, the County and other Consortium
members have all conformed to a two-year funding cycle including a standardized
application with one application deadline for all jurisdictions. Additionally all Contra
Costa County jurisdictions will require the same quarterly reporting form and deadline
schedule.
• The County follows a strategy of supporting programs that provide a variety of
complementary and integrated services to targeted areas, and ensures that service
providers are aware of other organizations that may augment their program.
• The County also participates with other County departments and non-profit organizations
efforts to collaborate on the provision of services.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
25
Limited-English Proficient Populations/Language Assistance Plan
According to the 2000 Census, 68 percent of Contra Costa County’s Hispanic population speaks
Spanish, and 28 percent of those who speak Spanish either speak English “not well” or “not at
all.” In addition, 62 percent of Contra Costa County’s Asian and Pacific Islander populations
speak a language other than English, and according to a sampling, 16 percent either speaks
English “not well” or “not at all.” Therefore, Contra Costa County does have a significant
limited-English proficient (LEP) population, both Asian and Hispanic.
In order to address and to better serve Contra Costa LEP residents, the County has developed a
Language Assistance Plan (LAP) in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) Final Guidance (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 13, January 22, 2007) and
Executive Order 13166. The goals of the LAP are: 1) to provide meaningful access for the
County’s LEP residents through the provision of free language assistance for the CDBG, HOME,
ESG, and HOPWA programs; 2) to provide an appropriate means to ensure the involvement of
LEP residents that are most likely to be affected by the programs and to ensure the continuity of
their involvement; 3) to ensure that the County’s CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA staff will
assist the County’s LEP population in obtaining the necessary services and/or assistance
requested or needed.
For FY 2010/11, the County will continue being proactive on many fronts with the
implementation of the LAP. The County’s mailing list of interested parties, which is used to
announce funding availability and general participation in the CDBG, HOME, ESG and
HOPWA programs, contains over 500 agencies including many agencies that target services to
specific populations (minorities, disabled, and the limited-English speaking populations). The
County’s staff will continue to access timely translation services, including having a Spanish-
speaking CDBG person currently on staff and by utilizing outside language assistance agencies,
when limited-English speaking citizens call to inquire about the various programs available. The
County will continue the process of translating vital documents that are critical for ensuring
meaningful access to the County’s major activities and programs by beneficiaries generally and
LEP residents specifically. The County continually monitors subrecipients to ensure funded
agencies are doing whatever is possible so that limited-English speaking residents have full and
complete access to services. The Census Bureau will conduct a census in 2010. The
demographic/limited-English population information for the County will be updated with the
2010 Census information when it becomes available.
Summary of Public Participation Process
On April 27, 2010, a public meeting regarding the FY 2010/11 Action Plan was held at the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors meeting. Notice of the meeting was published in the
news section of the local newspapers on March 26, 2010.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
26
ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT TABLES
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
27
ATTACHMENT B – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS CHART
FY 2009/10 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
28
ATTACHMENT C – CERTIFICATIONS
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
29
ATTACHMENT D—FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER'S PROGRAM
The Contra Costa Consolidated Plan has established a priority to increase homeownership
opportunities for very-low and low-income households in the Consortium area. Programs and
projects which will be considered for funding under this component of the HOME and ADDI
programs include:
First-time homebuyer assistance in connection with new housing developments to ensure that a
portion of the units will be affordable to and occupied by low-income households; and
Projects designed to increase neighborhood stability and improve the quality of housing through
an increased incidence of homeownership in an identified target area.
In the latter case, the total financing package for the project may include funds for rehabilitation
as well as acquisition of the residence.
All households receiving this assistance must be first-time homebuyers 17 with household
incomes at/below 80 percent of area median income. All assisted households must agree to
occupy the acquired unit as their principle place of residence throughout the loan period; no
temporary subleases will be permitted. In addition, federal regulations require that the appraised
value of units acquired with HOME funds must not exceed 95 percent of the median purchase
price of housing in Contra Costa County (currently $266,000 for a single-family home).
The County as the Consortium Representative will provide first-time homebuyer assistance using
HOME and ADDI funds in the form of a deferred second mortgage designed to fill the gap
between the purchase price of the home and the amount the buyer can afford based on household
income. Specifically, the amount of the second loan will equal the purchase price of the unit
minus the sum of the first mortgage, the homeowner's downpayment 18 , and any other sources of
available subsidy. ADDI loans will be limited to the greater of $10,000 or six percent of the
purchase price. In this way, the County will provide just enough subsidy to make the home
affordable to the low-income buyer. All HOME loans will be secured by a promissory note and
deed of trust specifying affordability and resale requirements.
