Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 - 2581 Housing Legislation Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 16, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Informational Report on the Recent and Pending Housing Laws and Legislation Prepared by: John Bakker, City Attorney and Jeff Baker, Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 8 and March 19, 2019, Staff provided the City Council informational reports on, respectively, the status of planned residential development under the City o f Dublin General Plan and under the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This informational report follows on those earlier reports and discusses recent laws and pending legislation that promotes the development of housing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DESCRIPTION: This is the third in a series of reports to the City Council on residential development in the City of Dublin. The January 8, 2019 report (Attachment 1) focused on the status of residential development in Dublin under the General Plan, and the March 19, 2019 report (Attachment 2) focused on the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This third and final report in the series focuses on the impact of recent housing laws and future housing legislation on residential development in Dublin. Recent Changes in Law Over the last several years, a significant amount of the California Legislature’s attention has been on increasing the supply of housing, aimed at improving the affordabilit y of housing throughout California. The following is a discussion of those changes in several broad categories: accessory dwelling units; preemption of local regulations; and Page 2 of 10 strengthening the Housing Element Law (RHNA). Many of these new laws have eroded the City’s local control over land use matters. Legislation Encouraging the Development of Second Units California has long required local agencies to have local regulations that facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential zones. Earlier versions of the law required ministerial approval of ADUs but gave local governments a significant measure of discretion over the standards required of ADUs. Over the last several years, the Legislature has passed a series of bills (Senate Bill (SB) 1069 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2299 in 2016 being the most prominent) that basically give owners of single-family property the right to develop an ADU within a property’s existing building envelope and significantly constrains the City’s ability to regulate other ADUs. In early 2017, Staff presented the City Council with an ordinance revising the City’s second unit ordinance (Chapter 8.80 of the Municipal Code) to conform to the new provisions of state law (Attachment 3). Since that time, the Legislature has continued to adopt new legislation encouraging the development of ADUs. In 2017, two significant ADU bills, AB 494 (Bloom) and SB 229 (Wieckowski), became law that further reduce local jurisdictions’ discretion to regulate ADUs. In 2018, Senator Wieckowski proposed SB 831, which would have further limited local agencies’ ability to apply performance standards to ADUs, but it failed. A significant recent focus has been on reducing the financial burden of impact and utility fees on the development of ADUs. Preemption of Local Regulations SB 35 (Wiener) As part of the 2017 Housing Package, the Legislature adopted SB 35. SB 35 created a streamlined, ministerial approval process for certain housing projects. On November 7, 2017, Staff presented the City Council with an informational report on the 2017 Housing Package, and it included a detailed discussion of SB 35. (Attachment 4.) At that time, Staff indicated that it believed that SB 35 was unlikely to be used in Dublin for the foreseeable future because few sites exist in which it could be used and because the affordable housing, prevailing wage, and skilled and trained workforce requirements might be too costly. SB 35 has been used in other jurisdictions, including controversially at the Vallco Mall property in Cupertino. AB 2923 (Chiu) Transit Oriented Development In 2018, the Legislature adopted AB 2923, which established minimum development standards for Bay Area Rapid Transit-owned sites within a half mile of station entrances. With a public process, the BART District Board of Directors can increase the minimums beyond the statutorily established minimums. In Dublin, AB 2923 establishes a minimum density of 75 units per acre, a minimum height of 5 stories, a minimum floor area ratio of 3.0, and a maximum parking requirement of 1 space per unit. (For some context, several of the residential projects in the Eastern Dublin Transit Center are denser than what is allowed under AB 2923.) AB 2923 does not apply for two years, and, in any event, the local agency’s land use regulations remain in effect unless the Page 3 of 10 BART Board formally finds that the local zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the standards established by AB 2923. BART owns sites in Dublin that are subject to AB 2923. BART owns a site that is within 0.5 miles of the West Dublin station entrance and one site within 0.5 miles of the East Dublin station. Staff understands that the site adjacent to West Dublin station is leased by a private developer and, at this time, is unlikely to develop pursuant to AB 2923. The BART-owned parcel (surface parking lot adjacent to the BART garage) at the Dublin/Pleasanton station is constrained by existing parking improvements and limited parcel sizes. BART staff has been engaging with City staff in its implementation of AB 2923. Laws Strengthening Housing Element Law The Housing Element Law requires each jurisdiction to “accommodate . . . [its] share of the regional housing need for each income level.” The regional housing need is determined on an eight-year cycle by the state, and regional bodies-the Association of Bay Area Governments in the Bay Area -allocate the region’s need to local jurisdictions. Each agency’s need (or RHNA) identified as a number of units in the following income categories: very low, low, moderate and above moderate. The jurisdictions in turn must adopt Housing Elements of their General Plans that specify how that need can be accommodated during the cycle. The March 19 report describes Dublin’s RHNA for 2015-2023 and how the Housing Element accommodated the RHNA. Among other requirements, Housing Elements must contain either a site inventory that demonstrates that adequate sites are available to accommodate the need or propose actions to make additional sites available with appropriate zoning to do so. AB 1397 (Low), Tightening of site inventory requirements The so-called 2017 Housing Package included AB 1397, which tightened the requirements for sites that can be included in site inventory. For example, AB 1397 prohibits an agency from including a non -vacant site in the inventory if it had been included in the prior housing element and from including a vacant site if it was included in two prior housing elements. In addition, it prohibits low-income sites that are smaller than 0.5 acres and larger than 10 acre and sites consisting of airspace above publicly owned structures. It also imposes stricter requirements for determining the number of units that are realistic on particular sites. During the next Housing Element cycle, AB 1397 is likely to force local agencies like Dublin to rezone additional sites to allow additional zoning capacity to accommodate their RHNA. SB 166 (Skinner) Strengthening of no-net-loss law The no-net-loss law (Government Code sect. 65863) is designed to ensure that the Housing Element site inventory accommodates a jurisdiction’s RHNA throughout the RHNA cycle. The law has long required an agency to find that remaining sites are adequate to allow the jurisdiction to meet its RHNA if the agency reduces density on site included in the site inventory or permits development at lower density. Page 4 of 10 The 2017 Housing Package included SB 166, which strengthened the no -net-loss law. Among other things, SB 166 amended the no -net-loss law to provide that when an agency approves a project with fewer units by income category than were identified in the Housing Element site inventory it must either find that other sites are available to accommodate the need or make additional sites availa ble. This was a significant change, since up until this point, the Housing Element Law generally only required an agency to ensure that its land-use regulations accommodated the need for lower income units. SB 166, though, creates consequences for the Cit y based on the decisions made by individual property owners and developers developing their properties. AB 72, Providing HCD with Additional Housing Element Enforcement Authority The 2017 Housing Package included AB 72, which granted HCD broader author ity to enforce the Housing Element Laws. In particular, AB 72 gives HCD the authority to issue findings to an agency indicating that the agency has failed to comply with its Housing Element or the Housing Element Law. If the agency fails to bring itself into compliance, HCD can revoke its certification of the agency’s Housing Element. In addition, AB 72 provides that HCD must notify the local agency when it determines that the local agency is violating the Housing Element Law or has taken an act in viola tion of the no-net-loss law, the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, or Government Code section 65008. It can also refer violators to the Attorney General. Strengthening of Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code sect. 65589.5(j)) prohibits an agency from disapproving a housing project if it complies with the agency’s “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria” unless it finds that the project would have “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” that cannot be mitigated. Recent case law has noted that this provision prevents local agencies from applying subjective standards to projects that meet the Housing Accountability Act’s standards. The Housing Accountability Act was passed in 1982 as a means of ensuring that local agencies complied with their obligations under the Housing Element Law. It was little used until recent years when developers and housing advocates have been using it in litigation challenging disapprovals of housing projects. The 2017 Housing Package included three bills (AB 678 (Bocanegra), AB 1515 (Daly), and SB 167 (Skinner)) that further strengthened the Housing Accountability Act. The bills amended the act to, among other thin gs, (a) increase the agency’s burden of proof in litigation, (b) authorize housing organizations to enforce its provisions, (c) authorize a court to approve the project if the local agency acted in bad faith, and (d) require minimum fines of $10,000 per unit if the local agency refuses to comply with a court order compelling compliance with the act. Revisions to RHNA Process In 2018, the Legislature passed three bills (SB 828, AB 1771, and AB 2238) that revised the RHNA process. The bills make various changes to the factors that ABAG uses Page 5 of 10 when it allocates the housing need to local jurisdictions. The legislation requires ABAG’s RHNA allocation plan-the mechanism by which the need assigned to the region by the State is transferred to individual cities a nd counties in the region-to promote an improved balance between low-wage jobs and housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction and to take “meaningful actions . . . that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communitie s free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” Those changes will presumably result in ABAG directing larger RHNAs to high-income communities. The bills also prevent ABAG from reducing a jurisdiction’s RHNA based on its prior underproduction of housing or on its stable population numbers. The bills also change the process that the State uses to determine the region’s housing need. It requires the State to consider additional data, such as the “overcrowding rate,” the percentage of households that are “cost burdened,” and how that burden compares to comparable regions of the country. It also authorizes the state to consider existing need and not just projected need. Given the affordability issues in the Bay Area, it is anticipated that these changes will increase the total housing need in the region. Pending Legislation The housing legislation that passed in last year’s legislative session ended up being very limited. This year’s legislative session started early with a series of aggressive housing bills introduced in early December 2018, including State Senator Wiener’s SB 50, which is the successor to his SB 827 bill that failed in committee last year. The following is a sampling of some of the pending housing legislation that staff feels is particularly important. The sheer volume of legislation and the Governor’s focus on housing suggests that the legislative session