HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.6 - 2504 Housing Policy Framework
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: March 19, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Housing Policy Framework
Prepared by: Jeff Baker, Community Development Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider support for the Housing and Policy Framework as drafted
by the Tri-Valley Cities to address the number of recent, significant efforts at the State
and regional level related to the statewide housing crisis. The report also includes a
summary of the CASA compact and an overview of key housing legislation that has
recently been proposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Approving Support for the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy
Framework as a Supplement to the Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework on Housing
Matters.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The housing challenges in California are real and the current and upcoming legislative
cycles will include notable and impactful housing legislation that will be f elt statewide.
Current efforts at the regional level, through the Committee to House the Bay Area
(CASA) and by State legislators have brought these challenges and the resultant policy
implications into sharper focus. Recent history has demonstrated that s imply opposing
legislation does not work (and in fact, may be counter-productive) and collaboration with
other local jurisdictions to influence legislative efforts, including proposing revisions to
draft legislation to address new housing law as it is developed, is necessary.
The Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville (referenced in this report as the “Tri-Valley Cities”) have a history of
collaboration on efforts to maintain and improve the quality of life for Tri-Valley residents
and employers. To that end, the Tri-Valley Cities have a Legislative Framework with
seven Focus Areas to help collectively work on legislative issues at the local, regional,
state and federal levels (Attachment 1).
Page 2 of 3
Knowing that scores of new housing bills are likely to be introduced by State legislators
in 2019 and beyond, Staff from the Tri-Valley Cities developed a Housing and Policy
Framework to supplement the already adopted Legislative Framework. This detailed
Housing and Policy Framework will be used to educate stakeholders on housing issues,
influence the legislative process, and create a shared Tri-Valley position on key topics.
The Housing and Policy Framework was presented to the Tri-Valley Mayors and
Councilmembers on February 27, 2019.
Housing and Policy Framework
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution (Attachment 2) supporting the Tri-Valley
Cities Housing and Policy Framework (Attachment 3) as supplemental material to the
existing Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework on matters related to housing
legislation.
The Housing and Policy Framework (Attachment 3) provides an overview of the role of
the State mandated General Plan Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) process, recent changes to State law pertaining to housing, potential
future legislation and the CASA Compact. It includes policy proposals for future
legislation to address housing issues, and pending legislation in 2019. The Tri-Valley
Cities have also prepared a Frequently Asked Questions handout related to this
Framework (Attachment 4).
The Housing and Policy Framework provides a comprehensive statement of the Tri -
Valley Cities’ legislative approach. The core of the document are five “Key Themes”
which summarize consensus positions among the Tri- Valley Cities to be used in efforts
to inform, educate and advocate on the topic of housing. They include:
Balanced Solutions – Housing, Jobs, and Transportation
• Regional solutions need to take a balanced approach that consider s housing,
transportation/transit, and jobs together. Building housing without adequate
transportation infrastructure may exacerbate, not alleviate, the affordable housing
crisis.
• Regional transit agencies and MTC must support improved transit services to
existing and new neighborhoods and address accompanying funding needs.
Provide, Promote, and Protect Affordability
• Protect existing affordable housing stock, including rental apartments, deed -
restricted units, and mobile homes, and promote affordable hous ing that includes
long-term affordability agreements.
• Ensure that all new state mandated incentives, fee reductions, and density bonus
program are directly linked to the level and percentage of affordable units
provided for each project.
Context-Sensitive Housing
• Avoid “one-size-fits-all” standards for regional housing by ensuring that policies
and laws allow for sensitivity to local context. For example, historic districts
should be exempt from higher density housing requirements if they are not
compatible with the historic context of the area.
Page 3 of 3
• Advocate and facilitate production of ADUs (examples: reduce all fees including
those from special districts and utility companies) and encourage development of
“missing-middle” housing that is compatible with suburban community character
(examples: duplex, triplex and four-plexes, small scale apartment complexes).
• Enable cities to develop locally-appropriate plans that meet State objectives in a
manner that is compatible with existing community character. For e xample,
some cities use density-based (rather than height-based) development standards
and realistic parking requirements given their distance from reliable and frequent
public transit.
Infrastructure and Services
• Mandates for new housing production need to be accompanied by funding that
can support expanded transportation, transit, and infrastructure, including
planning, and capital improvement programs and funding to support new school
facilities.
Funding and Resources
• There should be no net loss of local funding.
• New funding measures should not unduly impact local taxation capacity or divert
financial resources from essential local public services and infrastructure
programs.
• Any new housing mandates should include funding to offset administrative cost s
associated with supporting the new program and new reporting requirements.
Funding to offset administrative costs could include concepts similar to the
surcharge on building permit applications for the Certified Access Specialist
(CASP) program.
Conclusions and Next Steps
The Housing and Policy Framework is an early step in the City's engagement with
forthcoming housing legislation and the next RHNA cycle. Staff will continue to closely
monitor the new bills proposed as part of the 2019 legislative cyc le and develop
responses to those bills that have the potential to impact the community. A future
agenda item will provide an overview of the key housing legislation proposed in 2019
with the potential to impact the community.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework
2. Resolution Supporting the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework
3. Exhibit A to Attachment 2 - Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework
4. Housing and Policy Framework FAQ
,fie � � ° Y � .�a i1l�l•! . - - �`
- N-y .x III
--I M
�j
T_
•—�.. •OrY
61
THE CITY OF
DUBLIN LEASANTON. Sn"R""'°"
pAFiVIL1.G C A L I F 0 R N I A .. .. .
-
TVC CITY CONTACT INFORMATION
Town of Danville
510 La Gonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
(925) 314-3388
dfriedmann@danville.ca.gov
City of Dublin
too Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 833-6650
dublininfo@dublin.ca.gov
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 960-4040
info@cityoflivermore.net
City of Pleasanton
123 Main Street
P. O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 931-5001
bhopkins@cityofplesantonca.gov
City of San Ramon
70oo Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 973-2500
citymanager@sanramon.ca.gov
2018-2020
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION & STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW
Background
The Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville
have joined together to work on legislative issues, projects and initiatives at the State and
Federal level. Each city and town is represented by the Mayor, City Manager and Staff Liaison.
Coordination of the group is rotated annually between each city. Activities include quarterly
meetings to discuss legislative matters, and an annual State Legislative visit to Sacramento
in the spring, and an annual Federal Legislative visit to Washington, D.C. in the winter. The
objective of these trips is to hold meetings with state and federal representatives, promote
the Tri-Valley Legislative Agenda, and attend either the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Annual
Winter Meeting or the National League of Cities' Annual Congressional City Conference.
The Cities and Town have contracted with a state and federal advocacy firm, Townsend Public
Affairs (TPA) and prior to TPA, Jordan & Associates. The Cities and Town, have experienced
success in advocacy for legislation and leveraging funding for projects that meet the needs of
the region.
Previous successful efforts include:
• Interstate 580, 680 and State Route 84 improvements; and
• East Bay Regional Communication System; and
• Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center.
Overvi
The Cities and Town have determined that the development of a Strategic Framework would
assist the region with a more focused effort and improve strategic advocacy at all levels of
government (e.g. federal, state, regional, local).
This document sets a clear direction regarding the region's priorities, including desired
objectives, estimated timelines for completion, and potential partnerships with regional
agencies (e.g. transportation agencies) for each legislative effort. The goal of the Strategic
Framework is to provide focus, drive alignment, promote strategic relationships, and assist in
Tri ,'alley Csw es Legislative Framework f
promoting a clear and concise narrative to maintain and improve the quality of life for Tri-
Valley residents and businesses and enable continued opportunities for public and private
investment within the region.
TRl VALLEY CITIES VALUES STATEMENT
The Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Town of Danville value
regional leadership, collaboration, and problem solving to maintain and improve the quality of
life for Tri Valley residents and businesses, and enable continued opportunities for public and
private investment within the region.
Each City or Town provides a unique perspective on how to best meet the needs of their
residents. The Cities and Town agree to respect the individuality of each community while
focusing on collaboration towards common efforts and regional solutions.
The Cities and Town are committed to open and honest communication with a goal of building
consensus and a united approach to advocacy for solutions that will serve the residents and
businesses of the Tri-Valley.
LEGISLATIVE ACTION FRAMEWORK
The current political landscape has required the Cities and Town to develop a different
legislative framework in order to create positive outcomes for the region. Historically, the
practice has been to advocate at the federal level for funding of local projects by meeting
with federal legislators and seeking direct funding through federal "earmarks." The elimination
of federal "earmarks" by the Obama Administration as a funding mechanism for local projects
and initiatives has severely limited the region's legislative advocacy efforts.
The new reality is that Federal funding is now primarily distributed by Federal Agencies
via grant programs. While these grants are available to cities, in practice local and regional
governmental entities apply to respective federal agencies for these funds through a
competitive application process. To be successful in this environment, the Cities and Town
must be strategically focused and rely on relationship building and other public private
partnerships to achieve successful outcomes.