The County will consider applications for first-time homebuyer programs and projects, which are
consistent with the above requirements and employ one of the following approaches:
1. A shared equity loan program designed to recapture the HOME subsidy upon sale
or transfer of the property; or
17The following types of households may also qualify for assistance even if they are not first-time homebuyers: a single
parent with custody of one or more minor children; a displaced homemaker; the owner of a home which does not meet local
codes and cannot be brought into compliance for less than the cost of new construction; or the owner of a manufactured home
which is not affixed to a permanent foundation.
18 In general, homebuyers will be required to provide a minimum downpayment of 3 to 5 percent. Higher downpayments will
be encouraged. Downpayment may be in the form of sweat equity or grants or gifts from other sources.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
30
2. A silent second loan program with resale restrictions to maintain affordability and
ensure acquisition of the unit by another qualified homebuyer.
Both programs must fully comply with the previously described Consortium requirements and all
applicable HOME Program regulations (24 CFR Part 92.254) concerning resale requirements.
These two approaches are described in more detail in the following.
Shared Equity Loan Program. Under this approach, HOME and ADDI funds may be used to
provide deferred second loans to qualified low-income first-time homebuyers. Shared equity
loans are due at the end of the loan term on sale or transfer of the property. Upon resale, the
homebuyer must repay the County the amount of the second plus a share in the appreciation of
the unit. Unit appreciation is defined as the difference between the original acquisition price and
the resale price. The County's share of the appreciation or "equity share" will equal the amount
of the HOME/ADDI second loan divided by the original acquisition price. All remaining
appreciation accrues to the seller.
For example, assume a first-time homebuyer acquires a home priced at $200,000 with the
following financing:
a. Homeowner downpayment of $10,000;
b. First mortgage of $178,000; and
c. HOME/ADDI silent second in the amount of $12,000.
The County's equity share upon resale is equal to six percent of the appreciation in the unit
($12,000 divided by $200,000). Assume the owner sells the unit in five years for $240,000,
resulting in a total appreciation in value of $40,000. Upon resale, the owner must repay the
HOME loan ($12,000) plus the County's share of the appreciation realized on the unit (6 percent
of $40,000 or $2,400). After paying off the first mortgage, the owner receives the value of his
original investment (downpayment plus principal paydown) and all remaining appreciation
($37,600 in the example).19 In the event that the unit does not appreciate, the County will
receive only the amount of the silent second ($12,000) upon resale. If the unit depreciates in
value and the homeowner has adequately maintained the unit, the County will reduce the silent
second loan repayment proportionately.
Funds recaptured as a result of the repayment of shared-equity loans will be deposited in the
HOME Housing Development Assistance Fund for use in funding future HOME-eligible
projects.
Silent Second Loan Program with Resale Restrictions. Under this approach, HOME funds may
be used to provide silent second loans to low-income first-time homebuyers who meet all the
requirements previously specified. Depending on financial need and the specific objectives of
the program or project, loans may be zero or low-interest. In addition, units purchased with
assistance through this program component must be maintained as a part of the affordable
19 If a first-time homebuyer undertakes significant capital improvements on a unit acquired with HOME funds, appreciation upon
resale will equal the resale price minus the original acquisition price minus the value of the improvements.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
31
housing stock for the following minimum time periods: 20 years for newly constructed units; 15
years for existing units. Affordability will be maintained through the following resale
restrictions, which must be incorporated into the loan documents securing the HOME funds:
1. County as Consortium Representative retains right of first refusal to acquire unit
in resale situation.
2. Sales price to equal the lesser of the current appraised value or the original
acquisition price (plus the value of any capital improvements) times the change in
area median income which has occurred during the period of ownership. This
approach maintains the integrity of the household's original investment in the unit
and represents a fair return.
3. Upon sale to a qualified household, the first buyer must repay the amount of the
silent second plus accrued interest, if any. The County will consider first-time
homebuyer programs, which forgive the interest after expiration of the minimum
required period of affordability (e.g., 20 years for new construction).
In a resale situation, the County will work with homeowners to identify HOME-eligible
purchasers to acquire the assisted units. While the County will not require the second purchaser
to be a first-time homebuyer, priority will be assigned to low-income households in this
category.
