HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.5 - 2823 Resetting Accessory Secondary Dwelling Unit
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: September 17, 2019
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Reducing the Second Unit Fee in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Program to $0.
Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As recommended by the Tri Valley Transportation Commission, and consistent with the
Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework, the City Council will consider reducin g
the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee for Second Units (also known as
Accessory Dwelling Units or Secondary Dwelling Units) from $3,203.48 to $0.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Reducing the Second Unit Fee in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Program to $0.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City of Dublin imposes various impact fees at building permit issuance for each new
second dwelling unit built. A portion of the impact fees is the Tri -Valley Transportation
Development (TVTD) fee, which is currently $3,203.48 per Second Unit. The City
collected approximately $48,000 of TVTD fees for Second Unit permits in Fiscal Year
2018-2019. In Fiscal Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 the City collected approximately
$53,000 of TVTD fees for Second Unit Permits.
Reducing the TVTD fee to $0.00 per Second Unit will reduce revenue for TVTD funded
regional and local projects. There is no impact to the General Fund.
DESCRIPTION:
The City is a party to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreement (“the JEPA”). Among other things, the JEPA establishes the mechanism for
a regional transportation fee, called Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (“TVTD
Fee”). In particular, the TVTC is responsible for producing the necessary legal
justification for the fees, recommending the amounts, and maintaining and administering
the funds derived from the fees. The individual member agencies—the counties of
Page 2 of 3
Alameda and Contra Costa, and Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San
Ramon—are responsible for considering TVTD Fee amounts recommended by TVTC.
Presently, the TVTD Fee includes a Second Unit fee of $3,203.48 per unit. The Second
Units are also referred to as Accessory Dwelling Units or Secondary Dwelling Units.
In January 2019, CASA - The Committee to House the Bay Area released several
recommendations in an effort to reduce barriers to developing housing. One of the
recommendations is “CASA Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to
Accessory Dwelling Units.” This recommendation is to remove regulatory barriers to
ADUs with the intent of creating additional housing within their neighborhoods. Two
legislative bills were created to support this recommendation. These two bills are AB 69
(Ting) and SB 13 (Wieckowski). The bills were referred to the Commission on Housing
and Community Development and the Commission on Rules in January 2019,
respectively.
In late February 2019, the City of Dublin along with other Tri-Valley cities of Livermore,
Pleasanton, San Ramon and the Town of Danville developed the Tri-Valley Cities
Housing and Policy Framework. This framework was developed as a collaborative
response and statement to the CASA Compact. On March 19, 2019, City Council
adopted a Resolution 16-19 (Attachment 2) supporting the Housing and Policy
Framework. The Tri-Valley Cities, through their Housing and Policy Framework,
generally support the ADU/SDU recommendations described in the CASA Compact.
On July 15, 2019, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Board adopted
Resolution 2019-03 (Attachment 3) recommending reducing the TVTD Fee for Second
Units to $0. The intention of the resolution was to minimize or remove a barrier to the
construction of Second Units and is a component of addressing the housing crisis in the
Bay Area.
The City of Dublin, as a TVTC member, is required to consider TVTD Fee amounts
proposed by the TVTC. To be consistent with the recommendation of TVTC Board, to
implement the recommendations in the Housing and Policy Framework, a nd to remove
a barrier to the development of Second Units in Dublin, Staff recommends that the City
Council adopt a resolution to reduce the TVTD fee collected for Second Units to $0 to
be effective on September 30, 2019.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Reducing the Second Unit Fee in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee Program to $0
2. Reso 16-19 Supporting the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework
3. TVTC Resolution 2019-03
3348055.1
RESOLUTION NO. __– 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * *
REDUCING THE SECOND UNIT FEE IN THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM TO $0
WHEREAS, consistent with the TVTD Fee program, the City of Dublin currently collects a
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee for Second Units that is equal to the rate charged for
Multi-Family Units; and
WHEREAS the City of Dublin desires to support more affordable housing to help address
the housing crisis; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development has
advised that a way for local jurisdictions to encourage the development of accessory dwelling
units (ADU) or secondary dwelling units (SDU) is to reduce or eliminate fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Joint Exercise of Powers Authority the Tri -
Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) can recommend fee amounts; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2019 the TVTC adopted a resolution recommending resetting
ADU/SDU fee to $0 in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development fee program ; and
WHEREAS, TVTC recommends member agencies to implement this fee by September
30, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the TVTC’s recommendation, which aligns with
the recommendations in the Housing and Policy Framework adopted by Danville, Dublin,
Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon aimed at removing barriers to the development of
second units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin,
reduces the Second Unit Fee in the TVTD fee program to $0.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the fee reduction described in the foregoing
paragraph shall be implemented only after the City Clerk has been provided evidence that each
of the members of the TVTC (County of Alameda, County of Contra Costa, Town of Danville,
City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, and City of San Ramon) have reduced the TVTD Fee in
their jurisdictions to $0.
