HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01141997 - C109 f
C.1079 C.1089 0.109, and C.110
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 14, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.107 LETTER dated December 17, 1996, from Michael De Sa, Superintendent, Walnut Creek
School District, 960 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, advising that the
District's Governing Board took action to confirm its continued land use of Dorris-Eaton
School for classroom instruction(Government Code Section 53094).
*****REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C.108 RESOLUTION dated December 17, 1996, from Janet Weingarten, Superintendent, 8
Altarinda Road, Orinda, CA 94563, adopted by the Governing Board, Orinda Union
School District, requesting that the Governing Board trustee election of November 4,
1997, be consolidated with the statewide general election of November 3, 1997, and with
every statewide general election of even numbered years thereafter; and
RESOLUTION dated December 17, 1996, from Ellin A. Barret, P.O. Box 187, Canyon,
CA 94516, adopted by the Governing Board, Canyon Elementary School District,
requesting the consolidation of its Governing Board election with the November 3, 1998,
general election.
*****REFERRED TO THE COUNTY CLERK
C.109 LETTER dated December 30, 1996, from Steven B. Sachs, Director, Community
Planning and Development Division, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3448, transmitting
the Annual Community Assessment Report (ACAR) for the 1995 fiscal year on the
County's CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.
*****REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C.110 NOTIFICATION dated December 31, 1996, from the County Clerk advising of vacancies
in the following districts because no candidates filed for election to these positions:
A. Kensington Community Services District Board (one vacancy), and Kensington
Fire Protection District Board(one vacancy).
***** REFERRED TO DISTRICT I SUPERVISOR
1
+ o�QPPtMENTpFypGN U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Pacific/Hawaii Office
* * 0 450 Golden Gate Avenue A
2Q IIIIIIII San Francisco, California 94102-3448
619 e
DAN DEvEI'p
DEC 3 01996
Mr. Jeff Smith
Chairperson
County Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street, Room 108A
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Smith:
SUBJECT: Annual Community Assessment
Fiscal Year 1995
Our office has completed the annual assessment of the
County' s performance as it relates to the 1995 Fiscal Year
Consolidated Plan. Based upon this review, we have
determined that the County has been able to implement
community development strategies to address needs originally
identified in the Consolidated Plan. The County' s
achievements illustrate a continued commitment to embracing
a vision of community development that is responsive to the
needs identified in its Consolidated Plan.
HUD' s Community Planning and Development Division
maintains active partnerships with State and local
governments for the purpose of achieving meaningful housing
and community development results . Our partnerships are
forged by the laws, regulations and policies that govern our
collective efforts, and by the unique characteristics that
define each partner. Our primary objective is to ensure
that our joint efforts result in housing and community
development programs and initiatives that benefit low and
moderate income families . To that end, we annually review
our partnership performance .
Enclosed is the Annual Community Assessment Report
(ALAR) , which discusses the County' s Fiscal Year 1995
performance for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs . The
report is based upon the information made available' to this
office and does not reflect a comprehensive evaluation of
specific program activities . Listed below are highlights
from the report :
2
Program Strengths
• The Consolidated Plan was well-written and can
be easily understood by citizens .
• The County funded a variety of housing,
infrastructure, and public service programs
which addressed identified needs .
• The County has worked with the City of Richmond
to revitalize North Richmond.
Areas for Improvement
• The County did not meet its economic development
goals for the 1995 program year.
• Outreach to other agencies should be improved during
the development process for the annual Action Plans,
and five-year Consolidated Plan.
The Consolidated Plan regulations require that HUD
submit its ACAR to grantees for review and comment, and that
the report be made available to the public . The County is
requested to review the enclosed report and provide any
comments to our office within 30 days from the date of this
letter. HUD may revise the report after considering
comments . Our office will then issue its final performance
report to the County, so that it can be made available to
the public . The County can make the report available
through various methods, including sending copies of the
report to members of the County Board of Supervisors, to the
media, or have it available at public hearings .
If the County chooses not to make the report available
to citizens or organizations, interested parties should be
advised that HUD will make the report available upon
request . The County is requested to inform our office of
its decision regarding making the report available to the
public .
In closing, we thank Contra Costa County for
maintaining a partnership with HUD -- a partnership that
continues to produce meaningful housing and community
3
development results . If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (415) 436-6597, or your HUD
CPD Representative, Kimberly Fergison, at (415) 436-8485 .
Very sincerely yours,
,lg,< Steven B . Sachs
Director, Community Planning
and Development Division
cc :
Mr. Phillip Batchelor
County Administrator
Mr. James Kennedy
Deputy Director, Redevelopment
Ms . Kathleen Hamm
Principal Planner
Ms . Belinda Smith
Chief, Community Development
(. Ioq
4
Contra Costa County
and the Contra Costa County Consortium
Annual Community Assessment Report
1995 Program Year
Part I : Summary of Consolidated Plan/Action Plan Review and
Assessment
Clarity of the Consolidated Plan
The information contained in the Consortium' s 1995
Consolidated Plan was presented in an organized and logical
format . Although the Consortium was unable to utilize the
Consolidated Plan Software (CPS) to generate maps and
tables, the Consortium was able to recreate the required
tables and include a map which identified areas of poverty
and minority concentration.