During the period of required affordability, the unit will be maintained as affordable to
households earning 70 percent of area median income 20 . In order to ensure continued
affordability, the County will provide a new silent second to the new purchaser in the same
amount and with the same terms and conditions as provided to the first buyer. If additional
HOME funds are required to maintain affordability, the second buyer will be required to be a
first-time homebuyer and a new period of affordability will be initiated.
20 Payment of principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI) will not exceed 40 percent of the gross monthly income of a
household earning 70 percent of AMI with the following exception. PITI equal to 40 percent of actual gross monthly income
for HOME-eligible households earning from 70 to 80 percent of AMI will be considered to be affordable.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
32
ATTACHMENT E—AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING PROCEDURES
The objective of affirmative marketing within the context of the CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and
ESG Programs is to promote equal access to housing by all groups within the relevant market
area. In order to accomplish this objective in accordance with federal regulations the County has
adopted the following policies and measures:
1. Methods for informing the public, owners, and potential tenants about the CDBG, HOME,
HOPWA, and ESG Programs, federal fair housing laws, and the County's affirmative
marketing policy. Information concerning the availability of funding, housing opportunities,
and fair housing and affirmative marketing requirements will be distributed to: the general
public; all jurisdictions and housing agencies located in the County; nonprofit and for-profit
owners and developers of affordable housing; and minority and public interest groups
representing the County's disadvantaged populations. Methods of distribution will include:
a. Press releases to the local news media.
b. Notices concerning County programs and available resources to be posted on
County website with links to detailed program descriptions, application
procedures, requirements and other relevant information.
c. Preparation and distribution of an informational brochure describing the CDBG,
HOME, HOPWA, and ESG Programs, including fair housing and affirmative
marketing requirements, and the Equal Housing Opportunity logo.
d. Meetings and workshops with potential applicants for HOME funds (e.g., cities,
developers, current operators and owners of affordable housing).
e. Meetings and workshops with representatives of minority and other
disadvantaged groups in Contra Costa County, including the NAACP, Familias
Unidas, Pacific Community Services, SHELTER, Inc., Bay Area Legal Aid,
Independent Living Resource, Area on Aging, Housing Assistance Alliance, and
the Chinese American Political Association.
f. The County will maintain records concerning the above activities, including
copies of press releases, affirmative marketing materials distributed, and
workshops and meetings held with the above groups and organizations.
2. Requirements and practices owners of assisted housing must adhere to in order to carry out
the County's affirmative marketing procedures and requirements. The County will require
owners of federally-assisted housing to comply with federal fair housing law and employ the
following affirmative marketing activities:
a. Advertise the availability of assisted units on an equal opportunity basis in local
newspapers and community newsletters, such as those published by minority
groups, neighborhood churches, public service organizations, etc.; and on bulletin
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
33
boards in community gathering spots (e.g., community center, church,
supermarket, laundromat, fair housing/housing counseling agency, and
employment office).
b. Contact appropriate neighborhood and community organizations and
representatives of minority and other disadvantaged groups to solicit tenants and
provide information about the availability of the assisted units on an equal
opportunity basis.
c. Display the Equal Housing Opportunity logo at the project location and in all
advertisements pertaining to assisted units.
3. Special outreach procedures to be used by owners of assisted units to solicit applications from
hard-to-reach populations who may not otherwise apply for residence in these units.
a. In conducting the advertising and outreach activities described in 2.a and b above,
owners of assisted units will be required to solicit the cooperation of appropriate
organizations in the relevant market area in identifying hard-to-reach populations
and informing prospective tenants from these groups of the availability of the
units on an equal opportunity basis. Organizations which may be particularly
effective in this effort include community churches, social service organizations,
housing and homeless service providers, and minority and senior citizen groups.
As appropriate, owners may request organizations to assist in distributing
marketing information concerning the availability of rental units through
newsletters, group meetings, and organization and community bulletin boards.
b. Again, all advertisements, workshops, meetings and notices concerning the
assisted-units will emphasize that the units are available on an equal opportunity
basis.
4. Record keeping requirements. The County will require recipients of federal funds to keep
records concerning affirmative marketing activities. These records must include copies of
advertisements placed in newspapers/newsletters and on local bulletin boards, as well as lists
of community groups and organizations contacted to solicit tenants. Recipients will also be
required to keep information on relevant tenant characteristics, including ethnic composition,
income, household size, and age and sex of head of household.
5. Assessment of affirmative marketing activities. The County will require the information
compiled in 4 above to be reported annually as a component of the project monitoring
process. Affirmative marketing activities will be evaluated to ensure that an adequate level
of activity is maintained. Tenant characteristics will be compared with population
characteristics in the market area as a further indicator of the effectiveness of the affirmative
marketing program and the absence of discrimination. Where discrepancies exist, the County
will work with the project owner to determine whether additional affirmative marketing
measures are required.