The Legislative Action Framework provides a mechanism to better equip the Cities and Town
2 Tri Valley Cities I Legi:7ia,Hve Fret e%v,%ork
to work together on issues of joint interest. The process includes the following objectives:
• Identifying and prioritizing Focus Areas;
• Identifying and prioritizing specific projects and/or initiatives within each Focus Area;
Developing the Tri-Valley Legislative Platform that highlights project leads, regional
partnerships, timelines and specific outcomes; and
• Developing a two-year Action Plan Framework which serves to implement the
aforementioned objectives.
Focus
Focus Areas anchor the work of the Cities and Town by providing clearly defined areas of
interest. The Cities and Town will prioritize their Focus Areas and determine which of the Focus
Areas will be included in the Action Plan. The City Managers and Mayors may evaluate and
amend Focus Areas as needed.
The seven (7) Focus Areas are as follows (listed in priority order):
1. Public Infrastructure
2. Transportation
3. Housing
4. Local Control
5. Fiscal Sustainability
6. Economic Development
7 Public Safety
Proi
Projects were identified and prioritized for each Focus Area. Based upon the Focus Areas
identified to include in the Action Plan, the Cities and Town will select projects and identify
specific outcomes to be included in the Action Plan. An Engagement Plan will be outlined
for each project/initiative and a Fact Sheet will be developed. The Engagement process
is explained in further detail on page 5. The specific projects within the Focus Area are as
follows (listed in priority order):
Public Infrastructure
Secure funding for local roads and bridges.
2. Expand renewable energy infrastructure (e.g., solar, wind, etc.).
3. Improve water infrastructure (e.g., potable, recycled water, etc.).
4-Secure funding for Storm Water Management Infrastructure/Green Infrastructure.
Try Valley Cities I egislative rrarnewor. 3
Transportation
1. Implement Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Regional Priorities.
2. Implement capacity improvements and regional highway connectivity on State Route 84
and Interstates 580 and 680.
3. Accelerate connection of the Tri-Valley - San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority's
Valley Link project to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
4-Complete the Iron Horse Trail from Danville to Livermore, including improvements over
crossings within each jurisdiction.
Housing
1. Strengthen local control to address state housing mandates.
2. Monitor and influence regional housing policy (e.g. Plan Bay Area, RHNA cycles, etc.).
3. Secure and protect local funding sources for workforce housing opportunities (e.g. CDBG,
etc.).
4-Work to minimize homelessness within the region.
Local Control
1. Advocate for CEQA reform.
2. Strengthen local land use control.
3. Support permit streamlining initiatives.
Fiscal Sustainability
1. Advocate for fiscal reform to ensure retention of local revenue sources (e.g. sales tax,
property tax, gas tax, reform county pool allocations, etc.).
2. Support and secure regional and state grants for eligible capital projects and/or initiatives.
3. Advocate for sustainable statewide CaIPERS pension reforms.
Economic Development
1. Support regional collaboration around business innovation.
2. Promote private investment.
3. Recruit and retain local employers.
Public Safety
1. Protect local COPS Funding.
2. Strengthen law enforcement (e.g. AB1o9)•
3. Reduce repeat offender crimes.
4 Tri Yalley Cities I Legislative Ftamework
Enjeazement Plan
This plan will expand engagement to four (4)
levels: Federal, State, Regional, and Local, and will
include a strategic focus on relationship -building.
For each specific project and initiative, it is
important to evaluate and strengthen existing, and
cultivate new, relationships. These reiationships
will be key to preparation of an Engagement
Plan which will clearly identify steps and tasks to
achieve project success.
With established working relationships, the
municipalities will be poised to better understand
TVC
Olin ff 10
Federal State Regional Local
partners and how to leverage support for projects and initiatives.
The Engagement Plan will identify partners at each of the four levels, and the project liaisons
PARTNERSHIPS
Iron Horse Trail
Federal Skale
pOT C,J Iram' Regional Local
FBrarc
rs „e_IacTc
from each municipality will work on the selected
projects or initiatives and outline a communication
loop to ensure that information is shared at all levels
regarding status, next steps and desired outcomes.
The plan will also provide an analysis of how the
project or initiative aligns with partner agency
priorities, and identify any additional relationships
that need to be developed and/or expanded.
The municipalities will be responsible to work with
the lobbyist/consultant/ contract staff to develop
an Engagement Plan that will identify goals and
strategies for each selected project or initiative.
Tri-Valley Cities I .egisl,aiive iFramework
- 2018-2020 FOCUS AREAS AND PROJECTS
Areas of -locus: local Control, Transportation, and Housing
Projects:
Primary Priority
Strengthen local land use and control.
Secondary Priorities
Accelerate connection of the Tri-Valley - San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority's
Valley Link project to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE).
Complete the Iron Norse Trail from Danville to Livermore, including improved over
crossings within each jurisdiction looking for grant funding.
Strengthen local control to address state housing mandates.
Tertiary Priorities
Secure and protect local funding sources for workforce housing opportunities
(e.g. CDBG, etc.).
Implement capacity improvements and regional highway connectivity on State Route 84
and Interstates 580 and 680.
NEXT STEPS
Working together with TPA we will focus on developing relationships through Engagement
Plans in an effort to progress toward measurable outcomes for each project.
The Legislative Framework may be periodically updated to adjust to the changing conditions
of the Tri-Valley Area and the policy objectives of the region.
6 Tri Valley Cities ! Legislative Fn�;mev;ork
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING SUPPORT FOR THE TRI-VALLEY CITIES HOUSING AND POLICY
FRAMWORK AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE TRI-VALLEY CITIES LEGISLATIVE
FRAMEWORK ON HOUSING MATTERS
WHEREAS, in 2017 the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San
Ramon and the Town of Danville (collectively known as the “Tri-Valley Cities”) acknowledge the
importance of collaborating on a legislative advocacy framework, which resulted in the
development of the Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities recognize and respect the local needs and character of
each community, and have a shared interest in maintaining local control of decision-making
related to all aspects of the management of each jurisdiction, including but not limited to
financial, land use and development, and growth-related matters; and
WHEREAS, in January of 2017, the State of California published a report titled
“California’s Housing Future: Opportunities and Challenges,” which documented the negative
consequences of the historic underproduction of housing in California, including an increasing
affordability gap, falling rates of homeownership, disproportionate rates of homelessness , and
issues such as urban sprawl and traffic congestion. Collectively, these issues have been
identified by legislators as part of a statewide “housing crisis”; and
WHEREAS, in September of 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the
“Housing Package” consisting of 15 new bills focused on funding, permit streamlining, and
increased enforcement and accountability for local governments with respect to implementation
of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, State legislators approved, and the Governor signed into law
several additional housing bills; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission formed the Committee to
House the Bay Area (CASA) to address the housing challenges in the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, in December 2018 the Committee to House the Bay Area released an
ambitious 10-point plan, known as the CASA Compact, to serve as state legislative research
data for future housing legislation; and
WHEREAS, the State’s focus on the affordable housing challenges is likely to continue
for the foreseeable future with new legislation that will impact local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities recognize the substantial challenge of providing
adequate and affordable housing opportunities in the region, and the shared responsibility of all
communities across the State to help address these needs; and
WHEREAS, there is a unique opportunity for the Tri-Valley Cities to work together, to
develop a collaborative response to influence legislative efforts at the State towar ds outcomes
that address housing needs, while respecting community character and desire for local control
of decision making; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities affirm their interest in and commitment to shaping
housing policy outcomes in a constructive m anner, through a proactive and nuanced approach
to advocacy and engagement on the topic of housing that will result in better outcomes for the
region and the individual communities; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities have developed the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy
Framework, dated February 2019 and attached as Exhibit A, to provide additional depth to the
Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework in the area of housing; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework provides a
comprehensive statement of the Tri-Valley Cities legislative approach, reflecting the following
Key Themes:
• Balanced Solutions – Housing, Jobs, and Transportation;
• Provide, Promote, and Protect Affordability;
• Context Sensitive Housing;
• Infrastructure and Services; and
• Funding and Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Key Themes are topic areas where there is consensus among the Tri-
Valley Cities, and which can be used to inform, influence, respond, and advocate, on the topic of
housing at the local, regional and State level; and
WHEREAS, the overall approach identifies and addresses common areas of concern,
while recognizing that each city can and will continue to pursue individual areas of interest that
are specific to their community’s needs; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2019, the Tri-Valley Mayors and Councilmembers met to
discuss the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby make
the following determination regarding the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework
attached as Exhibit A:
A. The Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework is hereby supported as
supplemental material to the existing Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework on matters related
to housing legislation.
B. The Tri-Valley Cities may from time-to-time revisit the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and
Policy Framework to ensure that the approaches and topics discussed within the report remain
relevant and appropriate.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March 2019, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
Housing and Policy Framework
February 2019
1
PREAMBLE
The Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the Town of
Danville (collectively known in this document as, “Tri-Valley Cities”) value regional
leadership and collaboration to maintain and improve the quality of life for Tri-Valley
residents and to create a positive environment for employers. The Tri-Valley Cities
recognize the challenge of providing adequate and affordable housing opportunities in
the region. Recent efforts at the regional level, through the Committee to House the Bay
Area (CASA) and by State legislators have brought these challenges and the resultant
policy implications for the Tri-Valley into sharper focus. There is a unique opportunity for
the Tri-Valley Cities to work together, to develop a collaborative response to influence
legislative efforts at the State towards outcomes that address housing needs, while
respecting community character and desire for local decision making.
