California’s Housing Funding Setbacks: The Plaza Library Challenge

The State of California’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC) has released staff recommendations for its latest round of affordable housing awards—funding essential for moving major transit-oriented development projects forward. El Cerrito Plaza’s Parcel C East did not receive an award, representing an early and important setback for the proposed Plaza Library, which is tied to Parcel C West.

The SGC’s full vote is scheduled for Wednesday, but staff recommendations usually indicate the final direction. And that direction underscores a deeper truth: the Plaza Library project faces real obstacles, long timelines, and substantial uncertainty.

A Competitive Funding Environment With Structural Challenges

Affordable housing projects in California rely on a complex stack of competitive funding sources:

• AHSC (Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities) grants
• 4% tax credits
• 9% tax credits

Three Plaza-related projects are currently in play:

1. Parcel A South
2. Parcel C East
3. Parcel C West (affordable housing + proposed library)

Parcel A South appears to have secured key awards—pre-development fencing is already visible.

Parcel C East, however, just lost out on AHSC funds. And because El Cerrito is not categorized as a low-income area, its applications are at a competitive disadvantage compared with surrounding communities.

To date, there is no visible indication that funding has been secured—or even actively pursued—for Parcel C West, the parcel that includes the library. If Parcel C East later secures funding, it could reduce the odds for Parcel C West, as state agencies typically aim to spread resources across multiple projects and regions.

Complicating matters further, other major transit-oriented developments—such as the North Berkeley BART TOD—are competing for the same limited pool of grants.

In short, the Plaza Library parcel is in a competitive race with no clear path to the front.

Why This Is a Setback for the Library

Years ago, one of the City’s own consultants warned that the Plaza would face “significant issues beyond the city’s control.” Today, those issues are on full display.

Meanwhile, the regional market tells the same story: housing development across the Bay Area is slowing or stalling due to high construction costs, tightened financing, and economic uncertainty. Large, complex mixed-use projects tied to multiple funding streams are the most difficult to advance.

And yet:

**The proposed tax is guaranteed.

The library itself remains highly uncertain.**

Residents are being asked to approve 30 years of new taxing authority—starting immediately—despite the project having no building plans, no secured timeline, no environmental certainty, and no funding commitments from the State.

A Financial Reality Check: The True Cost of Affordable Housing

Examining other developments illustrates the scale of the challenge.

The Mayfair project in El Cerrito averaged $964,000 per affordable unit—nearly one million dollars per apartment under the current financing model.

This matters because it highlights the broader fiscal landscape:

El Cerrito can save—if spending is reprioritized around core service delivery.

But even with reprioritized spending, the library project is still dependent on competitive State funding that is not guaranteed and has not yet materialized.

The issue is not the City’s ability to save.
The issue is whether this particular project is realistically positioned to advance in the current competitive environment.

If the measure passes, taxpayers would authorize:

• Immediate tax collection
• 30 years of new taxing authority
• A library project with no secured funding timeline
• Potential multi-year delays due to competitive grants
• Escalating construction costs during those delays
• The possibility that the library may not move forward at all

Supporters often assume the project is shovel-ready. The State’s funding decisions reveal the opposite.

Equity Concerns: Who Would Bear the Cost?

Comparing this proposal to the WCCUSD parcel tax shows meaningful differences in taxpayer protections:

• WCCUSD offers a simple, accessible senior exemption.
• The proposed library tax has a senior exemption that is extremely difficult to qualify for.
• Disabled and low-income residents fare significantly better under the WCCUSD model.

As written, the library tax would fall disproportionately on seniors, disabled residents, and low-income homeowners—those least able to absorb long-term tax increases.

Bottom Line: A Setback That Should Influence the City’s Approach

The Strategic Growth Council’s decision represents a notable setback for the library project and should prompt serious reflection:

• Funding is not secured.
• Timelines are uncertain.
• Competing regional projects are stronger.
• Costs continue to rise.
• The project’s viability is tied to factors outside the City’s control.

What Taxpayers Are Being Asked to Commit To

With so many unknowns, the tax is the only certain component—and it begins immediately.

Call to Action: Ask El Cerrito to Return With an Affordable, Tax-Free Option

El Cerrito residents need a library plan that is financially responsible, transparent, and achievable without new taxes. The City can save—if it reprioritizes spending based on service delivery and core community needs—and does not need to pursue the most expensive and uncertain path.

Before asking residents to shoulder 30 years of new taxing authority, the City should return with an option that:

• Fits within existing resources
• Focuses on service delivery rather than costly, speculative development
• Reduces long-term financial risk to taxpayers
• Reflects realistic funding timelines
• Ensures equity for vulnerable residents

Now is the time for residents to speak up.