Requirements concerning affirmative marketing and fair housing compliance will be
incorporated in contract and loan agreements for all assisted projects. The County will document
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
34
any complaints received concerning a project recipient's failure to abide by all fair housing and
equal opportunity laws. All such complaints will be carefully evaluated to determine their
validity. In the event that a violation is identified, the County will inform the recipient and take
appropriate action to ensure that the situation is corrected.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
35
ATTACHMENT F—MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS OUTREACH PROGRAM
It is the policy of Contra Costa County that Minority-owned Business Enterprises (MBEs) and
Women-owned Business Enterprises (WBEs)21 shall have the maximum opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts and projects funded through the CDBG, HOME,
HOPWA, and ESG Programs. Services provided under such contracts may include, but are not
necessarily limited to: real estate; construction; appraisal; property management; lending;
investment banking; underwriting; accounting and legal representation and advice.
1. In order to implement this policy within the context of federally-funded programs, affirmative
marketing procedures will be employed by the County Department of Conservation &
Development to ensure that appropriate MBE/WBEs are notified of the availability of federal
funds and potential contracting opportunities. These procedures include the following:
a. Maintenance of a list of MBE/WBE certifying agencies for use by the County and
prime contractors for funded projects. The list is currently available through the
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development.
b. Distribution of information concerning the CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG
programs and potential contracting opportunities through meetings and other
contacts with local resource organizations currently employed by the County in
soliciting MBE/WBE participation in County projects. These organizations
include, but are not limited to the following: Filipino Chamber of Commerce of
Contra Costa County; Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Contra Costa County;
National Association of Women Business Owners; Contra Costa Builders
Exchange; Daily Pacific Builder; and the Chinese American Chamber of
Commerce.
c. Where economically feasible, total project requirements will be divided into
smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by MBE/WBEs. In
addition, the County will endeavor to establish delivery schedules for projects
which encourage MBE/WBE participation.
d. As appropriate, use the services and assistance of the Small Business
Administration and Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of
Commerce.
2. In addition to the above measures, the County will also require project sponsors and prime
contractors receiving funds under the CDBG, HOME, HOPWA and ESG programs to solicit
and use qualified MBE/WBEs for subcontract services wherever feasible. All project
contracts will contain a clause requiring contractors to notify applicable MBE/WBE firms of
available contracting and/or subcontracting opportunities. Notification requirements include
21 An eligible MBE is a business entity at least 51 percent owned and whose management and daily business operations
are controlled by one or more minorities who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States and a member
of a recognized racial or ethnic group (Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native).
Similarly, an eligible WBE is a business entity at least 51 percent owned and whose management and daily business
operations are controlled by one or more women who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
36
advertising in a local newspaper and/or trade publication, direct mailing to local resource
organizations, etc.
3. The Department of Conservation & Development will maintain centralized records
concerning the use and participation of MBE/WBEs as contractors and subcontractors on all
funded projects. In addition to information on MBE/WBEs which contract directly with the
County for purposes of the specified programs, the Department will require all subrecipients
to maintain records and report annually on the participation of MBE/WBEs as subcontractors
on projects.