Knowing that scores of new housing bills are likely to be introduced by State
legislators in 2019 and beyond, the Tri-Valley Cities recommend a proactive and
nuanced approach to advocacy and engagement with the cities working together. In
addition to educating our stakeholders on these issues, our goals are to influence the
legislative process and create a shared Tri-Valley position on key topics, where
possible. While this approach identifies common areas of concern, each city
continues to pursue their own individual areas of concern that are context sensitive to
their community.
INTRODUCTION
Each jurisdiction has its own perspective on how to best meet the needs of their
residents and business communities. However, many of our interests overlap, which
allows for collaboration and advocacy that will strengthen the voice of the Tri-Valley.
Tri-Valley Cities are committed to open and honest communication with a goal of building
consensus and a united approach to address housing legislation as it is developed by
State legislators. To that end, the Tri-Valley Cities have adopted a Legislative
Framework to help collectively work on legislative issues at the local, regional, state
and federal levels. There are seven (7) Focus Areas which guide this education and
advocacy work together which are:
1. Public Infrastructure
2. Transportation
3. Housing
4. Local Decision Making
5. Fiscal Sustainability
6. Economic Development
7. Public Safety
2
The housing challenges in California are real and the current and upcoming legislative
cycles will include notable and impactful housing legislation that will be felt statewide,
including in the Tri-Valley. Recent history has demonstrated that simply opposing
legislation does not work (and in fact, may be counter-productive) and that the Tri-Valley
Cities will need to collaborate to influence legislative efforts, including proposing revisions
to draft legislation, to address new housing law as it is developed.
BACKGROUND
California’s Affordable Housing Crisis & The State’s Response
In 2017 the State of California published a report titled, “California’s Housing Future:
Challenges and Opportunities.” The report identifies the severity of the housing shortage
across the state and became a backdrop to the State’s adoption of a suite of 15 housing-
related laws known as the 2017 “Housing Package”. The 15 new laws focus on:
Providing funding for affordable housing;
Streamlining the review and approval process for housing;
Increasing accountability and reporting requirements for local governments;
and
Preserving existing affordable housing.
During the 2017 legislative cycle many communities (including the Tri-Valley Cities)
responded to the proposed legislation with an outright rejection of the entire Housing
Package. Nonetheless, 15 new bills were signed into law and in 2018 most local
jurisdictions began implementation of these measures in various ways. Key pieces of that
new legislation are outlined later in this Housing Framework.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Purpose
The Housing Element is one of nine mandated elements in a city’s General Plan and
implements the declaration of State law that “the availability of housing is a matter of vital
statewide importance and the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for all Californians is a priority of the highest order” (Gov. § Code 65580).
At the local level, the Housing Element allows the local jurisdiction to approve a
community-specific (local) approach to “how” and “where” housing needs will be
addressed to meet the needs of their community. A jurisdiction’s Housing Element must
be updated every eight years.
For the Bay Area, the current planning period started in 2015 and ends in 2023. The next
planning period will run from 2023 to 2031, meaning that local jurisdictions will be
updating their Housing Elements in the 2021/2022 timeframe.
3
Certification and Annual Progress Report (APR)
After local adoption, State law provides the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) with the authority to review and “certify” each
jurisdiction’s Housing Element. To ensure ongoing compliance, the law requires local
jurisdictions to submit an annual report to HCD, generally referred to as the Annual
Progress Report (APR), documenting the number of housing units in various affordability
categories that have been produced over the past year and through the course of the
eight-year housing element cycle.
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
All California cities and counties are required to accommodate their fair share of regional
housing need. This fair share assignment is determined through a Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. HCD determines the share of the state’s housing
need for each region. In turn, the council of governments (COG) for the region allocates
to each local jurisdiction its share of the regional housing need. In the nine-county Bay
Area, the region’s COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). After the
RHNA is determined, local jurisdictions must update their Housing Element (and typically
identify housing opportunity sites and rezone property) to demonstrate that there is an
adequate amount of land zoned, at appropriate density, to achieve its RHNA for the
current planning period.
Planning vs. Building; No Net Loss
Under current state law, a jurisdiction is not required to build these housing units. Rather,
it is required to adopt a land use program – appropriate General Plan and Zoning –
including identification of specific sites with available infrastructure and suitable physical
conditions to accommodate these housing units under market-driven conditions. The “No
Net Loss” laws (adopted in 2017 by SB166) ensure that local governments do not
approve projects with less units per income category, or downzone these opportunity
sites after their Housing Element has been certified. This means that cities cannot
approve new housing at significantly lower densities (or at different income categories)
than was projected in the Housing Element without making specific findings and
identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels.
RHNA Cycles & Income Levels
Based on population projections from the California State Department of Finance in the
lead-up to the last RHNA, and economic and regional housing market uncertainty
(including the Great Recession), HCD required the Bay Area to plan for 187,990 new
housing units during the current 2014-2022 RHNA cycle. A RHNA assignment is
comprised of four income categories: very low; low; moderate; and above moderate
income. Table 1 shows the current combined RHNA for the five Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
4
Table 1 – Tri-Valley Cities 2014-2022 RHNA and Housing Production
Income Level
RHNA
Allocation
by Income
Level
2015 2016 2017
Total
Units Built
to Date
Total
Remaining
RHNA by
Income Level
Very Low 3,063 80 148 52 280 2,7831
Low 1,701 58 121 36 215 1,4861
Moderate 1,734 35 571 36 642 1,092
Above Moderate 2,557 2,551 911 1,824 5,286 0
Total RHNA 9,055 2,724 1,751 1,948 6,423 5,361
Similar to many communities throughout the Bay Area, the Tri-Valley has met its RHNA
for above-moderate housing, production of very-low, low- and moderate-income units has
been more modest. In fact, most of the low- and very-low income unit production has
been generated by inclusionary zoning2 requirements, or produced with substantial
subsidies from local, state and federal dollars. The production data is indicative of the
real challenges faced by local jurisdictions in meeting RHNA for lower income housing in
a market-driven environment, where high land and development costs mean substantial
subsidy is needed to build each unit, and where local, State and federal funding is
inadequate to meet all but a tiny fraction of the need.
RECENT CHANGES TO STATE LAW
The extensive housing legislation passed in 2017 (Housing Package) and supplemented
in 2018 reflects the seriousness of the affordable housing crisis for State leaders. The
focus has been largely on holding local government accountable (increasing reporting
and monitoring), reducing public process (streamlining), and identifying new funding
sources.
Of the 15 bills passed in 2017 and the follow-on bills passed in 2018, the following are
the most relevant and potentially impactful to Tri-Valley communities:
Streamlined Approval (SB 35): SB 35 requires cities to “streamline” the approval
process for housing developments if the jurisdiction has not issued sufficient building
permits to satisfy its regional housing need by income category. A project would be
1 Very low and low income housing is only produced through inclusionary zoning or subsidies through
City Low Income Housing Fees (LIHF), Regional/County Bonds, state and federal tax credits, or other
subsidized programs.
2 Inclusionary Zoning = local zoning code standards that require a portion of a market rate project to be
provided (and maintained) at below-market-rate.
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Progress Reports
5
eligible for ministerial approval if it complies with objective planning standards, meets
specifications such as a residential General Plan designation, does not contain housing
occupied by tenants within 10 years, and pays prevailing wages. Additionally, projects
must restrict 10 to 50 percent of its units to be affordable to households classified as
having low income (i.e., less than 80 percent of the area median income).
Housing Accountability Act (SB 167, AB 678, AB 1515): The bills affecting the
Housing Accountability Act apply to every housing development application, not just
those with an affordable housing component. The legislation requires that local
government provide developers with a list of any inconsistencies between a proposed
project and all local plans, zoning, and standards within 30 to 60 days after the
application is complete or the project will be deemed complete with all local policies.
Additionally, if a housing project complies with all “objective” general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards, it may not be denied or have its density reduced unless a city or
county can find that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health
and safety. If a project includes affordable units, a local jurisdiction is responsible for
making additional findings to deny the project, reduce its density, or add a condition that
makes the project infeasible, even if the project does not comply with all “objective”
standards.
No Net Loss (SB 166): State law in place prior to 2017 prohibited cities from
downzoning sites or approving projects at less density than identified in their Housing
Elements. Under the 2017 modification, if the approval of a development project results in
fewer units by income category, the jurisdiction must identify additional sites to
accommodate the RHNA obligation lost as a result of the approval and make
corresponding findings. This change is significant because, for many cities, the Housing
Element will have counted most of the high-density housing sites as producing very-low
and low-income units, when actual projects constructed will typically provide only a
portion of their units at below-market rates. This means cities will likely need to zone
additional land for higher density development to ensure there is an adequate number of
sites to meet RHNA, and to make more conservative assumptions about future yield of
affordable units on those sites.