Tell the City Council you support a library plan that is achievable, affordable, and tax-free—not one that relies on decades of new taxes and uncertain promises.

Your voice matters.
Your participation matters.
El Cerrito deserves a responsible path forward.

____________________________________________________________________

A Routine Consent Calendar Item Revealed a Much Bigger Problem

On December 2, 2025, the El Cerrito City Council received two simple, unanimous recommendations from the Financial Advisory Board (FAB). These came from the October 28 meeting and were memorialized in the email included on page 28 of the agenda packet.

Chair David Carvel appeared remotely to address the recommendation.   There were no questions from the City Council.

The recommendations were not controversial. They were not costly. They were not political. They were standard elements of sound fiscal governance:

FAB Recommendation #1

Take action in the next budget cycle (FY 26/27–27/28) to meet the City’s 17% unassigned reserve target.
This is consistent with the City’s long-standing policy and the Comprehensive Financial Policies Council’s adopted policies.

FAB Recommendation #2

Before Council takes action on the forthcoming Service Delivery Study, allow FAB the opportunity to evaluate the recommendations and provide financial analysis.

This is precisely what FAB exists to do. The Municipal Code charges FAB with reviewing major expenditures, long-term financial planning, and revenue impacts. Asking to review a study about service delivery and potential savings is not only appropriate—it is expected.

Both recommendations passed unanimously. There was no opposition, no dissent, and no ambiguity.

And yet, when these recommendations reached the City Council, something very telling happened.

Council Could Have Pulled the Item for Discussion— They Didn’t

The FAB recommendations were placed on the Consent Calendar, meaning they were slated for a simple receive-and-file. Any councilmember could have pulled the item to discuss it.

None did.

Instead, during Council comments, Councilmember Lisa Motoyama took the now-predictable path: lecturing the Financial Advisory Board about how they need to do more. She requested specific recommendations on cuts.

This was not the first time. It is part of a pattern.
Instead of addressing the substance of the recommendations or giving guidance to staff, she often publicly reprimands volunteers who don’t have access to City data and only meet once a month – as decided by city staff.

Let’s be clear on the facts:

• FAB meets once per month.
• FAB does not supervise City staff.
• FAB has no direct access to internal operational data or systems.
• City staff report to the City Manager. The City Manager reports to the City Council.

If a councilmember wants a detailed financial analysis or operational evaluation, the process is simple:

Council directs the City Manager to provide the data.

Without that direction, FAB cannot produce the depth of analysis Councilmember Motoyama claims to want.

A Service Delivery Study Is Already Underway — So Why the Finger-Pointing?

The irony here is stark.

The City is already conducting a Service Delivery Study—the very study designed to identify savings, efficiency opportunities, and operational improvements. It is being led by consultants who do have access to staff, data, and systems.

Yet instead of:

• preparing for the recommendations, or
• directing the City Manager to empower FAB to engage meaningfully, or
• directing the Manager to make a recommendation on the necessary reductions without severely impacting service delivery

Councilmember Motoyama again chose performance over governance.

So, we are left with only two possible explanations:

1. She does not understand her authority as an elected official, including that

the City Manager reports to the City Council, not the reverse.

or

2. She understands her authority — but is unwilling to exercise it, particularly when it involves directing the City Manager to make the necessary cuts.

Neither explanation reflects well on her leadership.

When a council liaison routinely criticizes volunteers while failing to request the data needed for those volunteers to succeed, the issue is not FAB’s performance.
The issue is a refusal to lead.

FAB Did Its Job. Now It’s Time for the City Council to Do Theirs.

The December 2 recommendations were simple. Reasonable. Necessary.

• Stabilize reserves.
• Review the Service Delivery Study before taking action.
• Allow the City’s only fiscally qualified advisory board to do the job it was created to do.

Instead of supporting that work, the liaison chose to deflect responsibility and scold volunteers for failing to complete tasks the City has never empowered them to perform.

El Cerrito deserves a City Council that understands the basics of governance:

• If you want analysis, you authorize access to data.
• If you want recommendations, you empower your advisory bodies.
• If you want accountability, you direct the City Manager accordingly.

Councilmember Motoyama’s continued reliance on public lectures—rather than leadership—does not move the City forward. It simply erodes trust and avoids the responsibility voters entrusted to her.

The Bottom Line

The FAB recommendations should have been the least controversial part of the evening.
Instead, they exposed a deeper issue: a council liaison who places expectations on volunteers that the City has never enabled them to meet.

That is not governance.
That is not oversight.
And it is certainly not leadership.

El Cerrito deserves leaders who empower accountability, not ones who deflect it.  There’s an election in less than a year.  

Let’s vote for council members who understand good governance and are willing to work effectively in their role.