FY 2010/11 Contra Costa County
Draft Action Plan-March 26, 2010
37
FY 2010/11 FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROJECTS ATTACHMENT C-1 Amount RequestedFamily and Human Services Committee RecommendationRecv'd in FY 2009/10Antioch Concord Pittsburg Richmond WC10-01-PS A Place of Learning (APOL) After School Tutoring and Mentoring Program 15,000$ 10,000$ n/a25,000$ 74,700$ 33%10-02-PS Amador Institute, Inc. Youth Development for Transition Aged Youth 40,521$ -$ n/a 7,000$ -$ 47,521$ 368,844$ 13%10-03-PS Ambrose Recreation District CARES After School Enrichment Program 15,000$ 10,000$ 12,000$ 37,000$ 649,568$ 6%10-04-PS Anka Behavioral Health, Inc. HOPE Plus 15,000$ 13,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 48,000$ 438,470$ 11%10-04A-PS Anka Behavioral Health, Inc. Project Coming Home 14,300$ -$ n/a -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10-05-PS Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) Landlord/Tenant Counseling Services 79,000$ 58,600$ 66,000$ 203,600$ 148,268$ 137%10-06-PS Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) Fair Housing Services 36,000$ 26,400$ 30,000$ 92,400$ 63,504$ 146%10-08-PS CCC Service Integration Program Bay Point Community Career Center 22,000$ 22,000$ 15,000$ 59,000$ 245,738$ 24%10-09-PS CCC Service Integration Program Service Integration Substance Abuse Services 15,000$ -$ 15,000$ 30,000$ 49,161$ 61%10-12-PS Community Housing Development Corporation Contra Costa County Home Equity Preservation Alliance (HEPA) 81,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 47,000$ -$ -$ 7,000$ 205,000$ 469,166$ 44%10-13-PS Community Housing Development Corporation Contra Costa Moving Assets Toward Community Hands (CCMATCH) 20,000$ 5,000$ 15,000$ -$ 40,000$ 133,406$ 30%10-14-PS Community Violence Solutions (CVS) Sexual Assault Victim Empowerment 18,500$ 15,000$ 18,500$ 52,000$ 68,310$ 76%10-15-PS Contra Costa Crisis Center Homeless Hotline/211 Contra Costa 20,000$ 18,000$ 20,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ 5,000$ 93,000$ 624,723$ 15%10-16-PS Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Adult Interim Housing Program 100,000$ 82,000$ 95,500$ 15,000$ 25,000$ -$ 7,000$ 324,500$ 1,627,411$ 20%10-17-PS Contra Costa Senior Legal Services Legal Services for the Elderly 13,500$ 10,000$ 12,000$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 11,000$ 6,500$ 63,000$ 436,250$ 14%10-18-PS Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Children at Risk 21,000$ 18,500$ 21,000$ 4,500$ 10,000$ -$ 4,000$ 79,000$ 421,500$ 19%10-19-PS Delta Memorial Hospital Foundation Sutter Delta Urgent Care Clinic 28,650$ -$ n/a -$ -$ 28,650$ 420,500$ 7%10-20-PS East Bay Center for Performing Arts After School Outreach Performing Arts Program 15,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ 40,000$ 60,179$ 66%10-21-PS East Bay Golf Foundation The First Tee of Contra Contra 10,000$ -$ n/a -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ 294,825$ 3%10-22-PS El Cerrito High School Community Project El Cerrito High School Community Project 9,000$ 9,000$ 9,000$ 27,000$ 202,900$ 13%10-23-PS Familias Unidas (Desarrollo Familiar, Inc.) Families Forward 30,000$ -$ n/a30,000$ 995,769$ 3%10-24-PS Family Stress Center Child Safety Program 10,000$ 5,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ 28,000$ 89%10-25-PS Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano Collaborative Food Distribution 65,900$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 7,000$ 19,984$ -$ 152,884$ 3,549,914$ 4%10-26-PS Greater Richmond Interfaith Program GRIP Family Housing Program 30,000$ -$ n/a -$ -$ -$ 12,000$ -$ 42,000$ 410,730$ 10%10-28-PS John Muir Health Foundation Caring Hands Volunteer Caregivers Program 30,000$ -$ n/a -$ 10,000$ -$ 5,000$ 45,000$ 508,845$ 9%10-29-PS La Clinica de La Raza, Inc. Increasing Local Access to Health Care Services 30,000$ -$ n/a30,000$ 43,259$ 69%10-30-PS Lions Center for the Visually Impaired Independent Living Skills for Blind & Visually Impaired Adults 15,000$ 10,000$ 12,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 57,000$ 529,493$ 11%10-31-PS Loaves & Fishes of Contra Costa County Feeding the hungry at Martinez