Housing Element Requirements (AB 1397): This bill makes many changes to how a
jurisdiction establishes its Housing Element site inventory. Of special note, this legislation
requires “by-right” approval for projects that offer 20-percent of its units at a rate that is
affordable to lower income households.
BART TOD Districts (AB 2923): This bill was passed in 2018 and established minimum
local zoning requirements for BART-owned land that is located on contiguous parcels
larger than 0.25 acres, within one-half mile of an existing or planned BART station
entrance. All cities must adopt conforming standards within two years of BART adopting
TOD standards (or by July 1, 2022) that include minimum height, density, parking, and
6
floor area ratio requirements. In addition, all projects must include a minimum 20 percent
of units for very low and low-income households. This bill is anticipated to help facilitate
BART’s plan to build 20,000 units across its network.
FUTURE LEGISLATION
Local jurisdictions should expect another round of significant housing legislation in 2019
and likely beyond. From this point forward, much of this legislation will likely be informed
and influenced by the CASA Compact, which was released in December 2018. The
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) formed CASA, or the Committee to
House the Bay Area, to address the affordable housing crisis. CASA is a 21-member
steering group comprised of major employers, for-profit and nonprofit housing
developers, affordable housing advocates, transportation professionals, charitable
foundations and elected officials from large cities. CASA’s work product is referred to as
the CASA Compact (Compact), an ambitious 10-point plan to remedy the Bay Area’s
housing issues.
CASA Compact (see Attachment 1)
The CASA Compact sets out to achieve three goals:
Produce 35,000 housing units per year
(14,000 affordable to low-income and 7,000 to moderate-income, a 60% affordability rate)
Preserve 30,000 existing affordable units
(26,000 of which are market-rate affordable units and 4,000 are at-risk over the next 5 years)
Protect 300,000 lower-income households
(those who spend more than 50% of income on their housing)
To achieve these goals, the Compact includes 10 Elements (or actions). Below is a brief
summary (see Attachment 1 for a more detailed overview):
Elements 1-3 – Preserve and Protect
Together, these elements represent the “preserve and protect” components of the
Compact, including arguments for: just-cause eviction standards; rent caps; and rent
assistance and free legal counsel.
Elements 4-8 – Production
Together, these elements are the “production” component of the Compact, with
subcategories, including: accessory dwelling units (ADUs); process streamlining and
financial incentives; and using public land for affordable housing.
Elements 9-10 – Revenue and Administration
7
Together, these elements offer revenue generating mechanisms to fund the Compact
and suggests the formation of a new independent regional “housing authority” to collect
and distribute those funds.
The Compact concludes with “Calls for Action,” which were ideas that garnered sufficient
interest from the CASA steering committee, but not enough to become a standalone
element in the Compact. Because these will also generate some legislative interest,
those topic areas are also briefly discussed here:
Redevelopment 2.0: Pass legislation enabling the re-establishment of
redevelopment in California to provide new funding for affordable and mixed
income development.
Lower the Voter Threshold for Housing Funding Measures: Pass legislation that
would apply a 55% threshold for affordable housing and housing production
measures.
Fiscalization of Land Use: Pass legislation that would return e-commerce/internet
sales tax revenues to the point of sale - not at the point of distribution as it is
currently - to provide cities that have a significant residential base with a
commensurate financial incentive to develop new housing. Also, pass legislation
that would change the Proposition 13 property tax allocation formula to provide
cites that build more housing with a higher share of property tax revenue.
Homelessness: CASA’s funding package includes resources that help produce
housing for formerly homeless people and prevent homelessness when possible.
Grow and Stabilize the Construction Labor Force: Increase the construction labor
pool by requiring prevailing wages on projects that receive incentives, calling upon
the State to improve the construction employment pipeline, and creating a
CASA/state labor workgroup to implement.
Concluding Thoughts Regarding CASA
The intent of the CASA Compact is to serve as state legislative research data for future
housing legislation. Specifically, its development timeline is driven by the desire to place
elements of the Compact on the ballot in the 2020 General Election. While some
jurisdictions are likely to support the philosophical principles of the CASA Compact, many
have expressed concerns that revolve around three main issues:
One-Size-Fits-All Approach: The Compact proposes one-size solutions that may
be effective in large urban cities but can be counterproductive in smaller suburban
and rural communities. As an example, rent caps may disincentivize multifamily
housing production in suburban communities. In another example, mandating
8
high density housing near transit lines presumes transit service remain static when
in fact that is not the case in suburban communities.
Potential to Jobs/Housing Imbalance: The Compact’s singular focus on housing
production throughout the entire region minimizes the fact that the most acute
housing pressure is focused in three of the nine counties in the Bay Area (San
Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara), where most of the jobs are being created.
Imposing housing production in far reaches of the Bay Area (such as Napa) would
not alleviate the crisis in the three big counties. Instead, it would likely induce
significant congestion and exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance. A more
reasonable approach could be to adjust the production requirements based on a
county’s existing housing supply.
Absence of Public Engagement: One of the most concerning aspects of the
Compact is the absence of a transparent public process that would have
incorporated input from those most affected - the general public and cities
throughout the region. An often-repeated concern is that this top-down approach is
not only ill-informed of the issues highlighted above but could breed anti-growth
sentiment that would actively resist reasonable measures to build or fund
affordable housing in the future.
See Attachment 1 for a more detailed breakdown of the CASA Compact, local concerns,
and recommended approaches for future advocacy work.
PENDING LEGISLATION (2019)
The 2019 legislative cycle in Sacramento will result in numerous housing-related bills.
The Tri-Valley Cities will continue to monitor and advocate as appropriate. One bill that
has received significant attention at this time is SB 50.
Equitable Communities Incentive (SB 50): SB 50 is an evolution of Senator Wiener’s
2018 proposed bill, SB 827. It is a developer opt-in bill that would require a city or county
to grant an “equitable communities incentive,” which is a waiver from maximum controls
on density, height, and parking spaces per unit, and up to three concessions (such as
deviation from setbacks or other development standards), if the project provides low, very
low or extremely low income housing and is located in a “job-rich housing project” or
“transit-rich housing project,” as defined below.
“Transit-rich housing project” means a residential development, the parcels of which are
all within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a
stop on a high-quality bus corridor.
9
“Job-rich housing project” means a residential development within an area identified by
the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research, based on indicators such as proximity to jobs, high area median
income relative to the relevant region, and high-quality public schools, as an area of high
opportunity close to jobs.
The League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy
Committee (HCED) discussed SB 50 at their January 17, 2019 meeting. HCED took a
position to oppose the bill unless amended. Understanding that Senator Weiner is the
Chair of the Housing Committee, along with the political make-up of the Senate and
Assembly, HCED formed a subcommittee to explore amendments to SB 50 to make it
more amenable to cities and will be presented and discussed further at a later time.
A summary of SB 50, which was presented to HCED on January 17, 2019, is attached as
Attachment 2.
PROACTIVE APPROACH TO LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
Below is a discussion of “key themes” to consider while informing, influencing, and
advocating, on the topic of housing.
Key Themes
Balanced Solutions – Housing, Jobs, and Transportation
Regional solutions need to take a balanced approach that considers housing,
transportation/transit, and jobs together. Building housing without adequate
transportation infrastructure may exacerbate, not alleviate, the affordable housing
crisis.
Regional transit agencies and MTC must support improved transit services to
existing and new neighborhoods and address accompanying funding needs.
Provide, Promote, and Protect Affordability
Protect existing affordable housing stock, including rental apartments, deed-
restricted units, and mobile homes, and promote affordable housing that includes
long-term affordability agreements.
Ensure that all new state mandated incentives, fee reductions, and density bonus
program are directly linked to the level and percentage of affordable units provided
for each project.
Context-Sensitive Housing
Avoid “one-size-fits-all” standards for regional housing by ensuring that policies
and laws allow for sensitivity to local context. For example, historic districts should
be exempt from higher density housing requirements if they are not compatible
with the historic context of the area.
10
Advocate and facilitate production of ADUs (examples: reduce all fees including
those from special districts and utility companies) and encourage development of
“missing-middle” housing that is compatible with suburban community character
(examples: duplex, triplex and four-plexes, small scale apartment complexes).
Enable cities to develop locally-appropriate plans that meet State objectives in a
manner that is compatible with existing community character. For example, some
cities use density-based (rather than height-based) development standards and
realistic parking requirements given their distance from reliable and frequent public
transit.
Infrastructure and Services
Mandates for new housing production need to be accompanied by funding that
can support expanded transportation, transit, and infrastructure, including
planning, and capital improvement programs and funding to support new school
facilities.
Funding and Resources
There should be no net loss of local funding.
New funding measures should not unduly impact local taxation capacity or divert
financial resources from essential local public services and infrastructure
programs.
Any new housing mandates should include funding to offset administrative costs
associated with supporting the new program and new reporting requirements.
Funding to offset administrative costs could include concepts similar to the
surcharge on building permit applications for the Certified Access Specialist
(CASP) program.