It should be noted that Contra Costa County, the lead
member of the Consortium, did not use CPS in 1995 , because
the County is an early grantee and the required software to
run CPS was delivered to the office 15 days prior to the due
date of the Plan to our office . We requested that the maps
be provided at a later date . However the County did not
produce the requested maps . In. addition, no maps were
developed for the County' s 1996 Action Plan. The County is
requested to produce these maps with its next. Action Plan
submission, since the maps are helpful to citizens and
others who review the plan.
Participation of citizens/agencies during the development of
the Consolidated Plan
The Consortium convened two public hearings to gather
input on community development and housing needs, and at a
third hearing, the Consortium' s 1995 Consolidated Plan was
approved. The review of the summary of comments indicates
that all of the comments at the first public hearing were
from local non-profit agencies . No public comments were
received at the last public hearing.
The Consortium is commended for its efforts to consult
with other public and private agencies regarding the needs
of the Consortium residents . A total of 327 public and
private agencies were sent a needs survey about current
services provided and expected needs . In addition,
Consortium staff attended various public forums and planning
meetings in order to gain a better understanding of the
needs of special needs populations . However, the Consortium
was not very successful in getting input from citizens .
5
Areas of Improvement and Recommendations
Strengths
• The information contained in the Consolidated Plan
has been presented in a logical format that should
be understandable to local citizens .
Recommendations for Improvement
• The Consortium should intensify its efforts to
increase citizen participation in the development
of the annual Action Plan, and five-year
Consolidated Plan.
• Using CPS to generate maps which identify low and
moderate income areas, areas of minority
concentration and areas of high unemployment would
allow interested citizens to understand the impact
proposed projects could have in their neighborhoods .
Part II : Summary of Grantee Performance
CPD Programs
Action Plan Reflects Strategy - Proposed Goals
The County has stated in its Plan that those needs
which have been identified as of the highest priority will
be funded, and that if any funds remain, needs with a medium
designation will be funded. In addition, the County is most
concerned with assisting low income families with children,
the homeless, the disabled and other "at-risk" groups like
the elderly.
Goal - Providing Decent Housing
For the 1995 program year, the Consortium Consolidated
Plan has identified the various housing and homeless
activities to be funded with CDBG, HOME and ESG funds . The
County proposed to rehabilitate 36 homeowner units
throughout the County. For rental housing, the County
planned to rehabilitate 20 privately-owned rental housing
units . Two other rental housing projects were also proposed
for funding during the program year: Brentwood Senior
Apartments and Bay Point Multi-family Rental Housing. At
the time the Consolidated Plan was submitted to our office,
the Consortium was not sure of the exact projects to be
funded with HOME dollars, but projected that HOME funds
of
6
would be used for the following types of activities : new
construction, substantial rehabilitation, other
rehabilitation, and acquisition.
For activities to assist the homeless, the County
proposed to fund the following activities with CDBG funds :
rehabilitation of _an emergency shelter, a group home for
severely developmentally disabled, and for a battered
women' s facility. Additionally, the County proposed to
allocate ESG funds for the following activities : shelter
operations, essential services to the homeless, shelter
renovations, and homeless prevention activities .
Goal - Suitable Living Environment
The County proposed to fund a variety of public
facilities/infrastructure improvements, as well as public
services during the 1995 program year. In terms of public
facilities and infrastructure improvements, the County
allocated funds to renovate child care centers, a youth
center and two playground restoration projects and expansion
of a senior health center. Infrastructure improvements
included installing fire hydrants and undertaking sidewalk
improvements in Knightsen, a barrier removal activity in San
Pablo, and sidewalk improvements in Bay Point .
Public service activities proposed for funding during
the program year can be grouped into the following
categories based upon the population to be served: services
for children/youths, programs for the elderly, the disabled,
and assistance to the homeless .
Goal - Expanding Economic Opportunities
The County is very interested in using CDBG funds for
economic development activities, and proposed to fund a
number of projects under this eligibility category. Some of
the projects selected for funding were to provide job
training and then job placement, while other projects
provide technical assistance to small businesses . CDBG
funds were also proposed to assist businesses to purchase
equipment necessary for expanding the business .
Achieving Action Plan Goals
Providing Decent Housing
During the 1995 program year, the Consortium was very
successful in implementing housing activities to assist
first-time homebuyers, owner-occupied housing, and rental
^ /0q
7
housing. In addition, the housing assisted in most cases
was located in areas of high concentrations of minorities
and poverty. The County was able to meet or exceed its
goals for the various proposed housing activities for the
1995 program year. Finally, we recognize the efforts of
staff from both the County and City of Richmond, who have
worked together to revitalize North Richmond. A recent
example of this collaboration is the Parkway Estates
project , an 87-unit, single-family development .