Center 20,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 1,405,116$ 4%10-32-PS Lutheran Social Services of Northern California Mi Casa 10,293$ -$ n/a -$ 10,293$ 312,000$ 3%10-33-PS Monument Crisis Center Nutritional Resources for Low Income Families and Individuals 20,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 8,000$ 63,000$ 1,215,682$ 5%10-34-PS Neighborhood House of North Richmond Multicultural/ Senior Family Center 42,592$ 30,000$ 34,385$ 106,977$ 191,353$ 56%10-35-PS New Connections Recovery from Addiction 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ 36,000$ 391,101$ 9%10-36-PS New Connections HIV/AIDS Safety Net 15,000$ 10,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ 5,000$ 5,500$ 5,000$ 55,500$ 360,365$ 15%10-56-PS New Horizons Career Development Center Education, Job Training, Life Skills, and Job Placement Services 20,000$ 10,000$ n/a30,000$ 116,150$ 26%10-37-PS Northern California Family Center Runaway Shelter Services 20,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ -$ 50,000$ 250,000$ 20%10-38-PS Ombudsman Services of Contra Costa Ombudsman Services of Contra Costa 12,000$ 11,000$ 11,000$ 5,000$ 10,000$ 5,444$ 7,000$ 61,444$ 222,115$ 28%10-40-PS Opportunity West Assistance in Management (AIM) 19,600$ 19,000$ 19,600$ 10,000$ 68,200$ 36,200$ 188%10-41-PS Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District Senior Service Network 12,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 32,000$ 41,381$ 77%10-42-PS Positive Edge Experience The Positive Edge Program 15,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ -$ 8,000$ 38,000$ 70,880$ 54%10-43-PS REACH Project REACH Project 25,000$ 10,000$ n/a35,000$ 50,000$ 70%10-44-PS RYSE, Inc. RYSE Education and Career Success 30,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 60,000$ 1,302,181$ 5%10-45-PS Rainbow Community Center of Contra Costa Kind Hearts Community Support Program 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 30,000$ 75,230$ 40%10-47-PS SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County Homeless Prevention 25,000$ 10,000$ 22,000$ 14,000$ 20,000$ 4,000$ 95,000$ 535,148$ 18%10-48-PS STAND! Against Domestic Violence Rollie Mullen Center Emergency Shelter 20,000$ -$ 7,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ 52,000$ 581,450$ 9%10-49-PS Senior Outreach Services (MOW) Care Management 14,660$ 8,000$ 12,000$ 7,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ 61,660$ 98,179$ 63%10-50-PS Senior Outreach Services (MOW) Senior Nutrition - CC Cafes 12,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ 12,000$ 5,000$ 54,000$ 229,481$ 24%10-51-PS Verde Partnership Garden/Tides Center VERDE School; Service Learning Project 18,000$ 15,000$ 18,000$ 51,000$ 53,000$ 96%10-52-PS Village Community Resource Center VCRC Program Expansion 26,250$ 10,000$ n/a36,250$ 249,757$ 15%10-53-PS West County Adult Day Care West County Adult Day Care and Alzheimer Respite Center 15,000$ 15,000$ 11,000$ 22,000$ 63,000$ 258,000$ 24%10-54-PS YWCA of Contra Costa County YWCA Family Empowerment Program 20,805$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 40,805$ 83,220$ 49%10-55-PS Youth Homes, Inc. Emergency Shelter Assessment Program 60,000$ -$ n/a60,000$ 1,098,577$ 5%1,292,571$ 645,500$ 695,985$ 146,500$ 171,984$ 43,444$ 70,500$ 74,500$ 3,126,684$ 22,089,999$ 10-01-ESG Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Adult interim Housing Program 100,000$ 100,000$ 90,000$ 290,000$ 1,627,411$ 18%10-02-ESG Contra Costa Health Services Homeless Program Calli House Youth Shelter 10,000$ 4,025$ 6,000$ 20,025$ 416,724$ 5%10-03-ESG Greater Richmond Interfaith Program Emergency Shelter 20,000$ 10,000$ 12,000$ 42,000$ 164,612$ 26%10-04-ESG SHELTER, Inc. of Contra Costa County REACH Plus 16,000$ -$ 13,111$ 29,111$ 1,178,178$ 2%10-05-ESG STAND! Against Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter 24,000$ 31,000$ 24,000$ 79,000$ 581,450$ 14%170,000$ 145,025$ 145,111$ 460,136$ 3,968,375$ TOTALSTOTALSCCC File No. Applicant Project NameTotal CDBG / ESG Total Budget% Budget (CDBG /ESG)County CDBG / ESG CDBG Consortium Jurisdictions (amounts recommended)