NEXT STEPS
Housing and Policy Framework Workshop for Mayors and City Councilmembers
Develop engagement materials that highlight the narrative regarding key themes
Work with advocacy firm Townsend Public Affairs to identify and coordinate
opportunities for the Tri-Valley Cities to engage with local, regional, and State
representatives
ATTACHMENTS
1. CASA Compact Summary & Recommendations
2. SB 50 Overview
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 1. Just Cause Eviction Standards: Adopt a Bay Area-wide requirement that landlords must cite specific "just causes" (both fault and no-fault) for an eviction. Landlords are required to cover relocation assistance in all “no-fault” evictions. Exemptions would apply. Objective: Protect tenants from arbitrary evictions. CONCERN STATUS: Low, there is a potentially significant unfunded mandate if cities are responsible for administering/enforcing measures. CONCERNS Disincentivizes property owners, who spend a large portion of total income on housing cost, from making housing available for rent on the open market if they are required to provide relocation assistance. Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow: Implementation to occur after new regional funding sources are available for administration. Administrative responsibility to be assigned to an existing regional agency (no new regional bureaucracy). Mediation to be required as a part of a person seeking their legal remedies for unfair eviction. Provide exemptions for homeowners with ADUs and owner-occupied duplex and triplex units. FUNDING AND RESOURCES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 2. Rent Cap: Establish a Bay Area-wide emergency rent cap that limits annual rent increases to “reasonable” amount. For an emergency period (defined as 15 years), the annual cap would be no more than CPI+5%. Certain exemptions and banking provisions would apply. Objective: Decrease the number of households at risk of displacement and to prevent homelessness. CONCERN STATUS: Low, this element has the potential to be counterproductive to multi-family housing production (rent cap disincentivize investment). CONCERNS Production of housing units because it limits a project’s potential return on a high-risk investment; Maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock because property owners would be unable to recoup these investments. Tenant turn-over, leading to a potential “mis-match” between tenants and rental units, which could lead to a decrease in available housing stock. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, s/he may not choose to move in the future and give up the rent-controlled unit, even if housing needs change. Research information source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-does-economic-evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ Rent control was recently defeated at the ballot box. Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow: Uninhibited production of new rental units and incentives for existing rental units to stay rental and not be converted to for-sale units. Ensure landlords have ability to cover all necessary maintenance and administrative costs. Allow a reasonable time period for newly constructed rental units not be subject to rent cap and then it can apply. FUNDING AND RESOURCES PROTECT AFFORDABILITY 3. Rent Assistance and Free Legal Counsel: Provide access to free legal counsel and emergency rent assistance for tenants with an urgent, temporary financial gap. Funding, policies and guidelines to be determined (presumably by the new regional housing authority) at a later time. Objective: Ensure right to legal counsel; provide funding for emergency/temporary rent gap. CONCERN STATUS: Low, there is a potentially significant unfunded mandate if cities are responsible for administering/enforcing measures. CONCERNS Presumes all tenants lack resources to legal counsel while all landlords do not. The inverse could be true and result in abuse of the system on the part of tenants seeking to thwart a lawful eviction. Monitor legislative progress of these elements. If efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that would allow: Implementation to occur after new regional funding sources are available for administration. Administrative responsibility to be assigned to an existing regional agency (no new regional bureaucracy). A “means test” (demonstration of need) to be required before receiving free legal assistance. FUNDING AND RESOURCES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Extend existing state law to allow ADUs on single family lots and multiple ADUs in existing multi-family buildings with ministerial approval. Forgives code violations in grandfatherd ADUs. Impact fees to be based on a square foot basis and only on net new living area >500 SF. Objective: Increase more affordable units, provide income source for cost-burdened homeowners. CONCERN STATUS: Low, cities have generally supported the production of ADUs by making it simpler, faster and cheaper to build these units. CONCERNS This Element indicates a lack of understanding that cities serve as a collection point for many pass-through fees to other public agencies (such as utility connection and school district fees), which represent the majority of all fees imposed on an ADU. For example, in the San Ramon valley, these fees represent 79-percent of the fees incurred by a typical 742 SF ADU. Given their disproportionate percentage of the total fee amount, limitations and reduction should apply to ALL pass-through public agencies. Removing energy efficiency requirements is contrary to established State Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goals. Reducing fees across the board without an evaluation of the impacts to public services and infrastructure is contrary to the fiscal sustainability of each city. Code violations should not be forgiven if they pose health and safety concerns. Full support and expansion of this element by: Extending the fee limitation/reduction to all pass-through fees (including utility connection fees and school district fees), provided that the fees remain proportionate to impacts generated. Developing standardized ADU permit plans in a range of sizes, pre-approved at the State level, allowing for minimal local plan check requirements (reduced plan check time offsets fee limitations). Allowing cities to count, by right, ADUs that are “affordable by design” in the RHNA process (examples: count ≤ 550 SF ADU as “Low” and 551-1,000 SF ADU as “Moderate” income units). Advocate for standardized Building Codes for ADUs Ensure existing structures are brought up to Code for legitimate Health and Safety reasons. CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 5. Minimum Zoning Near Transit: Establish state-wide minimum zoning for housing on all residential, commercial and institutional zones to allow ‘missing middle’ housing product types to be: Minimum 36-feet high within ½-mile of high quality bus service, defined as a bus stop with 15-min headways (weekday peak) and 30-min headways (weekend) Minimum 55-feet high (75’ with density bonus) within ¼-mile of a major transit stop, defined as a rail station or a ferry terminal) Housing Overlay on Low-Density Commercial Sites: Make housing an allowable use on large commercially-zoned parcels near job centers with high quality transit. Tenant Protections: Sites rezoned would be subject to tenant protections, demolition controls and “no net loss” provisions. Affordable Housing: Required at levels not less than state density bonus law. Projects with 10-20 units should have option to pay in-lieu fee as its affordable housing obligation. Sensitive Communities: receive an automatic 3-year deferral on implementation while the city develops a context-sensitive plan. Objective: Spur development near transit. CONCERN STATUS: High, as it ignores community context with the potential for significant displacement and land speculation near transit. CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that: Ignores community context – creating potential land use incompatibility issues with tall developments immediately adjacent to low density areas or within historic districts/downtowns. Generates impacts on local infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, schools, traffic) while fee limitations proposed in Element 6 limits ability to mitigate those impacts. Creates land speculation around transit zones, driving up land costs and in turn causing housing development costs to rise. Requiring minimum height does not create density, as it is possible to build a tall multi-story project with lower density luxury units. Unaware of the fact that transit service is not static in suburban cities; tying housing requirements to transit routes which may be eliminated due to budget cuts (or lowering demand) is problematic as it introduces density to areas that may not have any transportation. Unaware of the fact that some commercially zoned properties are purposely zoned as such to serve predominately residential areas; as a State Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goal to lower vehicles miles traveled (VMT). Does not include frequency thresholds or minimum headways for rail station or ferry terminal definitions. Creates housing near transit but is unclear about proximity to jobs. Oppose unless amended as follows: Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit and a balanced land use framework. Focus requirement on density not on height (as the latter does not necessarily result in more units) and allow cities to retain design quality control to facilitate local acceptance. Establish realistic frequency thresholds to be considered for rail stations, specifically ACE or Amtrak train lines, which have very limited infrequent service. Apply density increase as a percentage of adjacent land uses (example: 50% increase in density or height) in acknowledgement that not all communities take the same form near transit lines (example: San Francisco vs the Pleasanton/Dublin Area). Establish increases contingent upon funding a transit agency’s ability to maintain headways for a specified number of years. Allow a time period for cities to incorporate these requirements into their General Plans and obtain local feedback. Exempt historic districts/downtowns where high-density housing is not compatible with the historic context of the area. Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and requirements on “low density” commercial areas. Balanced Approach: Pursue and support policies that maintain the delicate balance of jobs, adequate affordable housing, and a robust transportation network to connect new housing to jobs and daily services. Actively discourage policies that favors one of these at the expense of the others. CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING BALANCED SOLUTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 6. “Good Government” Reforms to Housing Approval Process: Focused on streamlining the permitting process and how residential impact fees are set and enforced. Streamlining (zoning compliant projects <500 units): Includes “locking” rules, fees and historic status at the date of the “application completeness”; permits no more than 3 de novo hearings for each project. Impact Fees: Impose a state standard for establishing and imposing impact fees using objective standards rather than current “reasonableness” test. Allow for fee deferral (pay some fees at a later point in the development process). Inclusionary Zoning: Establish state law that precludes inclusionary programs from being ‘additive’ (density bonus, housing impact fees, local inclusionary requirements). Requires in-lieu fees to be an option for fulfilling inclusion (i.e., ability to ‘buy’ out of providing onsite affordable housing). Downzoning and Moratoria: State to set criteria for when these can be used locally. Annual ‘Impositions’ Report: Recommends cities annually document any impositions (undefined) that would increase the hard cost (excludes labor and materials) of housing construction (such as fees and inclusionary zoning requirements. Objective: Remove ‘regulatory uncertainty’ perceived to be a major cause of economically infeasible projects. CONCERN STATUS: High. This has the potential to significantly reduce public input in the review process which may lead to distrust and community concern. CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that: Disincentivizes developers to collaborate on delivering projects that best meet community needs (such as mitigating traffic and infrastructure impacts, offering community amenities). Significantly reduces the ability to provide public input and the ability to satisfy the public concerns. Reducing public interest may lead to distrust. Potentially eliminates ability to negotiate community benefits (services and infrastructure to support those who would occupy the housing) as a part of the development process. Sends a mixed message regarding inclusionary housing, which has been the greatest single contributor to affordable housing in the Tri-Valley. Elements of the Compact require inclusionary housing, while this element alleviates the inclusionary requirement for developers. As written, this Element severely limits a city’s ability to use good design and planning techniques to integrate new affordable housing into the fabric of a community, which will likely result in further community resistance to affordable housing development. Oppose unless amended as follows: Require an “expiration date” for all fees and regulations locked at application completeness to ensure they are applicable to viable projects. Eliminates abuse by developers who might “lock” a future application to avoid addressing future federal, state or local requirements that may surface. Require a “reset” should substantive project changes be introduced during the course of the development review process to avoid potential abuse of the system. Maintain clear and objective standards and controls, and support fee deferral programs that ensure context sensitivity. Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit. Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and requirements related to an “impositions report.” FUNDING AND RESOURCES CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 7. Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives: Another permit streamlining effort to accelerate approvals of zoning-compliant projects and enable on-site affordability with financial incentives. Streamlining: Applies to zoning compliant projects that restrict at least 20% of onsite housing units to middle-income households, defined as 80-150% of area median income (AMI). Projects granted a statutory CEQA exemption and limited discretionary review. Financial Incentives include 15-year property tax increment abatement, cap on impact fees, parking standards reduced to 50% of local requirement. Projects to pay prevailing wage. Sensitive Communities: receive an automatic 3-year deferral on implementation while the city develops a context-sensitive plan. Objective: Build more moderate income housing units. CONCERN STATUS: High. Much of the Tri-Valley has limited developable lands remaining. However, the remaining new and infill developments generate impacts that rely on fees to mitigate. There should be no net loss of local funding. CONCERNS: This one-size-fits-all approach generates many of the same concerns as described in Element #6. Additionally: Potential to reduce property tax allocations for each City. Caps on impact fees to a “reasonable” level is currently undefined. Further caps on impact fees would eliminate funding sources to provide services and infrastructure (example: school, transit, etc.). Requirement to pay prevailing wage is inconsistent with the overall goal to lower housing construction costs. Reducing tax allocations given to each city without an evaluation that the impacts generated continue to be covered is contrary to the fiscal sustainability of each city. Oppose unless amended as follows: There should be no net loss of local funding. Require outside agencies to cap/reduce fees to stimulate affordable housing. Require an “expiration date” for all fees and regulations locked at application completeness to ensure they are applicable to viable projects. Eliminates abuse by developers who might “lock” a future application to avoid addressing future federal, state or local requirements that may surface. Require a “reset” should substantive project changes be introduced during the course of the development review process to avoid potential abuse of the system. Implement and maintain clear and objective standards and controls to ensure context sensitivity. Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit. Consider middle income household definition of 80-120% of area median income, consistent with local standards (instead of 80-150% of AMI), which makes units more affordable. 50% parking reduction from local standards should initially be applied only in transit rich areas where residents actually have to option to use frequent and high quality public transit. Projects should be required to agree to a 30-50 year inclusionary requirement to receive the streamlining and financial incentives listed. FUNDING AND RESOURCES CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 8. Unlock Public Lands for Affordable Housing: Promote use of “surplus” and “underutilized” public lands (undefined) for affordable housing through legislative and regulatory changes. This would also create a database listing all publicly owned land in the Bay Area, limit approval process to no more than two years, and deploy 10 percent of underutilized/surplus public land to affordable housing development on an annual basis. Element also calls for policies to help expand the housing construction labor pool, including requiring trained apprentices and prevailing wages. Exceptions would apply to temporary housing built to address an emergency. Objective: Encourage re-use of public land for mixed income/affordable housing units. CONCERN STATUS: High. The Tri-Valley has varying amounts of public land between cities. However, the remaining public lands should include context sensitive community plans for each city. CONCERNS: This is a one-size-fits-all approach that: Ignores community context – creating potential land use incompatibility issues with tall developments immediately adjacent to low density areas or within historic districts/downtowns. Ignores the fact that not all public lands have the same value for affordable housing development, as some large tracts of public land are located at the urban fringe, away from transit and is inappropriate for housing development that leads to sprawl. Ignores the fact that ability to deploy land is driven by market forces, which cities do not control. Disregards the efforts underway by local communities to plan vacant lands around transit in a context-sensitive manner. • Limits a city’s ability to use good design and planning techniques to integrate new affordable housing into the fabric of a community, which will likely result in further community resistance to affordable housing development. Lacks a definition for surplus and underutilized land and how this proposal relates to the exiting Surplus Land Act requirement to offer surplus land to affordable housing developers and other public agencies. Support with amendments as follows: Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to develop context sensitive community plans that achieves the overall goal of providing affordable housing around transit. Provide clear and objective standards for the definition of “surplus land.” Should prioritize land around existing or approved transit stops Require projects to be consistent with locally adopted land use plans that are already in place (e.g. specific plans) and consistent with objective local standards. Monitor any developing legislation regarding the definition of “surplus/underutilized” lands. As appropriate, advocate for amendments that would allow: Cities to partner with the public entity which owns the surplus land to ensure projects are developed in a manner consistent with local plans and design standards. CONTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING BALANCED SOLUTIONS
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 9. Funding and Financing the CASA Compact: Raise $1.5 billion new revenue annually from broad range of sources including (but not limited to) property taxes, ¼-cent sales tax, head tax, and General Obligation Bonds (reissued every 5 years). Of the total $1.5 billion, $300 million would come from local communities (former RDA set aside and future tax increment). New revenue allocation formula: - Up to 10% for local jurisdiction incentives - Remainder to tenant protection, preservation, housing subsidies New revenue distribution formula: - 75% to county of origin (“return to source”) - 25% to regional program (“revenue sharing”) Revenue collection and disbursement would be managed by a new regional housing authority (described in Element 10). Objective: Fund elements of the Compact that requires public subsidy (e.g., rental assistance, free legal counsel, financial incentives, etc.). CONCERN STATUS: High. Though not included in the Compact, the Governor has already suggested withholding SB1 funds from cities that do not meet their RHNA assignment. Most cities do not meet the RHNA assignment for at least low and very low units, mostly because such affordability requires significant local subsidies to even get built – the private market simply won’t build these units on its own. CONCERNS No “return to source” formula at the city-level, resulting in a greater perception of some communities being “donor communities” without having resources to meet its assigned housing obligation. Vacant property tax could be punitive to small property owners, particularly if vacancy is beyond their control. Potential unfunded mandate if responsibility for enforcement falls upon local cities. Commercial fees/taxes may be counterproductive if it drives employers out of the region and suppresses business retention. The property tax “set aside” is punitive to those cities whose tax base is largely from property taxes. Wide range of new taxes and fees may limit a city’s taxing capacity (limit its voters’ appetite to pass local funding measures). Oppose unless amended to eliminate any reduction in current property tax or transportation funding to cities and amended as follows: Defined return-to-source funding formula at a city level. Regional “fair share” housing assignment (RHNA process) is correlated to level of funding received (i.e., the less regional funding a city receives, the lower the regional housing assignment) (e.g., we do not want to be donor cities). Support for the following funding sources: Statewide voter-approved sales tax or General Obligation bonds for affordable housing to pay for housing initiative. FUNDING AND RESOURCES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK KEY THEMES 10. Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE): Establishes a new independent regional housing agency – formed through state legislation - to implement the Compact. It would have the authority to collect and distribute revenue, issue debt, buy/lease/hold land, and track/report on local progress. No regulatory or enforcement powers. Composition: independent board with representation from MTC, ABAG, and stakeholder groups that created the Compact. Objective: Administers the Compact. CONCERN STATUS: High. The Tri-Valley does not support creating an unrepresentative layer of oversight. CONCERNS Creating an entity that is not comprised of elected officials does not allow it to be accountable to the voters or local needs, and appears to be structured to exclude local government input. Creating a regional entity introduces another bureaucracy with its own unique set of requirements takes staff time away from facilitating housing production and committing it to report production (in addition to the ones filed with State HCD and Department of Finance). Creates taxation without representation. Existing agencies that could do the same functions, with additional funding, are not being considered instead of a new public agency. Oppose because it is not representative of each city and includes taxation without representation. FUNDING AND RESOURCES
HOUSING, COMMUNITY &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Legislative Agenda
January 17, 2019
1.SB 50 (Wiener) More HOMES Act (Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and
Stability)
Bill Summary:
SB 50 (Wiener) is a developer opt-in bill that would exempt specified housing projects
from locally adopted parking requirements, density limits, height maximums limits less
than 55 feet, and floor area ratio (FAR) maximums less than 3.25.