To address the needs of the homeless and other special
needs populations, the County provided CDBG, HOME,. and ESG
funds for activities which represent each element of the
continuum of care . Funds were used for homeless prevention
activities, for emergency and transitional housing, shelter
operating costs, supportive services, and permanent housing
for persons who were formerly homeless .
However, it is important to note that only two of the
member Consortium communities, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek,
appear to be utilizing HOME funds awarded to the Consortium.
The review of the most recent CMIS report identifies
projects located in various parts of the County, including
San Pablo, Pacheco, Bay Point, Martinez, North Richmond, El
Cerrito, a number of projects in Pittsburg, and one project
in Walnut Creek. To date, it appears that no HOME funds
have been awarded to projects in either Antioch or Concord.
Creating a Suitable Living Environment
Based upon the review of the GPR, it appears that the
County has been very successful in implementing projects
that address the needs which come under this category. For
instance, the County was able to fund a variety of barrier
removal projects, sidewalk and fire hydrant improvement
projects, and renovations to both senior centers and youth
centers . In terms of public services, the County was also
quite successful in funding activities that assist seniors,
youths, and the disabled.
Expanding Economic Opportunities
The County has had mixed results with the economic
development programs funded during the program year. For
instance, the two programs that were to provide technical
assistance to small businesses were not very successful in
providing such assistance . In one case, the subrecipient
had some capacity issues, and in the other case, very few
clients sought assistance . Two other program participants
selected to provide training and job placement were
C�. Ioq
8
determined to not have the capacity to carry out the funded
activities, and the projects were canceled. A number of
persons were assisted through one program administered by
the County PIC, but none of the participants were able to
secure business loans to start businesses .
Areas for Improvement and Recommendations
Strengths
• The County has done an admirable job in
implementing programs and projects to
address identified housing, and suitable
living environment needs, and as a result
has met or exceeded proposed goals .
Recommendations for Improvement
• As lead agency for the Consortia, the County must
work with other consortium members, especially
An and Concord, to ensure that these communities
are able to utilize HOME funds for needed affordable
housing projects .
• While it is commendable that the County is dedicated
to undertaking economic development activities, the
County should focus on activities that have a good
chance of being implemented and which will provide
satisfactory results .
B. Other HUD Programs
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Our FH&EO Office has determined that the County
supported a variety of activities that benefitted minorities
and persons with special needs during the program year. Of
special note are Main Street Apartments in Oakley and Aspen
Court in Pacheco . The County provided both technical
assistance as well as funding for both projects .
The FH&EO review of the 1995 GPR found some problems
related to the reporting of direct beneficiary data for a
variety of activities . The County has recently responded to
FH&EO' s letter regarding this matter, and has requested
technical assistance .
NO
9
Regarding fair housing actions, FH&EO has reported that
Contra Costa County has completed its Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice . Currently there is one
discrimination complaint filed against the County which is
currently under investigation.
Office of Housing
This past November, the Office of Housing awarded CHDC
and Eden Housing $3 , 919, 900 in Section 202 funds for. the
development of a 52-unit elderly housing project in North
Richmond. Housing also awarded this project $1, 270, 566 in
project rental assistance . The County and City of Richmond
worked in collaboration to get this project funded. In
addition, the County submitted a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area Plan for the North Richmond area, which was
approved by HUD. This approval gave the North Richmond
proposal an additional 5 points in the Section 202
competition.
Areas for Improvement and Recommendations
Strengths
• The County and City of Richmond have been
highly supportive of the Section 202 project
in North Richmond, and have worked in a
collaborative fashion in terms of supporting the
project financially, as well as in advocating
for the development of this project . We commend
your staff for their efforts .
Recommendations for Improvement
• FH&EO recommends that Contra Costa County review
the reporting procedures required of subrecipients
to ensure that records are maintained which document
the income level and race/ethnicity of CDBG
beneficiaries .
Part III : HUD Evaluation and Conclusions
Based upon the review of the City' s 1995 Grantee
Performance Report, Consolidated Plan, HOME and ESG Annual
Performance Reports which have been approved, and
familiarity with the County' s programs, the County has begun
the process of funding activities which address identified
needs . Although no monitoring was conducted of this program
year, we have no indication that the County is not complying
with program regulations . Therefore, it has been determined
.f
c.i01
to
that the City has the continuing capacity to administer the
CDBG program.
It would be helpful to the community if the County' s
next Action Plan submission included maps which identify low
and moderate income areas of the County, areas of minority
concentration, areas of high unemployment, and a map
identifying projects in relation to the areas of minority,
low and moderate income, and unemployment . concentration.
Finally, the County' s outreach efforts to citizens should be
improved.