FY 2010/11 FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - CDBG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSATTACHMENT C-2Amount Requested Finance Committee Recommendation FY 2010/11Recv'd in FY 2009/10Antioch Concord Pittsburg Richmond Walnut Creek10-01-EDCalifornia Network 315 3rd Street, A Richmond, CA 94801 (510) 412-9290 Building Community Strength through Communication Program/ East County54,600$ 12,000$ N/A -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ 234,100$ 10-02-EDContra Costa Child Care Council1035 Detroit AvenueSuite 200Concord, CA 94518(925) 676-5442Road to Success - Family Day Care Development Project/Urban County125,000$ 105,000$ 96,100$ 15,000$ 18,000$ 8,000$ 20,000$ 15,000$ 315,000$ 10-03-EDOpportunity Junction 3102 Delta Fair Blvd. Antioch, CA 94509 (925) 776-1133Opportunities for Technology Information Careers for Low-Income Residents/ East County80,000$ 80,000$ 75,000$ 80,000$ -$ 28,000$ -$ -$ 680,200$ 10-04-EDRubicon Programs, Inc2500 Bissell AvenueRichmond, CA 94804(510) 231-3987Project Independence Program/ West County100,000$ 100,000$ 130,000$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ 677,263$ 10-05-EDThe Stride Center 2300 El Portal Drive, Suites F & G San Pablo, CA 94806 (510) 234-1300Tech Job Training/Job Placement Program/ West County50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 227,895$ 10-06-EDWest Contra Costa Business Development Center, Inc. 334 11th Street Richmond, CA 94801(510) 236-3690Strengthening Neighborhood Economies - Commercial Corridor Revitalization/West County75,000$ 75,000$ 74,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 331,200$ 10-07-EDWomen's Initiative 1465 Enea Circle, Ste. 900 Concord, CA 94520 (925) 603-2774 Microenterprise Opportunities for Low-Income Women Program/ Urban County 50,117$ 50,000$ N/A -$ -$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 373,995$ 10-08-EDWorkforce Development Board2425 Bisso Lane #200Concord, CA 94520(925) 646-5249Small Business Management Assistance Program/Urban County55,000$ 55,000$ 53,900$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ 225,425$ Totals $ 589,717 $ 527,000 $ 479,200 $ 125,000 $ 18,000 $ 61,000 $ 40,000 $ 30,000 $ 3,065,078 Total BudgetCounty CDBG CDBG Consortium Jurisdictions (Amounts Recommended)CCC File No. Applicant Project Name
FY 2010/11 FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS - CDBG INFRASTRUCTURE / PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECTSATTACHMENT C-3CCC File No. Project Sponsor Project NameAmount RequestedFiannce Committee Recommendation FY 2010/11Finance Committee Recommendation FY 2011/12Concord Richmond Antioch10-01-IPFAnka Behavorial Health, Inc Don Brown Shelter Renovation (Antioch) 8,248$ 8,248$ -$ n/a n/a 8,248$ 10-02-IPF Bay Area Legal Aid Building Renovation (Richmond) 25,392$ 25,000$ -$ n/a 50,000$ n/a10-03-IPF Boys & Girls Club of El Sobrante New Roof for Main Building $ 21,420 $ 21,420 n/a n/a n/a 10-04-IPF Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building, Inc Restroom ADA Improvements $ 57,202 $ 56,289 $ - n/a n/a n/a 10-05-IPF City of El Cerrito Senior Center ADA Improvements 33,750$ 33,750$ -$ n/a n/a n/a10-06-IPF Contra Costa ARC George Miller Center -Building Improvements (Concord)12,000$ 12,000$ -$ -$ n/a n/a10-07-IPF CC County Public Works DepartmentMarket Ave. Sidewalk Improvements (North Richmond)50,000$ -$ 50,000$ n/a n/a n/a10-08-IPF CC County Public Works Department Montalvin Manor Pedestrian and Transit Access 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ n/a n/a n/a10-09-IPF CC County Public Works Department Pacheco Creekside Trail Improvements 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ n/a n/a n/a10-10-IPF Lao Family Community Development, Inc.Parking Lot Expansion (San Pablo)50,000$ -$ 47,929$ n/a n/a n/a10-13-IPF Village Community Resource Center Building Expansion (Brentwood) 45,358$ 45,358$ -$ n/a n/a n/aTOTALS373,370$ 222,065$ 147,929$ -$ 50,000$ 8,248$ CCC RecommendationsCDBG Consortium Jurisdictions (Amounts RecommendedCD-8: Infrastructure and Accessibility: Maintain quality public facilities and adequate infrastructure, and ensure access for the mobility-impaired by addressing physical access barriers to public facilities.