will result in the passage of several impactful pieces of housing legislation. The City and the rest of the Tri-Valley region have already established a Housing Policy Framework in anticipation of potential changes to State housing laws. This Framework was adopted by the City Council on March 19, 2019. (Attachment 5) In addition, the City Council adopted its larger Legislative Framework on December 4, 2018 (Attachment 6), which among other matters, includes language to respond to legislation around protection of local government authority. Staff will be responding to the pending legislation using these two Framework documents. Legislation Encouraging the Development of Second Units AB 68 (Ting) Assembly Bill No. 68 further preempts local regulation of second units. Among other things, it would prohibit agencies from requiring replacement parking spaces when a garage is converted into an ADU, would require permits to be issued in 60 days, would prohibit lot-coverage and minimum lot size requirements to the extent that they would prohibit an 800 square foot ADU of up to 16 feet high with 4 -foot side- and rear-yard setbacks. Page 6 of 10 SB 13 (Wieckowski) Senate Bill No. 13 does many of the same things that AB 68 does. In addition, among other things, it authorizes ADUs in zoning districts that allow multifamily projects, and it prohibits local agencies from requiring owner occupancy of either the primary or secondary unit. Preemption of Local Regulations SB 50 (Wiener), Preemption around Transit Stops and in “Jobs-Rich” areas Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 50 has, like SB 827 from last year, received a lot of attention. It passed out of its first committee hearing in the Senate Housing Committee, which Senator Wiener chairs, and it is being heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 24. SB 50 appears to have more momentum than SB 827 had. It has 14 co -authors. The staff analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Housing (Attachment 5) indicates that the bill has gathered support from labor, environmental, and business groups. It faces strong opposition from local governments and neighborhood associatio ns. It is less clear what the position of equity and anti-poverty groups is, one of the key groups of opponents to SB 827, but they have not yet opposed SB 50. This may be as a result of their studying the bill’s provisions that temporarily exempt “sensitive communities.” Stated simply, SB 50 eliminates density restrictions in both transit - and jobs-rich areas that already allow residential. It will have the biggest impact in such areas that are zoned to allow only single-family or low density. In addition to eliminating density restrictions, it prohibits off-street parking requirements that exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. While height limits are not generally affected, SB 50 specifically authorizes heights of 45 feet (approximately 4 stories) within 0.5 mile of a transit stop and 55 feet (approximately 5 stories) within 0.25 mile. The transit-rich areas are fairly well defined as areas within ½ mile of rail or ferry stop and within ¼ mile of stop on a high -quality bus corridor (stops every 15 minutes du ring weekday peak). Dublin does not appear to have any high -quality bus corridors as defined by the bill. The areas around the West Dublin and East Dublin BART stations would be subject to the bill’s provisions. The bill is unlikely to have much impact around the East Dublin station, since the area is already designated for high density development. The bill could have a larger impact in the half mile area around the West Dublin station. The definition of “job-rich areas” is much more vaguely defined as areas that are “both high opportunity and jobs rich.” The bill leaves the task of identifying “jobs -rich areas” to HCD, and the current language gives HCD a significant amount of discretion to decide whether an area is jobs-rich or not. The concept of areas of “high opportunity” comes from fair housing research and focuses on the “positive educational and economic outcomes” of households in a particular area. A state agency has mapped areas based on opportunity, and the maps indicate that all of Dublin is either high or highest opportunity. HCD therefore could potentially identify all of Dublin as being “jobs -rich” if it Page 7 of 10 finds that people that reside in Dublin are either in or near job rich areas or would have shorter commutes. SB 4 (McGuire & Beall) Senate Bill No. 4 is authored by Senators McGuire and Beall, and it has some characteristics that are similar to SB 50. Senator Beall chairs the Senate Government and Finance Committee, where SB 50 will next be heard. The two authors are said to be negotiating on their two bills in an attempt to reconcile them. SB 4 creates a streamlined, ministerial approval process for two types of multifamily projects (“eligible TOD projects” and “neighborhood multifamily projects”) that meet objective standards. In both categories, the project, among other things, must (a) be in a jurisdiction that either produced fewer housing units than jobs during the last 10 years or failed to meet its RHNA production requirement as determined by HCD; (b) be zoned to allow residential; (c) not demolish rental units; and (d) not be on an environmentally sensitive site. Since Dublin has not met its moderate -income and below requirement, it is likely to be subject to SB 4’s requirements. “Eligible TOD projects” must be within ½ mile of a transit station entrance. They can have heights up to one story above the “highest allowable height” in the zone, even if the additional height requires a conditional use permit. They are allowed a floor area ratio of 0.6 times the number of stories that would be allowable under the bill. The projects must have a minimum density of 30 units per acre in metropolitan jurisdictions, like Dublin. Such projects are subject to all other objective, local zoning regulations. Eligible TOD projects must, in addition, include 30% low-income units, pay prevailing wage, and use a “skilled and trained workforce.” Since it allows one story above existing regulations, this provision of SB 4 could potentially be used around both BART stations, although the costly requirements may dissuade developers from pursuing SB 4 projects. “Neighborhood multifamily projects” preempt density restrictions to allow up to four -unit projects in “urban communities,” like Dublin. The projects must be on vacant land and meet all nonconflicting “height, setbacks, lot coverage, and any other applicable zoning requirements.” The vacant land requirement would appear to significantly limit the situations where SB 4 could be used, since it would not allow a property owner to demolish a home to build a four-plex. Finally, SB 4 exempts neighborhood multifamily projects from development impact fees, except that they must pay utility connection fees and capacity charges and school fees not to exceed $3000 per unit. The impact of the exemption could be significant. The City development impact fees for a four residential unit structure in Dublin, which funds transportation improvements, parks, and community facilities, would be approximately $110,000. Governor’s Budget Trailer Bill, “Housing Planning and Production Grants” During his campaign, Governor Newsom proposed building 3.5 million homes in the next seven years. His January budget announcement proposed to provide funds for the production of housing, and also proposed to wit hhold gas tax revenue should jurisdictions fail to produce housing. The Administration has since released proposed legislative language to implement his budget proposal, a so -called budget trailer bill. Page 8 of 10 The Governor’s housing proposal has two basic components. First, it requires HCD to establish “short-term statewide goals for new housing production” that would be in addition to RHNA. HCD will determine each region’s goals for 2020 and 2021 based on three years of the regional need. HCD will then alloc ate the goals to jurisdictions based on the jurisdiction’s share of households in county, its share of low-income households paying more than 50% of income toward housing, and its share of current jobs available in county. The trailer bill language does not explain how HCD is to weigh those factors. The proposal would devote $250,000,000 in grants to local agencies for planning and staffing to meet goals and $500,000,000 toward a “reward program” to local agencies that have made “demonstrated progress towa rds increased housing production.” Agencies receiving reward funds can use them for any purpose. Second, the Governor proposes to reform the RHNA process by 2023 to “substantially address California’s housing shortages.” The proposal specifically indicates that the process would propose “opportunities to link” state funding to statutory housing goals. AB 1279 (Bloom) Assembly Bill No. 1279 establishes special rules in “high-resource areas.” “High resources areas” means areas of “high opportunity and low residential density.” Within high resource areas, the following are allowed “by right”: Zones Max units Max height Affordability requirement Single-family 4 20 ft Either units are affordable to households at 100% of median income or pay fee equal to 10% of difference between actual price and price affordable to households of 100% of median income Other residential 40 30 ft 10% of units affordable to lower-income households and 5% to very low income Mixed use zones 100 55 ft 25% of units affordable lower income households In all cases, the developer must comply with objective design standards of the jurisdiction, unless the standards would prevent the development at the maximum units and height authorized by AB 1279. Projects are not eligible if they require the demolition of housing that was occupied by tenants within the last ten years or are on environmentally sensitive property. Jurisdictions can avoid AB 1279 by adopting policies that would allow high density housing in a manner substa ntially similar to AB 1279. SB 330 (Skinner), Housing Crisis Act of 2019 Senate Bill No. 330, titled the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, would make significant changes to the land use process, particularly in jurisdictions experiencing high rents and low vacancy rates. Many of the provisions are temporary, extending only until January 1, 2030. It allows a developer to prevent the local agency from applying new land use regulations through the submittal of a simplified “initial application.” It also prohib its more than three de novo hearings. The bill requires agencies to approve or deny projects within 12 months. Page 9 of 10 SB 330 also provides that until January 1, 2030 a housing project may exceed the density limits in the zoning up to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan. Finally, SB 330 imposes a number of other significant restrictions on jurisdictions (“affected cities” and “counties”) that have high rents and low vacancies. The specific criteria to be used to determine whether a jurisdiction is “affected” are incomplete in the current version of the bill, but staff expects that Dublin will be considered an “affected city.” Until January 1, 2030, in “affected cities and counties,” SB 330 will prohibit the enactment of policies on land where housing is an allowable use that would: Reduce development intensity Impose moratoria Impose or enforce non-objective design review standards that were enacted after January 1, 2018 Establish or implement a policy that restricts the number of units that can be constructed with specific period of time Charge fees in excess of the amounts in effect on January 1, 2018 Charge any fees on lower income units Impose, increase, or enforce parking requirements Laws Strengthening Housing Element Law SB 725 (Wicks) Senate Bill No. 725 would make a simple but significant change to the Housing Element Law. It would provide that no more than 20 percent of a jurisdiction’s above -moderate- income RHNA can be allocated to sites “with zonin g restricted to single-family development.” This provision will likely have the effect of requiring many areas to be upzoned to allow multifamily development, where only single-family is presently allowed. SB 725 will not have any effect on Dublin until after the current RHNA cycle (2015-2023) is complete. SB 1568 (McCarty) Senate Bill No. 1568 proposes to prohibit jurisdictions from applying for state grants if HCD finds them to have violated various state housing laws. An earlier version of SB 1568 proposed to withhold transportation funding from jurisdictions that failed to meet “minimum housing production goal” as determined by HCD. Miscellaneous AB 1487 (Chiu) CASA Implementation Assembly Bill No. 1487 would create Housing Alliance for the Bay Area to raise funds for affordable housing development, preservation, and enhancement, and tenant protection programs. Page 10 of 10 STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: N/A NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required for an informational repo rt to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. January 8, 2019 Staff Report 2. March 19, 2019 Staff Report 3. Chapter 8.80 of the Municipal Code 4. November 7, 2017 Staff Report 5. Tri-Valley Council Housing and Policy Framework 6. Dublin Legislative Platform 2019 Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 8, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Informational Report on Residential Development Projects Prepared by: Mandy Kang, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council has requested an informational report on the status of planned residential development under the City of Dublin General Plan. The General Plan identifies 5,292 planned residential units remaining to be issued building permits City- wide. Some of these units have vested development rights while others satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. DESCRIPTION: The City Council requested that Staff prepare an informational report on the status of remaining planned residential development Citywide under the General Plan. This is the first in a series of reports to the City Council on the status of remaining residential development in Dublin. This report focuses on the remaining number of units and vested development rights. Future reports will address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the City’s obligations to satisfy that requirement, as well as future housing legislation with the potential to impact Dublin. Residential Development Status Under California law, cities can generally restrict development projects from going forward up until the point where the developer has completed substantial construction based on a building permit. The California Legislature has developed two mechanisms to provide security to developers: development agreements and vesting tentative maps. Residential development projects that have adopted Development Agreements or Page 2 of 4 approved Vesting Tentative Maps have vested development rights. These rights provide security to developers that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project. As of November 30, 2018, the Dublin General Plan identifies 5,292 planned residential units remaining to be issued building permits City-wide. Of those units, 2,359 units have secured development rights and are vested; this represents less than half (45%) of the remaining units planned under the Dublin General Plan. The remaining 55% (2,933 units) are considered non-vested. Of the non-vested residential units, nearly 42% (1,218 units) are located within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area with the remaining 58% (1,715 units) located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please refer to Table 1 below for a summary of the vested and non -vested residential units by planning area while Tables 2 and 3 provide a list of the specific vested and non - vested development projects/sites. Please refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for maps showing the location of the vested and non-vested development sites. Table 1. Remaining Vested and Non-Vested Residential Units November 30, 2018) Planning Area Vested Non-Vested Total Planned Units Units Units Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 446 1,715 2,161 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 1,395 0 1,395 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 499 1,218 1,717 Historic Area Specific Plan - - - Schaefer Ranch 19 0 19 TOTAL UNITS 2,359 2,933 5,292 Percentage 45% 55% 100% Table 2 - Vested Residential Development Projects Project Name Total Units Vested Units Remaining to be StartedNumber Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 446 1 Onyx @ Jordan Ranch N-7 105 29 3 Wallis Ranch 1 Bridgecroft 92 2 4 Wallis Ranch 4B Haven 75 2 6 Glen @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 107 44 7 Knolls @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 179 105 8 Bluffs @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 84 39 10 Moller Ranch - custom home 1 1 11 Dublin Ranch North 4 4 12 Transit Center A-3 - Ashton 220 220 Page 3 of 4 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 1,395 14 Boulevard - N5 - Filmore 80 22 15 Boulevard - N7 - Broadway 110 110 16 Boulevard - N8 - Skyline 114 78 17 Boulevard - N10 - Hyde Park 102 102 18 Boulevard - N11 - Mulholland 40 37 19 Boulevard - N12 - Newbury 49 1 20 Boulevard - N13 - Lincoln 45 11 21 Boulevard - N14 - Gramercy 102 102 22 Boulevard - N15 - Abbey 60 60 23 Boulevard - N16 - Downing 48 48 24 Boulevard - N17 - Huntington 37 37 25 Boulevard - N18 - Mulholland 40 40 26 Boulevard - N19 - Venice 91 91 27 Boulevard - N20 - Parc 75 75 28 Boulevard - N21 - Ivy 62 62 29 Boulevard - N22 - Vine 92 92 30 Boulevard - N23 - Avalon 90 90 31 Boulevard - N24 - Lombard 100 100 Pool of Remaining Units 237 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 499 33 BayView Apts on St. Patrick Way 499 499 Other 19 34 Schaefer Ranch South Unit 3 19 19 plus lot 70) TOTALS 2,359 Table 3 - Non-Vested Residential Development Projects Number Project Name Density per the General Plan Total Studied Units Non-vested Units Remaining to be Started Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 1,715 1 Sperfslage 45-80 64 64 2 Dimanto Property (At Dublin) 181-273+ 261 261 3 Chen Property 56-100 130 130 4 Anderson Property 99-175 108 108 5 Righetti Property 59-134 96 96 6 Branaugh Property 59-136 97 97 7 Croak Property 167-838 573 573 8 Tipper Property 50-115 82 82 9 Kobold Property 12-28 20 20 10 McCabe Property 6-14 10 10 11 Yarra Yarra Ranch 58-132 79 79 12 Transit Center D-1 195 195 Page 4 of 4 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 0 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 1,218 Pool of Remaining Units 1218 Other 0 TOTALS 2,933 While non-vested units do not have the same development protections as vested units, the Dublin General Plan Housing Element relies on some of these non-vested units to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). A future report will address RHNA and the City’s obligations to satisfy that requirement. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to provide an informational report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vested Residential Projects Map 2. Non-Vested Residential Projects Map CREEKSI DEDRIVECEDARLANE BRIT T ANYLANEBURN H AMWAYNEWFIELDSLA N EHILLBROOKPLACELANCASTERROADSIERRA LANEKIMB A L L A V E N U E M A R W IC K DRIVE H ILL ROSEDRIV EANTO N E W A Y IGLESIADRIVE SHADOWHILLDRIVEBETLEN DRIVE YORK DRIVE V OMACROAD H A N S EN DRIV ET A MARACK DRIVE SUMMER GLEN DRI VECROSSRIDGEROAD SIG N A L HI LLDRIVEBRIG H TON D RIV E WILDWOODROADBAY LA UR ELSTREET S C A RLETTCOURT CREEKVIEWDRIVED A V O N ADR IV E BLOOMINGTON WAYHACIENDADRIVEBRODER STREET ST A GECOACHROADGLEA SO N D R IV E A L C O S T A B O U L E V A R D CENTRAL PARKWAY GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD VILLAGEPARKWAYD U B L IN B O U L E V A RDSANRAMONROADI-6 80 AMADORVALLEYBOULEVARDFALLONROADI-580CIVICPLAZAC IR CLEW A YP E N N D R I VEBAN DON D R I VEFENWICKWAY MAPLEDRIVE PRINCE DRI VECASTILIANROADROYS HILL L ANE RH O DAAVENUEAMARILLOROADVIA ZAPATA IRO N WO O D D R I VEWI C K L O WL A NETU R N B E R RYDRIVE BRIGAD O ON W A Y B E V E R L Y L A N E W E ST VOMACRO ADKINGSMIL L TERRACE STARWA RDDRIVEARNOLDROADSIERRACOURTINSPIR A TION C IRCL EROLLI N G HILLS D R IVE SILVERGATEDRIVEDOUGHERTY ROADTASSAJARAROADT A SSAJA RA ROADF ALLONROADDUBLINB O U L E VARDINSPIRA TI ONDRIVEPOSITANOPARKWAYARNOLDROADGRAFTONSTREET§¨¦ 580§¨¦ 580 680 !WallisRanch( 4 units)! Tassajara Hills (Glen, Knolls & Bluffs)( 189 units)!On yx @ Jordan Ranch N-7( 29 units)!Dublin Ranch North(4 un its)!Boulevard( 1395 units)! Transit Center A- 3 - Ashton( 220 units)!BayView Apts on St Patrick Way( 499 units)! Schaefer Ranch South Unit 3 ( 19 units)Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community City of Dublin Vested Residential Development Sites 0 0.25 0.5 0. CREEKSI DEDRIVECEDARLANE BRIT T ANYLANEBURN H AMWAYNEWFIELDSLA N EHILLBROOKPLACELANCASTERROADSIERRA LANEKIMB A L L A V E N U E M A R W IC K DRIVE H ILL ROSEDRIV EANTO N E W A Y IGLESIADRIVE SHADOWHILLDRIVEBETLEN DRIVE YORK DRIVE V OMACROAD H A N S EN DRIV ET AMARACK DRIVE SUMMER GLEN DRI VECROSSRIDGEROAD SIG N A L HI LLDRIVEBRIG H TON D RIV E WILDWOODROADBAY LA UR ELSTREET S C ARLETTCOURT CREEKVIEWDRIVED A V O N ADR IV E BLOOMINGTON WAYHACIENDADRIVEBRODER STREET ST A GECOACHROADGLEA SO N D R IV E A L C O S T A B O U L E V A R D CENTRAL PARKWAY GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD VILLAGEPARKWAYD U B L IN B O U L E V A RDSANRAMONROADI-6 80 AMADORVALLEYBOULEVARDFALLONROADI-580CIVICPLAZAC IR CLEW A YP E N N D R I VEBANDON D R I VEFENWICKWAY MAPLEDRIVE PRINCE DRI VECASTILIANROADROYS HILL L ANE RH O DAAVENUEAMARILLOROADVIA ZAPATA IRO N WO O D D R I VEWI C K L O WL A NETU R N B E R RYDRIVE BRIGAD O ON W A Y B E V E R L Y L A N E W E ST VOMACRO ADKINGSMIL L TERRACE STARWA RDDRIVEARNOLDROADSIERRACOURTINSPIR A TION C IRCL EROLLI N G HILLS D R IVE SILVERGATEDRIVEDOUGHERTY ROADTASSAJARAROADT A SSAJA RA ROADF ALLONROADDUBLINB O U L E VARDINSPIRA TI ONDRIVEPOSITANOPARKWAYARNOLDROADGRAFTONSTREET§¨¦ 580 580 680 BranaughProperty( 97 units)!RighettiProperty( 96 units)!AndersonProperty( 108 units)! Chen Property( 130 units)!CroakProperty( 573 units)! Dimanto Property( At Dublin)( 261units)!TransitCenter D-1( 195units) YarraYarra Ranch( 79 units)! Sperfslag e( 64 units)!Kobold( 20 units)!TipperProperty( 82 units)McCabeProperty( 10 units)! Downtown Dublin Specific Plan(1, 218 units)Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community City of Dublin Non-Vested Residential Development Sites 0 0.25 0.5 0. Page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 19, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Informational Report on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Prepared by: Jeff Baker, Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On January 9, 2019, an informational report was presented to the City Council on the status of planned residential development under the City of Dublin General Plan. Some of the units identified in that report have vested development rights while others satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This current report focuses on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and units obligated to satisfy this requirement under the General Plan Housing Element. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. DESCRIPTION: This is the second in a series of reports to the City Council on residential development in Dublin. On January 8, 2019, Staff presented a report to the City Council regarding the status of residential development in the City of Dublin (Attachment 1). This current report focuses on the planned development required under the Dublin General Plan Housing Element to satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement. A future report will address proposed housing legislation. Housing Element 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 based off of population projections prepared by the California State Department of Finance. In turn, the council of governments (COG) for Page 2 of 5 the region allocates to each local jurisdiction its share of the projected regional housing need. In the nine-county Bay Area, the region’s COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The RHNA assignment for each local jurisdiction is comprised of four income categories: very low; low; moderate; and above moderate income. The Housing Element is one of nine State 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 City to approve a community-specific local) approach to “how” and “where” housing needs will be addressed to meet the needs of the community. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years following the development by HCD and ABAG of each agency’s RHNA. 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. This means that local jurisdictions will be updating their Housing Elements in the 2021/2022 timeframe. After local adoption, State law provides the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with 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 housing element cycle. The Annual General Plan Progress Report is included as a separate item on this same March 19, 2019) City Council Meeting Agenda. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ABAG uses several factors determine a jurisdiction’s RHNA allocation. There is the sustainability component which has an overall objective of reducing greenhouse gas by directing growth to key infill locations and protecting agricultural and natural resources. The fair share component allocates housing need to expand access to communities with good transit access and employment opportunities. Sphere of influence (SOI) adjustments are considered in the RHNA methodology if there is projected growth within a City’s SOI. Allocating units by income category is where the RHNA methodology divides the housing need among the four income categories as defined by HCD. Following receipt of the RHNA, local jurisdictions must update their Housing Element and typically identify opportunity sites and rezone property) to demonstrate that there is an adequate amount of land zoned, at appropriate density, to achieve its RHNA by income category for the current planning period. No Net Loss While state law does not require an agency to build the housing units assigned through the RHNA process, it does require that land use planning regulations accommodate the units. The City 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 Page 3 of 5 conditions. The “No Net Loss” laws (including recently adopted AB 1397 and SB 166) ensure that local governments do not downzone these “opportunity sites” after their Housing Element has been certified. Cities also 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. Similarly, the City cannot deny a project because it does not include units at the income categories identified in the Housing Element. Dublin General Plan Housing Element Dublin’s RHNA for the 2014-2022 planning period is 2,285 units, as shows in Table 1 below. The Dublin General Plan Housing Element was updated in November 2014 and demonstrated how the RHNA could be achieved through a combination of approved projects and planned residential units. Since the approval of the Dublin General Plan Housing Element, res idential development has occurred throughout the City. Through the construction of these units, the City has met it’s RHNA for above moderate-income housing and has made progress towards meeting the extremely low/very low, low, and moderate -income housing requirement. Dublin’s remaining RHNA is 1,571 units. Table 1 below shows the City’s progress towards meeting the RHNA and the remaining RHNA by income level. Income Level RHNA by Income Category Production 2015 Production 2016 Production 2017 Production 2018 Total Production 2015-2018 Total Remaining RHNA by Income Category Extremely Low/Very Low 796 26 26 770 Low 446 39 39 407 Moderate 425 4 2 8 17 31 394 Above Moderate 618 839 612 1187 770 3408 0 Total 2285 908 614 1195 787 3504 1571 Table 1: RHNA 2014-2022 and Housing Production (November 30, 2018) A review of the City’s inventory of housing “opportunity sites” used to satisfy the RHNA demonstrates that the City’s planned residential units exceed its RHNA by 771 units Table 2). As a result, the City could reduce its residential density by up to 771 units without triggering the need to add new sites. However, this apparent flexibility is less than it seems. The City’s surplus of above -moderate units (717) is much more substantial than the City’s surplus in the moderate-income category and there is no surplus in the very low, low income categories. Please refer to Table 2 below for a sites inventory comparison with the remaining RHNA obligation. Page 4 of 5 Table 2. Summary of Sites and Remaining RHNA (November 30, 2018) Sites Inventory Income Category EDSP Residential Sites DDSP Retail District DDSP Transit Oriented District DDSP Village Parkway District Total Sites Inventory Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level Surplus Extremely Low/Very Low 770 Low 407 Moderate 448 0 0 0 448 394 (+) 54 Above Moderate 517 0 0 200 717 0 (+) 717 Total 1124 305 713 200 2342 1571 (+) 771 159 305 713 0 01177 In particular, the City relies on higher density development in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan to meet a majority of the RHNA for very low and low -income units, along with units at the Transit Center (Site D-1) in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Similarly, the City relies on medium and medium-high density sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area for the remaining 394 moderate -income units. These remaining moderate- income units are identified on the following sites: Croak (104 units), McCabe (10 units), Anderson (108 units), Chen (80 units), Tipper (82 units), and Sperfslage (64 units). Table 3 below demonstrates the remaining RHNA by planning area. Planning Area Very Low Low Moderate Total Eastern Dublin Specific Plan -159 394 553 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan ---- Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 305 713 -1,018 Historic Area Specific Plan ---- Schaefer Ranch ---- Total Units 305 872 394 1,571 Table 3. Remaining RHNA by Planning Area as of November 30, 2018 As of November 30, 2018, the Dublin General Plan identifies 5,292 planned residential units remaining to be issued building permits City-wide. Of those units, 2,359 units have secured development rights and are vested. The remaining 2,933 units are considered non-vested (Please refer to Attachment 1 for a complete discussion of these remaining vested/non-vested units). While non-vested units do not have the same development protections as vested units, the City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element relies on 1,571 of those non-vested units to meet the City’s RHNA obligation. As shown in Table 4, there are 1,362 units that are considered unrestricted (i.e . these units are not vested and they do not satisfy a RHNA obligation). Page 5 of 5 Planning Area Non-Vested Units RHNA Restricted Units Unrestricted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1,715 553 1,162 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan --- Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 1,218 1,018 200 Historic Area Specific Plan --- Schaefer Ranch --- Total Units 2,933 1,571 1,362 Table 4. Remaining Units Not Restricted by Vested Units or RHNA In summary, 3,930 units (74%) either have secured development rights (2,359 units) or are restricted by RHNA (1,571 units). 1,362 units (26%) are considered non -vested and not restricted by RHNA. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required for an informational report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report on Residential Development Projects Dated January 8, 2019 Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 8, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Informational Report on Residential Development Projects Prepared by: Mandy Kang, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council has requested an informational report on the status of planned residential development under the City of Dublin General Plan. The General Plan identifies 5,292 planned residential units remaining to be issued building permits City- wide. Some of these units have vested development rights while others satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact. DESCRIPTION: The City Council requested that Staff prepare an informational report on the status of remaining planned residential development Citywide under the General Plan. This is the first in a series of reports to the City Council on the status of remaining residential development in Dublin. This report focuses on the remaining number of units and vested development rights. Future reports will address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the City’s obligations to satisfy that requirement, as well as future housing legislation with the potential to impact Dublin. Residential Development Status Under California law, cities can generally restrict development projects from going forward up until the point where the developer has completed substantial construction based on a building permit. The California Legislature has developed two mechanisms to provide security to developers: development agreements and vesting tentative maps. Residential development projects that have adopted Development Agreements or Page 2 of 4 approved Vesting Tentative Maps have vested development rights. These rights provide security to developers that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project. As of November 30, 2018, the Dublin General Plan identifies 5,292 planned residential units remaining to be issued building permits City-wide. Of those units, 2,359 units have secured development rights and are vested; this represents less than half (45%) of the remaining units planned under the Dublin General Plan. The remaining 55% (2,933 units) are considered non-vested. Of the non-vested residential units, nearly 42% (1,218 units) are located within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area with the remaining 58% (1,715 units) located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Please refer to Table 1 below for a summary of the vested and non -vested residential units by planning area while Tables 2 and 3 provide a list of the specific vested and non - vested development projects/sites. Please refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for maps showing the location of the vested and non-vested development sites. Table 1. Remaining Vested and Non-Vested Residential Units November 30, 2018) Planning Area Vested Non-Vested Total Planned Units Units Units Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 446 1,715 2,161 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 1,395 0 1,395 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 499 1,218 1,717 Historic Area Specific Plan - - - Schaefer Ranch 19 0 19 TOTAL UNITS 2,359 2,933 5,292 Percentage 45% 55% 100% Table 2 - Vested Residential Development Projects Project Name Total Units Vested Units Remaining to beStartedNumber Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 446 1 Onyx @ Jordan Ranch N-7 105 29 3 Wallis Ranch 1 Bridgecroft 92 2 4 Wallis Ranch 4B Haven 75 2 6 Glen @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 107 44 7 Knolls @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 179 105 8 Bluffs @ Tassajara Hills (Moller Ranch) 84 39 10 Moller Ranch - custom home 1 1 11 Dublin Ranch North 4 4 12 Transit Center A-3 - Ashton 220 220 Page 3 of 4 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 1,395 14 Boulevard - N5 - Filmore 80 22 15 Boulevard - N7 - Broadway 110 110 16 Boulevard - N8 - Skyline 114 78 17 Boulevard - N10 - Hyde Park 102 102 18 Boulevard - N11 - Mulholland 40 37 19 Boulevard - N12 - Newbury 49 1 20 Boulevard - N13 - Lincoln 45 11 21 Boulevard - N14 - Gramercy 102 102 22 Boulevard - N15 - Abbey 60 60 23 Boulevard - N16 - Downing 48 48 24 Boulevard - N17 - Huntington 37 37 25 Boulevard - N18 - Mulholland 40 40 26 Boulevard - N19 - Venice 91 91 27 Boulevard - N20 - Parc 75 75 28 Boulevard - N21 - Ivy 62 62 29 Boulevard - N22 - Vine 92 92 30 Boulevard - N23 - Avalon 90 90 31 Boulevard - N24 - Lombard 100 100 Pool of Remaining Units 237 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 499 33 BayView Apts on St. Patrick Way 499 499 Other 19 34 Schaefer Ranch South Unit 3 19 19 plus lot 70) TOTALS 2,359 Table 3 - Non-Vested Residential Development Projects Number Project Name Density per the General Plan Total Studied Units Non-vested Units Remaining to be Started Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area 1,715 1 Sperfslage 45-80 64 64 2 Dimanto Property (At Dublin) 181-273+ 261 261 3 Chen Property 56-100 130 130 4 Anderson Property 99-175 108 108 5 Righetti Property 59-134 96 96 6 Branaugh Property 59-136 97 97 7 Croak Property 167-838 573 573 8 Tipper Property 50-115 82 82 9 Kobold Property 12-28 20 20 10 McCabe Property 6-14 10 10 11 Yarra Yarra Ranch 58-132 79 79 12 Transit Center D-1 195 195 Page 4 of 4 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 0 Downtown Dublin Specific Plan 1,218 Pool of Remaining Units 1218 Other 0 TOTALS 2,933 While non-vested units do not have the same development protections as vested units, the Dublin General Plan Housing Element relies on some of these non-vested units to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). A future report will address RHNA and the City’s obligations to satisfy that requirement. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to provide an informational report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vested Residential Projects Map 2. Non-Vested Residential Projects Map CREEKSI DEDRIVECEDARLANE BRIT T ANYLANEBURN H AMWAYNEWFIELDSLA N EHILLBROOKPLACELANCASTERROADSIERRA LANEKIMB A L L A V E N U E M A R W IC K DRIVE H ILL ROSEDRIV EANTO N E W A Y IGLESIADRIVE SHADOWHILLDRIVEBETLEN DRIVE YORK DRIVE V OMACROAD H A N S EN DRIV ET A MARACK DRIVE SUMMER GLEN DRI VECROSSRIDGEROAD SIG N A L HI LLDRIVEBRIG H TON D RIV E WILDWOODROADBAY LA UR ELSTREET S C A RLETTCOURT CREEKVIEWDRIVED A V O N ADR IV E BLOOMINGTON WAYHACIENDADRIVEBRODER STREET ST A GECOACHROADGLEA SO N D R IV E A L C O S T A B O U L E V A R D CENTRAL PARKWAY GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD VILLAGEPARKWAYD U B L IN B O U L E V A RDSANRAMONROADI-6 80 AMADORVALLEYBOULEVARDFALLONROADI-580CIVICPLAZAC IR CLEW A YP E N N D R I VEBAN DON D R I VEFENWICKWAY MAPLEDRIVE PRINCE DRI VECASTILIANROADROYS HILL L ANE RH O DAAVENUEAMARILLOROADVIA ZAPATA IRO N WO O D D R I VEWI C K L O WL A NETU R N B E R RYDRIVE BRIGAD O ON W A Y B E V E R L Y L A N E W E ST VOMACRO ADKINGSMIL L TERRACE STARWA RDDRIVEARNOLDROADSIERRACOURTINSPIR A TION C IRCL EROLLI N G HILLS D R IVE SILVERGATEDRIVEDOUGHERTY ROADTASSAJARAROADT A SSAJA RA ROADF ALLONROADDUBLINB O U L E VARDINSPIRA TI ONDRIVEPOSITANOPARKWAYARNOLDROADGRAFTONSTREET§¨¦ 580§¨¦ 580 680 !WallisRanch( 4 units)! Tassajara Hills (Glen, Knolls & Bluffs)( 189 units)!On yx @ Jordan Ranch N-7( 29 units)!Dublin Ranch North(4 un its)!Boulevard( 1395 units)! Transit Center A- 3 - Ashton( 220 units)!BayView Apts on St Patrick Way( 499 units)! Schaefer Ranch South Unit 3 ( 19 units)Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community City of Dublin Vested Residential Development Sites 0 0.25 0.5 0. CREEKSI DEDRIVECEDARLANE BRIT T ANYLANEBURN H AMWAYNEWFIELDSLA N EHILLBROOKPLACELANCASTERROADSIERRA LANEKIMB A L L A V E N U E M A R W IC K DRIVE H ILL ROSEDRIV EANTO N E W A Y IGLESIADRIVE SHADOWHILLDRIVEBETLEN DRIVE YORK DRIVE V OMACROAD H A N S EN DRIV ET AMARACK DRIVE SUMMER GLEN DRI VECROSSRIDGEROAD SIG N A L HI LLDRIVEBRIG H TON D RIV E WILDWOODROADBAY LA UR ELSTREET S C ARLETTCOURT CREEKVIEWDRIVED A V O N ADR IV E BLOOMINGTON WAYHACIENDADRIVEBRODER STREET ST A GECOACHROADGLEA SO N D R IV E A L C O S T A B O U L E V A R D CENTRAL PARKWAY GLEASON DRIVE DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD VILLAGEPARKWAYD U B L IN B O U L E V A RDSANRAMONROADI-6 80 AMADORVALLEYBOULEVARDFALLONROADI-580CIVICPLAZAC IR CLEW A YP E N N D R I VEBANDON D R I VEFENWICKWAY MAPLEDRIVE PRINCE DRI VECASTILIANROADROYS HILL L ANE RH O DAAVENUEAMARILLOROADVIA ZAPATA IRO N WO O D D R I VEWI C K L O WL A NETU R N B E R RYDRIVE BRIGAD O ON W A Y B E V E R L Y L A N E W E ST VOMACRO ADKINGSMIL L TERRACE STARWA RDDRIVEARNOLDROADSIERRACOURTINSPIR A TION C IRCL EROLLI N G HILLS D R IVE SILVERGATEDRIVEDOUGHERTY ROADTASSAJARAROADT A SSAJA RA ROADF ALLONROADDUBLINB O U L E VARDINSPIRA TI ONDRIVEPOSITANOPARKWAYARNOLDROADGRAFTONSTREET§¨¦ 580 580 680 BranaughProperty( 97 units)!RighettiProperty( 96 units)!AndersonProperty( 108 units)! Chen Property( 130 units)!CroakProperty( 573 units)! Dimanto Property( At Dublin)( 261units)!TransitCenter D-1( 195units) YarraYarra Ranch( 79 units)! Sperfslag e( 64 units)!Kobold( 20 units)!TipperProperty( 82 units)McCabeProperty( 10 units)! Downtown Dublin Specific Plan(1, 218 units)Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community City of Dublin Non-Vested Residential Development Sites 0 0.25 0.5 0. Chapter 8.80 SECOND UNITS REGULATIONS Page 1 of 4 Chapter 8.80 SECOND UNITS REGULATIONS 8.80.010 Purpose. .............................. ......... The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for approving second units designed to meet the special needs of individuals and families, particularly the elderly, disabled, and those of low and very -low income; which meet the requirements of the Housing Element and are compatible with existing dwellings. Rev. Ord. 9-03 (July 2003) 8.80.020 Intent. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The intent of this section is to ensure that second units meet all of the following objectives. That the second unit: A. Allows for more efficient use of the City's existing housing stock and underdeveloped residential properties. B. Does not negatively impact the family character of the neighborhood. C. Does not negatively impact traffic in the neighborhood. D. Has sufficient roadway access and utility service. E. Provides sufficient access and mobility for the handicapped or disabled. F. Complies with all standards of Chapter 8.80, Second Units. G. Meets the standards established by Chapter 8.80, Second Units, and complies with State Law as may be appropriate to further the purposes of this Title. Rev. Ord. 9-03 (July 2003) 8.80.030 Permitting Procedures. ................................................................................................................... Any application for a second unit that meets the Development Standards and Regulations contained in this Chapter, shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. Rev. Ord. 9-03 (July 2003) 8.80.040 Development Standards and Regulations. ............................................................................................................................................................................ A building permit for a second unit will only be issued if it complies with the following development standards: A. Permitted in the R-1 District and Certain Planned Development Districts. A second unit may only be permitted in the R-1 zoning district and in a Planned Development zoning district which specifically allows second units or in a Planned Development zoning district which is subject to underlying R-1 standards where second units are not specifically prohibited by the PD regulations. Any PD development regulations that are more restrictive than this Chapter shall be superseded by this Chapter and shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter. Rev. Ord. 1-19 (January 2019) https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/DublinO8/DublinO880.html 4/10/2019 Chapter 8.80 SECOND UNITS REGULATIONS Page 2 of 4 B. Existing Detached Single -Family Dwelling Unit. The lot on which a second unit is located shall contain a legal existing, detached, single-family dwelling unit. C. Maximum of One Second Unit Per Lot. There shall be a maximum of one second unit per lot. D. Unit Size. The total floor area of an attached or detached second unit shall be not less than 275 square feet, nor more than 1,200 square feet. Further, in no case shall an attached second unit exceed 50% of the existing living area of the existing single-family residence. For the purposes of this section "living area" shall mean the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. E. R-1 Development Standards. The second unit shall conform to the development standards of the R-1 zoning district except as follows: 1. No setback shall be required for an existing garage that is converted to a second dwelling unit. 2. A setback of no more than five feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is constructed above a garage. 3. As specified in this Chapter or by State law. F. Parking. The second unit shall be provided with one additional off-street parking space in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 8.76, Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations, except that the space may be compact, may be uncovered, and may be in tandem with the required parking of the principal dwelling unit. A curb cut shall be provided to City standards. The second unit parking shall be in addition to parking required for the dwelling unit. The additional off-street parking space is not required in any of the following instances: 1. The second unit is located within one-half mile radius of a public transit stop. 2. The second unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. 3. The second unit is within the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure. 4. When on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the second unit. 5. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the second unit. G. Public Utilities and Services. Second units shall be served by public water and sewer and shall have access to an improved public street. H. Design Compatibility. The second unit shall incorporate the same or similar design features, building materials, colors, and landscaping as the existing residence to give the appearance of a single-family residence. I. Entrance Visibility. The entrance of a second unit shall not be visible from the street. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/DublinO8/DublinO880.html 4/10/2019 Chapter 8.80 SECOND UNITS REGULATIONS Page 3 of 4 J. Coverage. The principal residence and second unit combined shall not cover more than 60% of the lot. K. Occupancy. 1. Applications shall be limited to owner -occupants. 2. No more than one dwelling unit on the parcel shall be rented or leased. The rental or lease period shall be longer than 30 days. 3. The owner of the lot may occupy either the principal residence or the second unit. 4. Either of the units may remain vacant. 5. The second unit shall not be sold separately. 6. No subdivision shall be allowed unless the division meets the applicable requirements of Titles 8 and 9. L. Building Setbacks. If the second unit is detached from the principal residence on the site, the distance between the structures shall be determined by Chapter 7.34, Residential Code. Rev. Ord. 1-17 (February 2017); Ord. 9-03 (July 2003) 8.80.050 Submittal Procedures. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The application for a second unit shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with submittal of an application for a building permit. In addition to the standard submittal requirements for a building permit, the second dwelling unit application package shall include the following: A. Site Plan. The plan shall be drawn to scale, showing the dimensions of the perimeter of the parcel on which the second unit will be located. Indicate the location and dimensioned setbacks of all existing and proposed structures on the project site. B. Lot Coverage. Calculations indicating the square footage of the structure and the lot, and include calculations on the plan for the percentage of lot area covered by the foundation of the new and existing dwelling units. C. Elevations. North, south, east and west elevation which show all openings, exterior finishes, original and finish grades, stepped footing outline, roof pitch, materials and color board for the existing residence and the proposed second unit. D. Utility and Service Information. Provide information on available utility easements, services and connections. Include information on roadway access to the site. E. Color Photographs. Provide color photographs of the site. The photos shall be taken from each of the property lines of the project site to show the site. Label each photograph and reference to a separate site plan indicating the location and direction of the photograph. F. Building Permit Issuance. The Community Development Department shall issue a building permit for the second unit if all submittal requirements are met, and if it conforms to the specific https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/DublinO8/DublinO880.html 4/10/2019 Chapter 8.80 SECOND UNITS REGULATIONS Page 4 of 4 standards contained in Section 8.80.040, Development Standards and Regulations. Rev. Ord. 1-17 (February 2017); Ord. 9-03 (July 2003) The Dublin Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2-19, passed February 19, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Dublin Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/DublinO8/DublinO880.html 4/10/2019 Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 7, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Overview of New Housing Legislation Prepared by: Lindsey F. Zwicker, Associate Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive a report summarizing the Legislature’s recently-enacted package of housing legislation and its impacts on the City. In Staff’s judgment, the new laws are likely to have a limited impact on Dublin’s existing practices. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DESCRIPTION: The Legislature approved a package of more than a dozen bills focused on housing on September 15, and the Governor signed them all. These bills constitute a legislative response to a perceived state-wide housing crisis. With this package of legislation, the Legislature took several different approaches to the housing issue, approving bills to provide more funding for affordable housing development, bills aimed to streamline local government approval of housing projects, bills designed to restore local government authority to impose inclusionary housing requirements on private housing developers, and bills strengthening the state’s anti-NIMBY laws. The following describes each of the approved housing bills and discusses its impact on the City, if any. SB 2: The “Permanent Source” of Funds for Affordable Housing. SB 2 was designed to provide a “permanent source” of funds for affordable housing development through the imposition of a $75 fee on most recorded documents (except for home sales). The recording fee is expected to generate approximately $200 - $300 million per year for affordable housing. Half of the funds generated in 2018 will be made available to local governments for updating planning documents and zoning ordinances in order to streamline housing production, and the other half would go to the state for homeless Page 2 of 6 assistance programs. Beginning in 2019, 70% of the funds will be directly allocated to local governments by the same formula used for the federal Community Development Block Grant program, to be used for a variety of affordable housing projects and programs, and the other 30% will be used by the state for farmworker housing, mixed income multifamily housing, and other programs. SB 3: $4 Billion Housing Bond. This bill will place a bond act on the November 2018 state ballot, with bond proceeds to be used to fund various existing housing programs. 