Bill Description:
Key Definitions
“Affordable” means available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and
occupied by, persons and families of extremely low, very low, low, or moderate
incomes, as specified in context, and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at
least 55 years.
“High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets
all of the following criteria:
It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the three peak
hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3
p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday.
It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6
a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday.
It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to
10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday.
“Job-rich housing project” means a residential development within an area identified
by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning
and Research, based on indicators such as proximity to jobs, high area median income
relative to the relevant region, and high-quality public schools, as an area of high
opportunity close to jobs. A residential development shall be deemed to be within an
area designated as job-rich if both of the following apply:
All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area outside
of the job-rich area.
No more than 10 percent of residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, of
the development are outside of the job-rich area.
“Transit-rich housing project” means a residential development the parcels of which
are all within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of
a stop on a high-quality bus corridor. A project shall be deemed to be within a one -half
ATTACHMENT
21
mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-
quality bus corridor if both of the following apply:
All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area outside
of a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a
stop on a high-quality bus corridor.
No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less,
of the project are outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a
one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor.
“Local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, or a city and
county.
“Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station or a ferry
terminal served by either bus or rail transit service.
“Residential development” means a project with at least two-thirds of the square
footage of the development designated for residential use.
“Sensitive community” means an area identified by the Department of Housing and
Community Development, in consultation with local community-based organizations in
each region, as an area vulnerable to displacement pressures, based on indicators such
as percentage of tenant households living at, or under, the poverty line relative to the
region.
Specifically, SB 50 (Wiener) is a developer opt-in bill that would require a city, county, or
city and county to grant an equitable communities incentive to eligible development
proponents. In order to be eligible for an equitable communities incentive, a residential
development shall meet all of the following criteria:
The residential development is either a job -rich housing project or transit-rich
housing project.
The residential development is located on a site that, at the time of application, is
zoned to allow housing as an underlying use in the zone, including, but not
limited to, a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone, as defined and allowed
by the local government.
The residential development must comply with a locally adopted inclusionary
housing ordinance, if it requires more than 20% for low-income and 11% for very
low-income households.
States that it is the intent of the Legislature to require that any development of
____ or more residential units receiving an equitable communities incentive
include housing affordable to low, very low or extremely low income households,
which, for projects with low or very low income units, are no less than the number
of onsite units affordable to low or very low income households that would be
required pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65915 for a development receiving
a density bonus of 35 percent (20% for low-income and 11% for very low-income
households.)
The site does not contain, or has not contained, either of the following:
22
o Housing occupied by tenants within the seven years preceding the date of
the application, including housing that has been demolished or that
tenants have vacated prior to the application for a development permit.
o A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has
exercised his or her rights under the Ellis Act, Chapter 12.75 (commencing
with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations
from rent or lease within 15 years prior to the date that the development
proponent submits an application.
The residential development complies with all applicable labor, construction
employment, and wage standards otherwise required by law and any other
generally applicable requirement regarding the approval of a development
project, including, but not limited to, the local government’s conditional use or
other discretionary permit approval process, the California Environmental Quality
Act, or a streamlined approval process that includes labor protections.
The residential development complies with all other relevant standards,
requirements, and prohibitions imposed by the local government regarding
architectural design, restrictions on or oversight of demolition, impact fees, and
community benefits agreements.
The equitable communities incentive shall not be used to undermine the
economic feasibility of delivering low-income housing under the state density
bonus program or a local implementation of the state density bonus program, or
any locally adopted program that puts conditions on new development
applications on the basis of receiving a zone change or general plan amendment
in exchange for benefits such as increased affordable housing, local hire, or
payment of prevailing wages.
A residential development that meets the criteria specified above shall receive, upon
request, an equitable communities incentive as follows:
“Job-rich housing project” shall receive the following:
o A waiver from maximum controls on density.
o A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5
automobile parking spots per unit.
o Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 65915 (Density Bonus law). These incentives or concessions
may include, but are not limited to, a height limitation, a setback
requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a
parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any
ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local
condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
“Transit-rich housing project” shall receive the following:
A residential development within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-
quality bus corridor:
o A waiver from maximum controls on density.
o A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirements greater than
0.5 automobile parking spots per unit.
23
o Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 65915 (Density Bonus law). These incentives or concessions
may include, but are not limited to, a height limitation, a setback
requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open -space requirement, or a
parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any
ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local
condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
A residential development that is located within a one-half mile radius, but
outside a one-quarter mile radius, of a major transit stop and includes no less
than ____ percent affordable housing units shall receive an additional incentive
as follows:
o A waiver from maximum controls on density.
o Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 65915 (Density Bonus law). These incentives or concessions
may include, but are not limited to, a height limitation, a setback
requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a
parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any
ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local
condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
o A waiver from maximum height requirements less than 45 feet.
o A wavier from maximum FAR requirements less than 2.5.
o A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirement.
A residential development that is located within a one-quarter mile radius of a major
transit stop and includes no less than ____ percent affordable housing units shall
receive an additional incentive as followings:
o A waiver from maximum controls on density.
o Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) of
Section 65915 (Density Bonus law). These incentives or concessions
may include, but are not limited to, a height limitation, a setback
requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a
parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any
ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local
condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
o A waiver from maximum height requirements less than 55 feet.
o A waiver from maximum FAR requirements less than 3.25.
o A waiver from any maximum automobile parking requirement.
Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of calculating any additional incentive or
concession in accordance with Section 65915, the number of units in the residential
development after applying the equitable communities incentive received pursuant to
this chapter shall be used as the base density for calculating the incentive or
concession under that section (Density Bonus law).
24
An eligible applicant proposing a project that meets all of the requirements under
Section 65913.4 (SB 35 streamlining) may submit an application for streamlined,
ministerial approval in accordance with that section.
A local government may modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities
incentive provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with, and
meets the minimum standards specified in, this chapter.
It is the intent of the Legislature that, absent exceptional circumstances, actions taken
by a local legislative body that increase residential density not undermine the equitable
communities incentive program.
“Sensitive community” delayed implementation - It is the intent of the Legislature that
implementation of SB 50 be delayed in sensitive communities until July 1, 2020.
It is further the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that does all of the following:
Between January 1, 2020, and ____, allows a local government, in lieu of the
requirements of this chapter, to opt for a community-led planning process aimed
toward increasing residential density and multifamily housing choices near transit
stops.
Encourages sensitive communities to opt for a community-led planning process
at the neighborhood level to develop zoning and other policies that encourage
multifamily housing development at a range of income levels to meet unmet
needs, protect vulnerable residents from displacement, and address other locally
identified priorities.
Sets minimum performance standards for community plans, such as minimum
overall residential development capacity and the minimum affordability standards
set forth.
Automatically applies the provisions of this chapter on January 1, 2025, to
sensitive communities that do not have adopted community plans that meet the
minimum standards whether those plans were adopted prior to or after
enactment.
Fiscal Impact:
No direct fiscal impact to cities.
Existing League Policy:
Zoning
The League believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential
component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of
zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the
responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use
decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a
constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of
facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and
25
hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. The League
opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.
Comments:
What is a “job-rich housing project?”
SB 50 fails to define “job-rich housing project.” As currently drafted, HCD and OPR are
tasked with making the determination. Without this definition it is impossible to
determine the full scope of communities that may be impacted by this measure.
Additionally, SB 50 waives maximum density controls and reduces parking to a
maximum of .5 parking spots per unit, even though the community may not have access
to public transit. This is inconsistent with the desire to add density near major transit
stops.
What is a “sensitive community?”
Much like a “job-rich housing project”, “sensitive community” is not defined. As drafted,
HCD and OPR, in consultation with local community-based organizations from the
region, are tasked with determining these communities. It should be noted that local
governments are excluded from the consultation process.
When does CEQA apply?
SB 50 clearly states that residential projects seeking an equitable communities incentive
shall comply with CEQA. However, it is unclear if CEQA will be conducted before or
after the incentive is applied. It would be most appropriate to undergo the
environmental review process after the incentive has been applied so that the entire
project can be considered.
Can a city establish height limitations for “job-rich housing projects” or “transit-rich
housing projects” within one-quarter mile of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor?
It is unclear if a city can establish height limitations in these areas. Eligib le projects
receive up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to Density Bonus law. One
possible concession is an exemption from local height limitations. This will need to be
clarified.
Mayors in support of SB 50?
It is important to note that several Mayor’s are supporting SB 50. Below are their
quotes from Senator Wiener’s press release.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed:
“San Francisco, along with the entire Bay Area, needs to create more housing if we are
going to address the out of control housing costs that are causing displacement and
hurting the diversity of our communities. I have seen too many people I grew up with
pushed out of San Francisco because we have not built enough housing, especially
affordable housing, throughout our entire City. I look forward to working with Senator
Wiener and others to make sure SB 50 creates more housing opportunities near transit,
while maintaining strong renter protections and demolition restrictions so we are
26
focusing development on empty lots and unde rutilized commercial spaces. I want to
thank Senator Wiener for his continued leadership in pushing for more housing
throughout California.”