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships ActFY 2010/11 Affordable Housing Program and CDBG/HOME AdministrationAttachment C-4TotalProject ID#Sponsor Project Name/Location Description/Purpose Project Cost CDBG HOME CDBG HOME10-01 HSG Community Housing Development Corporation of Grove PointNorth RichmondNew construction of 25 units affordable to and occupied by lower income households.CHDC is a CHDO for the HOME program. (a) $ 11,466,142 $432,500 $50,00010-02 HSG Satellite HousingThird AvenueWalnut CreekNew construction of 47 units affordable to and occupied by lower income households.21,260,647$ $1,200,000 $1,200,00010-03 HSG Housing Authority of Contra CostaRental Rehabilitation Loan Program, Urban CountyProvision of subsidized loans for the rehabilitation of 15-25 units of rental housing affordable to & occupied by extremely, very, and low-income HHs.Total budget includes $50,000 in anticipated program income.$600,000 $225,000 $225,00010-05A HSGCommunity Energy Services CorporationHome and Safety RepairWest CountyHome Repair will provide urgent home repairs to 100 low income owner-occupants. $158,954 $120,00010-05B HSGCommunity Energy Services CorporationHealthy HomesWest CountyHealthy Homes will provide multi-trigger asthma assessment, remediation, and education to 60 low-income households where people with asthma reside.$335,761 $176,807 $160,70010-06 HSGHabitat for Humanity East BayPleasant CreekWalnut CreekNew construction of 10 homes affordable to and occupied by low and moderate income HH.$4,591,787 $160,000 $160,00010-07 HSG CCC DCDNeighborhood Preservation Program, Urban CountyProvision of 34 zero and low interest loans & emergency grants for rehab of housing owned and occupied by very-low and low-income HHs.Total budget includes $300,000 in anticipated program income.$1,000,000 $700,000 $700,00010-08 HSG Las TrampasMoraga House, LafayetteRehabilitation of existing vacant group home for developmentally disabled adults$181,500 $165,000 $165,000Objective AH-7 - Supportive Housing: Preserve existing special needs housing Objective AH-3 - Preservation: Maintain and preserve the affordable housing stockObjective AH-1 - Rental Housing: Expand housing opportunities for lower-income households through an increase in the supply of decent, safe and affordable housing and rental assistance. Funds Requested AHFC RecommendationObjective AH-2 - Homeownership: Increase homeownership opportunities for lower-income households.
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships ActFY 2010/11 Affordable Housing Program and CDBG/HOME AdministrationAttachment C-4TotalProject ID#Sponsor Project Name/Location Description/Purpose Project Cost CDBG HOME CDBG HOME Funds Requested AHFC Recommendation10-_ _ -PSSee Public Service tableFair Housing (b)Fair housing counseling and legal services$80,000 $80,000APPLICATION TOTAL FY 2010/11 (c)$39,594,791$1,866,807 $2,892,500 $1,730,700 $2,510,000Additional AllocationsProgram Administration$817,397 $322,051$20,000 $30,000$336,009 $619,277Notes(b) Staff recommendation for fair housing service provider went to the Family and Human Services Com(c) FY 2010/11 funds were allocated to Orinda Senior Housing in FY 2009/10 $400,000 $1,100,000(a) Per federal regulations, 15 percent of each year's allocation of HOME funds must be used for projects sponsored, owned, or developed by Community Housing Development Corporations (CHDO). This requirement can be met on a cumulative basis. CHDC is a CHDO). Project Legal and Davis Bacon compliance costs (to be added to project allocations)FY 2010/11 CDBG and HOME Housing Development Assistance Fund (HDAF)(HM HDAF includes $350,000 recaptured from CHDC in-fill)Objective CD-5 - Landlord/Tenant Counseling and Fair Housing Services: Continue to promote fair housing activities and affirmatively further fair housing.
SOURCES AND USES BY FUNDING SOURCE Attachment D
Community Development Block Grant
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,736,986 Projects/Programs $3,419,144
Recaptured funds from closed
or completed projects
409,493
FY 2009/10 Housing
Development Assistance Fund
(HDAF)
76,071
Housing Development
Assistance Fund (HDAF)
336,009
Program Income (est.)
350,000
Program Administration
FY 2010/11
817,397
Total Available for Allocation $4,572,550 Total Funds Allocated $4,572,550
HOME Investment Partnerships Act
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $3,220,509 Projects/Programs $2,540,000
FY 2009/10 HDAF 260,819 FY 2010/11 HDAF 619,277
Program Administration
322,051
Total Available for Allocation $3,481,328 Total Funds Allocated $3,481,328
Emergency Shelter Grants
Sources of Funds Recommended Allocations
FY 2010/11 Grant $151,604 Projects/Programs $145,025
Program Administration
$6,579
Total Available for Allocation $151,604 Total Funds Allocated $151,604
Housing Opportunities for Persons With Aids
During FY 2010/11, the County will receive approximately $450,000 in HOPWA funds.
These funds will be allocated through a separate competitive application process in the
fall of 2010. Six and a half percent of the grant amount ($29,250) will be used for
program administration costs.