1.5 billion of the funds would go to the stat e’s Multifamily Housing Program for affordable housing development loans, $1 billion of the funds would go to the state’s CalVet veteran’s home loan program, with the remainder of the funds allocated for farmworker housing, the CalHome down payment and mortgage assistance program, transit oriented development and infrastructure supporting infill housing. The last state housing bond (Proposition 1C) was approved in 2006. Those funds have long since been allocated. SB 35: Streamlined Approval Process for Housing Projects. SB 35 creates a streamlined approval process for certain housing projects. SB 35 requires local agencies to ministerially approve multifamily housing projects that meet a long list of standards. Its requirements apply if the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) determines that the local agency has issued building permits for fewer housing units than its share of the regional housing need, by income category. Unlike housing elements, demonstrating that zoning allows for the creation of the required number of units would be insufficient. SB 35 is intended to increase the supply of market rate and affordable housing in California by requiring local governments to promptly approve eligible projects. In order to qualify for streamlined processing, the applicant must propose a multifamily project that deed restricts a specified percentage of the project's units to be affordable to households making below 80% of the area median income. In Dublin for the foreseeable future, because the City has exceeded its regional housing needs obligations for above-moderate income units, a developer attempting to use SB 35 would be required to dedicate 50% of the units to households making below 80% of the area median income. In addition to satisfying these affordability requirements, the proposed housing development must satisfy numerous other standards established by SB 35. A partial list of these standards includes: Density & Zoning: The proposed project must be consistent with objective zoning and design review standards and not exceed the maximum density allowed within the general plan land use designation. Site Location: The project may not be located on a site that is in a coastal zone, a high fire severity zone, within an earthquake fault zone, on a flood plain, prime farmland or wetlands, or on certain other areas designated in the statute. Projects located in these areas may still qualify for streamlined review if they meet certain additional requirements. The project site must have at least 75% of the perimeter developed with urban uses. Page 3 of 6 Existing Housing: The project may not require the demolition of existing affordable housing or housing subject to rent control or be on a site previously used as rental housing within the previous 10 years. Labor Standards: The applicant must certify, for projects greater than 10 units that are not otherwise considered a public work, that it will pay prevailing wage or the equivalent of prevailing wage. Applicants located in jurisdictions meeting certain population and geographic requirements will also need to certify that the project will meet “skilled and trained workforce” requirements specified in the bill. A checklist outlining the process for determining if a project qualifies for streamlined review is attached as Attachment 1. A local agency must notify the applicant within 60 days of submittal if the proposed housing development conflicts with any of the applicable “objective standards” (or 90 days if the development is more than 150 units). If the local agency does not provide a written determination to the applicant within the required time period, the proposed development is deemed to satisfy all of the required standards. Similarly, any objective design review or public oversight of the development must be conducted by the local agency within 90 days of the project submittal (or 180 days if the development is more than 150 units). Project approvals under SB 35 last a minimum of three years. We do not anticipate that many developers in Dublin will avail themselves of the streamlined ministerial approval process, due to the limited availability and its burdensome requirements. First, there are limited sites in Dublin that would be eligible, since the site must be designated for multifamily development and 75% of the perimeter of the site must be adjoin parcels developed with urban uses. Second, any developer relying on SB 35 would be subject to costly requirements, including dedicating 50% of the units to below-moderate income households, paying prevailing wage, and employing a “skilled and trained workforce.” Based on our discussions with developers, it seems very unlikely that they will take advantage of the opportunity offered by SB 35. AB 1505: The Return of Inclusionary Housing. This bill overturns a 2009 appellate court ruling. Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles ruled that cities and counties were not permitted to require private developers to restrict rent levels under the State’s Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Costa Hawkins limits local governments’ ability to establish rent control. Dublin’s inclusionary zoning ordinance requires developers of residential rental projects to make 12.5% of the units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The ordinance requires that affordable units be occupied by households meeting both the income standards in the ordinance (income restrictions) and that the rents be affordable to those households (rent restrictions). The City has addressed the Palmer case by continuing to require developers to set aside affordable units but refraining from imposing the ordinance’s rent restrictions. While the rents are not restricted, and therefore Palmer is not violated, the rents that building owners can charge is below market rates because of the reduced demand from tenants. This bill authorizes (but does not mandate) local governments to require, as a condition of development of residential rental homes, that new rental housing developments Page 4 of 6 include a specified percentage of affordable units for moderate, low, very low and extremely low income households. This bill does not limit the percentage of units that a jurisdiction may require to be affordable. However, if an inclusionary rental ordinance that is adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 requires that more than 15% of the total number of units in the development be affordable to low-income households, the Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to review the ordinance if the jurisdiction has either: (1) failed to meet at least 75% of its share of its regional housing need allocation for the above-moderate income category over a five-year period, or (2) failed to submit its annual housing element report for two consecutive years or more. An economic feasibility study will be needed to determine whether the ordinance unduly constrains the production of housing. Based on the study, HCD can require that the ordinance require no more than 15% low income units. Going forward, AB 1505 will allow the City to implement the ordinance as written and as it had previous to the Palmer decision. AB 678, SB 167 and AB 1515: Strengthening Anti-NIMBY Law. These bills strengthen the State’s Housing Accountability Act (“the Act”), often referred to as the Anti-NIMBY Law,” which limits the ability of cities and counties to disapprove proposed housing developments unless specified findings are made. The Act applies to housing applications that meet the following criteria: Meet a city's “objective general plan and zoning standards.” The development would not cause a “significant, adverse impact” to public health, or take water from bordering farms or preserved resources. The development meets the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act. AB 678 and SB 167 impose a higher standard of proof on local governments when they make findings to support a disapproval of a housing project, award attorneys’ fees to housing advocates (in addition to project applicants) that successfully challenge local disapprovals, and allow courts to vacate local disapprovals and impose fines of $10,000 or more per unit for violation of the Housing Accountability Act. AB 1515 directs courts to give less deference to local government determinations of a project’s consistency with local zoning and general plans. SB 540 and AB 73: Workforce Housing and Housing Sustainability Districts. Under SB 540, which is sponsored by the League of California Cities, local governments can identify Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones within their boundaries and conduct necessary environmental reviews and public engagement at the “front end,” possibly eliminating time-consuming environmental reviews for specific projects later proposed within the zones. Local governments would need to act on the proposed developments within 90 days of application, and would not be able to turn down development that satisfies the plan’s criteria. The environmental review and streamlining process within these Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones will be in effect for 5 years, and development will need to be completed within that time frame. AB 73 authorizes local governments to establish Housing Sustainability Districts, and provides incentive funds for upfront zoning and environmental review to localities that issue Page 5 of 6 permits for residential units on infill sites within the district. Under AB 73, local governments must allow residential use within each district by ministerial permit. Incentive payments must be returned if no construction begins within 3 years. AB 1397 and SB 166. No Net Loss Zoning. These bills will modify the existing “No Net Loss Zoning” law. That existing law ensures that local governments do not downzone sites or approve new housing at significantly lower densities than is projected in their housing elements without identifying other sites that could accommodate the local need for housing sites at specified income levels. The bills modify the No Net Loss Zoning law to require local governments to maintain adequate housing sites at all times throughout the planning period for all levels of income. It would also require agencies to make specified findings when they approve a project that would be developed at fewer units by income category than were identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element. AB 72 and SB 879: Housing Elements. AB 72 authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review actions by cities and counties for compliance with their adopted housing elements, and allows the Department to revoke housing element compliance for inconsistent actions. AB 879 makes changes to housing element requirements and directs the Housing and Community Development Department to conduct a study evaluating the reasonableness of local fees charged to housing developments. AB 1521: Expiring Affordability Restrictions. This bill strengthens the law regarding the preservation of assisted housing developments by requiring an owner of an assisted housing development to accept a bona fide offer to purchase from a qualified purchaser, if specified requirements are met. For assisted housing developments, SB 1521 (1) requires the owner to provide notice of use restrictions that are expiring after January 1, 2011 to all prospective tenants and existing tenants within 3 years of the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions; (2) expands potential remedies for failure to provide notice to include the imposition of prior restrictions, restitution of improper rent increases, and award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff; (3) requires HCD to certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the expiring restrictions based on their experience with affordable housing; (4) revises the procedure regarding the owner’s ability to accept an offer to purchase; and (5) requires HCD to monitor compliance and provide an annual report to the legislature beginning in 2019. AB 571: Farmworker Housing. AB 571 makes several changes to the farmworker state low income housing tax credit program to make the historically underutilized program more flexible. Only 50% (rather than 100%) of the units funded under the program must be occupied by farmworker households. In addition, the bill also makes several changes to the law regarding migrant farm labor centers for advance payments up to 20 percent of annual operating costs and measures. These changes to the farmworker housing are intended to make the projects more feasible and increase the supply of farmworker housing. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Senate Bill No. 35 Eligibility Checklist meyers i nave Senate Bill No. 35 Eligibility Checklist prepared by Meyers Nave on October 10, 2017) Senate Bill No. 35 becomes law on January 1, 2o18 and creates a streamlined and ministerial approval process for certain housing projects. After January i, 2oi8, if the answers to all of the n questions in the checklist below are "yes," then a project is eligible for the new approval process under Government Code section 65913.4. (See process notes on page two.) If any of the answers to the n questions is "no," then the project is not eligible for the new streamlined, ministerial review. This checklist provides an overview of SB 35's requirements. Please contact legal counsel for additional information and assistance. Eligibility 1. Has HCD has determined that the local agency is subject to SB 35 (subd. (a)(4)(A))? HCD determination is based on whether the agency has issued fewer building permits than its share of the regional housing needs, by income category, for the reporting period. The "reporting period" is either the first half or the second half of the regional housing needs assessment period. (subd. h)(7)•) The determination remains in effect until HCD's determination for the next reporting period. 2: Is the project a multifamily housing development (2 or more units) (subd; (a)(1))? 3. Has the applicant dedicated the applicable minimum percentage of units in the project to households making below 80% of the area median income (subd. (a)(4)(13))? io %: If the project contains more than 10 units and the agency's latest "production report" (first due April i, 2o18) reflects that the agency approved fewer above moderate- income units "than were required by the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period." 50 %: If the agency's latest "production report" reflects that the agency issued buildingpermits for fewer below moderate - income units "than were required by the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period." 100/b or 50% at applicant's option: If the agency has not submitted its latest production report by deadline or if the agency's latest production report reflects that the agency issued buildingpermits for fewer units of either category of households "than were required by the regional housing needs assessment cycle for that reporting period." 4. If the site is in a city, is a portion of the city designated by the Census as either an "urbanized area" or urban cluster," or, if the site is in an unincorporated area, is the parcel entirely within the boundaries of "urbanized area" or "urban cluster" (subd. (a)(2)(A))? 5. Does at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoin parcels currently or formerly developed with Elurbanuses" (subds. (a)(2)(B), (h)(8))? 6.` Does the site have either zoning or ,a general plan designation that allows for residential use or' residential mixed -use development (subd. (a)(2)(C))? For property designated for mixed use, the designation must require at least "two- thirds of the square footage of the development" to be residential. 7. Does the project not involve a subdivision of land {subd. (a)(9))? Projects can involve subdivisions if (a) they are financed with low- income housing tax credits and the applicant certifies that prevailing wages will be paid or (b) if the development is subject to a requirement that prevailing wages will be paid and a skilled and trained workforce will be used. 8. Does the project meets density requirements, "objective zoning standards," and "objective design Elreviewstandards" (subd. (a)(5))? Objective standards are those that are "involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal." A project is deemed to meet housing density standards if the project density, excluding any density bonuses, is within the maximum density allowed within the general plan land use designation. Any local policies that limit maximum unit allocations must be ignored. Offsite parking standards cannot be more than 1 space per unit; and, in certain cases, the local agency may not impose parking standards at all. (subd. (d).) Coastal zone A site that would require demolition of (a) housing subject to recorded Prime farmland or farmland of statewide rent restrictions, (b) housing subject to rent control, (c) housing occupied importance by tenants within past io years, or (d) an historic structure placed on a Wetlands as defined under federal law local, state, or federal register Earthquake fault zones A site that previously contained housing occupied by tenants within past High or very high fire hazard severity zones to years A parcel of land governed by the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Hazardous waste site Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, the Mobflehome Parks Act, or FEMA designated flood plain or floodway the Special Occupancy Parks Act. Protected species habitat Lands under a conservation easement Lands designated for conservation in a habitat conservation plan This requirement is not applicable to projects of io units or less and that are not a "public work for purposes of the prevailing wage law. The requirement applies to Bay and Coastal counties of more than 225,000 in population (excludes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Napa) and to jurisdictions of less than 550,000 in population that are not in Bay and Coastal Counties. In Bay and Coastal counties, the requirement only applies to projects of 75 or more until 2022; and projects of 50 or more thereafter. In applicable non -Bay and Coastal jurisdictions, the requirement only applies to projects of 75 or more until 2020; 50 or more units until 2022; and 25 or more thereafter. Process Notes: The first "production report" (a new requirement added to Government Code section 6540o by SB 35) is not due until April 1, 2018. Therefore, agencies can argue that the third requirement cannot be met until either an agency submits its first production report or it fails to do so by the deadline. If a local ordinance requires more units to be affordable households making below 80% of the area median income, the local ordinance's requirement applies. Because the section 65913.4 process is ministerial, eligible projects are exempt from CEQA. A local agency has 6o days from project submittal to determine if the project conflicts with any "objective planning standards" (90 days if project is more than 150 units). If the agency fails to respond within the timeframes, the project is deemed to satisfy the standards. (subd. (b).) A local agency has go days from project submittal to complete any "design review or public oversight" (18o days if the project is more than 150 units). The review or oversight "shall be objective and be strictly focused on assessing compliance with criteria required for streamlined projects, as well as any reasonable objective design standards." (subd. (c).) Contact. John Bakker, Chair, Municipal and Special District Law Practice, Meyers Nave, 510 - 808 -2000, meyersnave.com 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 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. Legislative Platform: Goals, Strategies and Priorities City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019 City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     1 I Page  Our Mission   The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment,  and fosters new opportunities.    Our Vision   Dublin is a great community to live, work, and raise a family. Dublin values:    Safety – We are dedicated to excellent public safety resources, including police and fire.    Finances – We will strive to be fiscally transparent and balance our budgets annually.    Multi‐Cultural Opportunities – We will meet the cultural needs of our community through  programming, understanding and events.    Innovation – We will continue to innovate in every aspect of government and promote  innovation within the business community.    Customer Service – We will provide excellent customer service to our residents and businesses  at all times.    Living an Active Lifestyle – We will continuously promote an active lifestyle through our parks  and facilities and encourage participation in local sports.    History – We will honor our history through places and programs that remind people of our  beginnings.    Business – We will support our businesses through ongoing economic development efforts and  help them grow and thrive locally.    Environmental Sustainability – We will continue to lead in building a sustainable community  and protecting our natural resources.    Introduction   The 2019 Legislative Platform highlights the City Council’s positions on important issues to engage in the  legislative process for the benefit of Dublin residents.  City Staff monitors bills introduced into the  California Assembly or Senate as well as their path towards becoming a law.  The Platform provides Staff  with direction and allows the City, on the Council’s behalf, to quickly respond in support of or opposition  to bills and other legislative or gubernatorial actions in time‐sensitive situations.  Additionally, the  Platform enables staff to communicate Dublin specific issues and impacts to state legislators.    The Legislative Platform evolves as the City's needs adjust, new issues arise, and conditions at the  federal, state, regional, county, and local level change.  The City values its ability and authority to  exercise local control and to protect and enhance the quality of life for Dublin residents. To that end, the  City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     2 I Page  City's primary legislative focus is to protect local government control and promote stable revenue for  local governments to plan for future growth and needed public facilities and services.    The City of Dublin Legislative Platform priorities are:    General Administration  Fiscal Stability  Public Works  Community and Economic Development  Public Safety  Parks / Quality of Life  Environmental Sustainability    Goals    Advocate the City’s legislative interests at the federal, state, and county levels.     Inform and provide information to our legislators, City Council and staff on the legislative  process, key issues and legislation that could have a potential impact on the City.     Serve as an active participant with other local governments, the League of California Cities,  regional agencies, and local professional organizations on legislative/regulatory issues that are  important to the City and our region.    Strategies    Communicate legislative positions on proposed federal, state, and county legislation, measures,  initiatives, and governmental regulations.  o Work with City departments and our legislative advocates to develop positions on  proposed legislative measures.  o Review positions and analysis by the League of California Cities, legislative advocates  and other local government / professional associations in formulating the City’s  position.  o The City will take positions only on proposals that clearly impact our City or are a threat  to local control.  o Actively track key bills through the legislative process.  o Communicate the City’s position through correspondence, testimony, and in‐person  meetings.  o Work cooperatively with other cities, associations and the League of California Cities on  advocating the City’s legislative position.  o Meet with legislators and their representatives, as well as other federal, state and  county government officials on a regular basis, to discuss local government issues,  proposed legislation, request for funding assistance, and City programs and services.          City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     3 I Page  The Process   Oversight of the Legislative Platform  Upon the Legislative Platform adoption, the City Manager’s Office will exercise day‐to‐day oversight of  legislative matters.  In addition to coordinating formal action through the City Council, the City Manager  and his or her designee will administer the City’s Legislative Platform.    Responding to Legislative Proposals  Upon the Legislative Platform adoption, the following process will be followed in response to legislative  proposals:     Once a determination has been made that a legislative proposal may impact the City, a letter  outlining the City’s position will be drafted for the Mayor’s or City Manager’s signature.   If a legislative proposal or regulation arises that is not addressed by the adopted Legislative  Platform and it is determined that it may impact the City, a draft position letter will be prepared  for the City Council to review.   A copy of all legislative letters will be distributed routinely to the City Council.                                          City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     4 I Page    Legislative Priorities for 2019   General Administration   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation that enhances local control and allows cities to address the needs of local  constituents within a framework of regional cooperation.  Support legislation that streamlines  and simplifies the job of running a city and oppose efforts that erode the City’s authority to  control its own affairs.  