Oakland Mayor Libby Shaaf:
“The Bay Area must address our shared housing crisis with bold solutions and this bill is
an important step toward inclusive communities where everyone has access to stable
housing. I appreciate that Sen. Weiner has included key elements of the CASA process
– an 18-month effort by Bay Area government officials and stakeholders to create new
regional housing strategies – and I am committed to working with the state legislature to
implement these solutions.”
Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg:
“I strongly support the concepts outlined in SB 50 because cities throughout California
are in the midst of a housing affordability crisis and we need tools that allow us to meet
our housing demands. Recent state reports demonstrate cities are falling well short of
the housing, climate and sustainable transit goals California committed to in SB 375,
legislation I authored in 2008. Senator Weiner’s legislation provides a vital tool for local
governments to meet those goals.”
Emeryville Mayor John Bauters:
"Every city in California has to do its part to solve the housing crisis, and I'm proud to
stand with fellow housing champions in support of the More HOMES Act. In addition to
the incredible burden on our workers, the housing crisis is now fueling the climate crisis
by forcing people into long commutes. We should build much more housing near transit,
and I'm excited to support this effort to do so."
Support-Opposition: (as of 12/4/18)
Support
San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, Sacramento Mayor
Darrell Steinberg, Emeryville Mayor John Bauters, and El Cerrito Mayor Gabriel Quinto,
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH), California Apartment
Association,
Opposition:
City of Pasadena
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the committee discuss SB 50 and determine a position.
Committee Recommendation:
27
Housing and Policy Framework
Frequently Asked Questions
February 2019
1
TRI-VALLEY CITIES
HOUSING PAPER AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How is Affordable Housing Developed
1. What is a Housing Element, who approves it and when does it get updated?
The Housing Element is one of nine mandated elements in a city’s General Plan and
implements the declaration of State law that “the availability of housing is a matter of
vital statewide importance and the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for all Californians is a priority of the highest order” (Gov. § Code 65580)
Among other things, a Housing Element allows each community to take a local
approach to identifying “how” and “where” their fair share of the region’s housing
needs should be accommodated. A community’s Housing Element must be updated
every eight years to demonstrate that an adequate amount of land (called “opportunity
sites”) is available to accommodate its fair share housing assignment.
The current Housing Element planning period is from 2015 to 2023. During the next
update to the Housing Element, each city will likely need to identify new “opportunity
sites” to meet future housing assignments. This update could begin in 2021 or 2022,
and will require review and approval by each city’s elected council through a public
hearing process that allows for community input.
2. What is a community’s “fair share” housing assignment and how is it calculated?
All California cities and counties are required to accommodate their “fair share” of its
region’s housing needs through a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process.
The “RHNA assignment” is comprised of four income categories: very low; low;
moderate; and above moderate-income housing units.
At the state level, based on population projections, the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) determines each region’s share of the state’s
housing need. In turn, each region’s council of governments (COG) allocates the
regional share among its member cities and counties. The San Francisco Bay Area
region’s COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
Each city or county must demonstrate how they can accommodate their fair share
RHNA assignment in its Housing Element. RHNA assignments are made
approximately every eight years and are based on a formula that factors in the size of
the community, its potential for housing and job growth, infrastructure and
environmental constraints, and availability of public transit.
The RHNA process is not new and has been in effect since the early 1980s.
2
3. What is the relationship between multi-family housing and “affordable/low income”
housing? Will these sites be developed with low income housing?
The RNHA process attempts to encourage development of housing at all income
levels, with a focus on affordable housing. There is a presumed correlation between
density (i.e. the number of housing units per acre) and affordability (i.e., housing built
to higher densities is affordable to a greater segment of the population). However, it
should be noted that RHNA process does not establish rental rates or sales prices.
Ultimately, the type of housing built on these sites will depend on the housing market
and local economy.
4. What is affordable or below market rate housing; and what are the definitions of very
low, low, moderate and above moderate income?
This is housing that is offered at a price lower than the market rate. This is usually
possible because of government subsidies and other programs that help lower the
price or rent of housing. Affordable housing is usually limited to individuals and
families that fit into a specific income category (ranging anywhere from less than 30%
of area median income to 120% of area median income).
Below is an example of the maximum income limits that were used by all cities
including Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton in Alameda County in 2018 for a family
of four to qualify to buy an affordable home:
Very Low: 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) or $58,100
Low: 80% of AMI or $89,600
Moderate: 120% of AMI or $125,300
Above Moderate: Anything above 120% AMI
5. Does the State require cities and counties to produce housing units?
Under current State law, a jurisdiction is not required to build these housing units.
Rather, it is required to ensure that there are lands available (called “opportunity
sites”) that have the appropriate General Plan and Zoning designation to
accommodate these housing units under market-driven conditions.
6. Where will this housing be located and does all affordable housing have to be higher
density rental housing?
Currently, the location of the housing is at the community’s discretion, but some of the
current and pending state laws aim to facilitate higher density housing near fixed rail
stations (e.g. BART and ACE Stations), high frequency bus routes, or in “jobs rich”
areas. The density of the housing can vary depending on its location and local land
use policies. Affordable housing can be either for-sale or rental housing. It is the goal
of local jurisdictions to meet state and regional mandates in a manner that is
compatible with its community character.
3
7. What is the State doing about the housing shortage?
In 2017, as a response to the statewide housing shortfall, State legislators crafted 15
new housing bills known as the “2017 Housing Package.” Collectively, the focus of
these bills has been focused largely on holding local governments accountable
(increased reporting and monitoring), reducing public process (permit streamlining),
and identifying new funding sources. Despite the outright objection of many
communities, the bills became law in late 2017.
8. How do State housing laws affect cities?
Cities are required by State law to ensure that sufficient lands are available to
accommodate their “fair share” of housing units. This means that there must be a
sufficient amount of land that is designated for all housing types.
As a part of the required Housing Element update, cities must determine whether
enough land is available to accommodate its RHNA assignment. If not, then the city
is required to designate new “opportunity sites” for this purpose – usually through
amending the General Plan and Zoning designation to allow for multifamily housing
development.
Under current state law, cities are not required to build housing units. Housing
construction is still driven by the private market. Instead, a city’s obligation is to allow
these units to be built (through General Plan and Zoning designations). Generally,
new housing projects are still required to go through local land use entitlement review
and public hearings. New legislation, in some cases, proposes to streamline this
review process.
9. What happens if a city doesn’t comply with State housing laws?
Non-compliance could have a number of immediate impacts. First, any RHNA
assignment that is not accommodated in one housing cycle will likely be rolled over to
the next, increasing the amount of units, and potential land a city is required to
designate for multi-family housing during the next cycle. Second, a city would
become vulnerable to lawsuits for non-compliance. Third, a city would risk loss of
significant transportation funding and become ineligible for a number of state and
federal grants.
If sued for non-compliance, a city’s ability to regulate and influence the design and
planning of future multifamily housing proposals could be compromised, further
diminishing local decision making over what gets built in the future.
10. What is CASA and the CASA Compact?
In July 2017, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) convened the Committee to House the Bay Area,
4
also known as CASA. CASA was charged with developing a “bold plan” to tackle the
Bay Area’s housing challenges.
In December 2018, CASA released the “CASA Compact: A 15-Year Emergency
Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area.” The
CASA Compact (“Compact”) is a wide-ranging 10-point plan that sets out to achieve
three overarching goals for the Bay Area:
Produce 35,000 housing units per year
Preserve 30,000 affordable units
Protect 300,000 lower-income households
The Compact is comprised of 10 “elements” intended as a package of actions to be
implemented in its entirety. These elements include tenant protections, housing
production mandates, diversion of local community funds and new taxes, as well as
the creation of a new regional authority to implement these ideas.
Representatives on CASA include major employers (Google, Facebook, Genentech),
for-profit and non-profit housing developers, housing advocates, charitable
foundations and elected officials from large cities and counties.
Details about the CASA Compact can be found at MTC’s website:
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/casa-committee-house-bay-area/about
11. How or why was CASA created and will it become State law?
CASA was created as a response to the statewide housing concerns, described in a
report published in 2017 by the State of California titled, “California’s Housing Future:
Challenges and Opportunities.” However, much of the CASA analysis and
recommendations are focused on the San Francisco Bay Area.
CASA is not an actual legislative bill. However, it is recommended to be used as the
framework for another round of state legislation in 2019, aimed at further expanding
housing mandates at the expense of local government control.
12. What are the Tri-Valley Cities doing to influence pending state legislation?
With over 100 housing bills likely to be introduced by State legislators in 2019, the Tri-
Valley Cities (Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon) are working
together on a proactive and nuanced approach to advocacy and engagement. In
addition to educating the public and stakeholders on these issues, the Tri-Valley
Cities' goals are to influence the legislative process and create a shared Tri-Valley
position on key topics. The Tri-Valley Cities have prepared a “Housing Paper and
Policy Framework” which will guide our efforts. While this approach provides common
areas of concern, each city continues to pursue their own individual areas of concern
that are unique to their needs.