2. Legislation that provides funding to schools for operational or infrastructure needs.  3. Legislation that streamlines the process to apply for, to receive approval of, and to receive State  or Federal emergency funding.  4.     Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:    1. Legislation that would diminish or eliminate local governments’ ability to contract out for the  provision of services.  2. Legislation that requires cities to use district‐based elections.  3. Legislation that attempts to restrict local authority or decision‐making whether by state or  federal legislation or ballot propositions.  4. Legislation that limits or removes local review and permitting of emerging telecommunications  technologies, such as Small Cell technology.    Fiscal Sustainability   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation that maintains or enhances ongoing revenues to the City.  2. Legislation which updates the tax structure to enhance local government revenues that have  declined due to the expansion of e‐commerce, increased consumption of services rather than  durable goods, and innovations in technology.  3. Legislation and regulatory actions that ensure timely distribution of mandated reimbursements  owed to the City.  4. Legislative reforms that would remove unnecessary state‐imposed mandates.  5. Legislation that provides for the use of incentives for local government action rather than  mandates (funded or unfunded).  6. Legislation that establishes infrastructure financing districts or other funding mechanisms for  infrastructure improvements.  7. Legislation that changes the Communications Act of 1934 that removes the distinction between  “capital” and “operating” funds to provide more local control for community television stations  in the use of their public, educational, and government (PEG) channel fees.  8. Legislation that supports measures to increase transparency of all public employee salaries and  benefits.  City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     5 I Page  9. Legislation that supports measures to provide sustainable public pensions and other post‐ retirement benefits to ensure responsive and affordable public services.    Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:    1. Legislation that undermines and preempts local authority over local taxes and fees.  Monitor  state and federal budget deliberations and oppose attempts to balance the state and/or federal  budget by shifting funds from local government.  2. Legislation that imposes unfunded or inadequately funded federal and state mandates on local  governments.  3. Legislation that eliminates development fees or limit the ability of cities to levy fees to provide  for infrastructure or services.  4. Legislation that requires or expands state involvement in City financial audits, fiscal monitoring,  general oversight, or assistance by the State Treasurer, State Controller or other state agencies.  5. Legislation that defers reimbursements for state mandated programs.    Public Works   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation that will provide local governments with new and innovative revenue options and  resources to finance critical infrastructure maintenance and construction needs for  transportation, water supply, wastewater, storm water, and other critical infrastructure  systems.  2. Legislation that will provide access or public‐private partnership to 5‐G Cellular Network for  connected and Autonomous vehicle technology implementation. Support is needed to establish  long term agreements with technology companies that are seeking access to city infrastructure  for creating a 5‐G Cellular Network.  3. Legislation that would enable the sale of traffic data (traffic signal and other) to recover the cost  of data collection.  4. Legislation that ensures the City receive its fair share of transportation funding and that keeps  the funding decisions at the local level.  5. Legislation that supports reducing congestion and delay along freeways in the Tri‐Valley Area.  6. Legislation that supports freight movement (between the San Francisco Bay Area and the  Central Valley) with projects that could reduce truck traffic along I‐580. These projects may  include rail‐based freight movement or sharing the passenger rail corridors for freight  movement.  7. Legislation that supports Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) including the implementation  of Connected/Autonomous vehicles.   8. Legislation that enhances the safety of City streets for car, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, reduces  traffic congestion, or supports regional transportation improvements.  9. Legislation that encourages the optimum and sustainable utilization of local groundwater basins.  10. Legislation that enhances the reliability of water transmission and storage through the Delta and  Tri‐Valley.  11. Legislation that provides funding or incentives for the cost‐effective development of local water  resources, water conservation, or expansion of recycled water infrastructure and improvements  to reduce dependence on imported water sources.  City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     6 I Page  12. Legislation that creates flexibility in the implementation of mandatory storm water programs  and provides funding for those programs.  13. Legislation that support a constitutional amendment to lower the threshold for approval of sales  and use taxes for transportation purposes. Currently, such taxes must be approved by two‐ thirds of the voters.  14. Legislation that allows fuel tax indexing or an increase to provide additional funding for local  street projects, especially maintenance, and support efforts that protect against transportation  funding diversions.   15. Legislation that provides cap and trade funds derived from transportation fuels for clean  transportation purposes.     Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:    1. Legislation that would infringe upon the ability of local governments to effectively administer  and modify state and local construction provisions and standards.  2. Legislation that takes away local control of managing and operating local streets.  3. Legislation that reduces the City’s condemnation authority regarding acquisition of properties  required for public projects.  4. Legislation that seeks to repeal the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB1) or that  seeks to divert funds collected.    Community and Economic Development   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation that maintains cities’ authority over land use decisions.  2. Legislation that strengthens local governments’ regulatory authority and control over the siting  of medical marijuana dispensaries.  3. Legislation that would create a more equitable Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)  process. Support legislation that creates more flexibility for local jurisdictions to work together  to provide housing that counts toward RHNA requirements.  4. Legislation that enhances the City’s efforts to retain existing businesses and attract new  businesses.  5. Legislation that provides tangible and productive tools and incentives to support job creation  and retention.  6. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) legislation that eliminates redundant, costly and  cumbersome mandates and restrictions.  7. Legislation that advances or encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, start‐ups, small business  opportunities, and/or workforce development.  8. Legislation that provides incentives for affordable housing and transit‐oriented development.  9. Legislation that increases financial assistance to provide affordable, transitional, special needs  and emergency housing to the homeless, seniors, veterans, and people with special needs.  10. Legislation encouraging the expansion of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and  Mathematics) programs in K‐12, higher education and libraries.          City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     7 I Page  Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:    1. Legislation that would interfere with the decision‐making authority of local government in local  land use and zoning.  2. Legislation that erodes the ability of cities to condition and deny projects that inadequately  mitigate impacts to the community.  3. Legislation that weakens local governments’ ability to regulate massage establishments through  zoning code provisions.  4. Legislation and regulatory efforts that would diminish or eliminate the authority of cities to zone  and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure, including the siting of  cellular communications towers or transmission sites.  5. Legislation that would diminish or eliminate cities’ authority to regulate condominium  conversions.    Public Safety   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation and grant opportunities that increase funding for local law enforcement, fire  suppression and prevention, hazardous materials mitigation, and emergency medical services.  2. Legislation that provides funding to local agencies for training, disaster preparedness crime  prevention, public outreach, and emergency planning.  3. Legislation which ensures cities have control of regulating local medical marijuana facilities  instead of the state, protects public safety with standardized security requirements, protects  public health with uniform health and safety standards, and ensures patient safety with a quality  assurance protocol.  4. Legislation that improves data and information dissemination from the railroads and Federal  government, preparedness funding, and first‐responder training for oil‐by‐rail shipments.  5. Legislation that maintains or increases grant funding for the Community Oriented Police Services  (COPS) program.  6. Legislation that provides a greater share of asset forfeiture funds for cities and increases latitude  for spending local funds.  7. Legislation that supports funding to mitigate, adapt and respond to extreme weather events.    Parks / Quality of Life   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation that creates new funding opportunities for parks and community facilities.  2. Legislation that provides funding for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) facility and park  upgrades.              City of Dublin Legislative Platform 2019     8 I Page  Environmental Sustainability   Staff recommends that the City Council support:    1. Legislation requiring manufactures to be responsible for safe disposal or reuse of their products  and by‐products, particularly for hazardous products such as sharps, unused prescription drugs,  and fluorescent light bulbs.   2. Legislation that encourages manufacturers to include post‐consumer recycled material in their  products and encourages state and local government agencies to use less‐toxic and recycled  content products.  3. Legislation that supports the development of alternative technologies such as anaerobic  digestion or mixed waste processing that result in waste diversion from landfills.  4. Legislation and policies that assist local government in meeting or exceeding established goals of  reducing water consumption without preempting local planning decisions.  5. Legislation that enhances building energy efficiency standards and building safety standards.  6. Legislation protecting the interest of California’s Community Choice clean electricity providers  and their customers.  7. Legislation that assists regional and local governments in development and implementing  energy efficiency and conservation strategies and ensure that local governments can continue,  and not be preempted in, their efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased  energy efficiency and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions (a League of  California Cities Federal Priority).  8. Legislation that supports regional and local government efforts to develop and implement  programs to reduce air pollution.  9. Legislation or grant opportunities for cities that provide funding for developing or enhancing  alternative vehicle fueling stations.  10. Legislation to address litter control and abatement problems in California.  11. Legislation that would make it easier for cities to fund and comply with new and increasingly  stringent storm water quality permit requirements.  12. Legislation that lessens the financial impact of state and federal unfunded mandates related to  compliance with environmental programs and regulations.  13. Legislation that supports local solar generation and electrification of California’s energy and fuel  supply.    Staff recommends that the City Council oppose:    1. Legislation that preempts local planning decisions regarding solid waste facility sites, preempts  local solid waste and AB 939 fee setting authority, or imposes taxes or fees on local solid waste  programs to fund State programs not directly related to solid waste management.