3348055.1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September 2019, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________ City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 16 — 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING SUPPORT FOR THE TRI-VALLEY CITIES HOUSING AND
POLICY FRAMWORK AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE TRI-VALLEY CITIES
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ON HOUSING MATTERS
WHEREAS, in 2017 the Tri-Valley cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon
and the Town of Danville (collectively known as the "Tri-Valley Cities") acknowledge the importance
of collaborating on a legislative advocacy framework, which resulted in the development of the Tri-
Valley Cities Legislative Framework; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities recognize and respect the local needs and character of each
community, and have a shared interest in maintaining local control of decision -making related to all
aspects of the management of each jurisdiction, including but not limited to financial, land use and
development, and growth -related matters; and
WHEREAS, in January of 2017, the State of California published a report titled "California's
Housing Future: Opportunities and Challenges," which documented the negative consequences of
the historic underproduction of housing in California, including an increasing affordability gap, falling
rates of homeownership, disproportionate rates of homelessness, and issues such as urban sprawl
and traffic congestion. Collectively, these issues have been identified by legislators as part of a
statewide "housing crisis"; and
WHEREAS, in September of 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the
"Housing Package" consisting of 15 new bills focused on funding, permit streamlining, and increased
enforcement and accountability for local governments with respect to implementation of the Housing
Element; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, State legislators approved, and the Governor signed into law several
additional housing bills; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission formed the Committee to House the
Bay Area (CASA) to address the housing challenges in the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, in December 2018 the Committee to House the Bay Area released an ambitious
10-point plan, known as the CASA Compact, to serve as state legislative research data for future
housing legislation; and
WHEREAS, the State's focus on the affordable housing challenges is likely to continue for the
foreseeable future with new legislation that will impact local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities recognize the substantial challenge of providing adequate
and affordable housing opportunities in the region, and the shared responsibility of all communities
across the State to help address these needs; and
WHEREAS, there is a unique opportunity for the Tri-Valley Cities to work together, to develop
a collaborative response to influence legislative efforts at the State towards outcomes that address
Reso No. 16-19, Adopted 3/19/2019, Item 4.6 Page 1 of 3
housing needs, while respecting community character and desire for local control of decision making;
and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities affirm their interest in and commitment to shaping housing
policy outcomes in a constructive manner, ,through a proactive and nuanced approach to advocacy
and engagement on the topic of housing that will result in better outcomes for the region and the
individual communities; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities have developed the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy
Framework, dated February 2019 and attached as Exhibit A, to provide additional depth to the Tri-
Valley Cities Legislative Framework in the area of housing; and
WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework provides a comprehensive
statement of the Tri-Valley Cities legislative approach, reflecting the following Key Themes:
• Balanced Solutions — Housing, Jobs, and Transportation;
• Provide, Promote, and Protect Affordability;
• Context Sensitive Housing;
• Infrastructure and Services; and
• Funding and Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Key Themes are topic areas where there is consensus among the Tri-Valley
Cities, and which can be used to inform, influence, respond, and advocate, on the topic of housing at
the local, regional and State level; and
WHEREAS, the overall approach identifies and addresses common areas of concern, while
recognizing that each city can and will continue to pursue individual areas of interest that are specific
to their community's needs; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2019, the Tri-Valley Mayors and Councilmembers met to discuss
the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby make the
following determination regarding the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework attached as
Exhibit A:
A. The Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy Framework is hereby supported as supplemental
material to the existing Tri-Valley Cities Legislative Framework on matters related to housing
legislation.
B. The Tri-Valley Cities may from time -to -time revisit the Tri-Valley Cities Housing and Policy
Framework to ensure that the approaches and topics discussed within the report remain relevant and
appropriate.
Reso No. 16-19, Adopted 3/19/2019, Item 4.6 Page 2 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Goel, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai and Mayor Haubert
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTE. e�;f
ST /
City Clerk
Reso No. 16-19, Adopted 3/19/2019, Item 4.6 Page 3 of 3
110
; PIPP'
;007
�oo
wo
THE CITY QF
DUBLIN LIVE '" PLEASANTON. February 2019
CALIFORNIA
i FI-A 11
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
1
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 an:
■ 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.
2
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.
3
Table 1 — Tri-Valley Cities 2014-2022 RHNA and Housing Production
RHNA
Total
Total
Income Level
Allocation
2015
2016
2017
Units Built
Remaining
by Income
to Date
RHNA by
Level
Income Level
Very Low
3,063
80
148
52
280
2,783'
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
Source: Deoartment of Housing
and Community
Development (HCD) Annual
Progress Reports
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
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.
4
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 TQD 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
TQD standards (or by July 1, 2022) that include minimum height, density, parking, and
5
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-me mber
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
2
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
7
high density housing near transit lines presumes transit service remain static when
in fact that is not the case in suburban communities.
Potential to Jobsll-Iousing 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 (S6 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.
8
"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, an 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.
9
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
10
ATTACHMENT I
1. just Cause Eviction Standards: Adopt a Bay Area -
wide requirement that Iand lords must cite specific
"just causes" (both fault and no-fault] for an
eviction, land lads arc -qui red to cover
relocation assistance in all "no-fault" evictions.
Exemptions would apply.
Objective: Protect tenants from arbitrary
eaiclions.
CONCERN STATUS: Low, them is a pmentiatly significant
wifturded rrmttdate if epics am responsible for
administeringlenfoming measures.
CONCERNS
Disincentivizes property owners, who spend a large portion
of total income on housing cost, from making housing
available for rent on the open market if they are required to
provide relocation assistance.
Monitor legislative progress of these elements. if
efforts move forward, advocate for amendmems that
would allow:
• Implementation [a occur after new mgirnwl
funding soured are available for admire stratinn.
• Administrative r ponsiWlity to be assigned Loan
existing regional agency (no new regional
bureaucracy).
Mediation to be required as a part of person
seeking their legal remedies for unfair eviction.
• Provide exemptions for honmowners with ADUs
and owner-occu pied du} let and trl plea units.
FUN DING AND RESOURCES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 1
ATTACHMENT I
2 Rent Cap: Establish a Ray Area -wide emergency
CONCERN STATUS: Low, this element has the potential to be
Monitor leolahve progress of these elements. if FUNDING AND RESOURCES
rent rap that limits annual rent increases to
counicrt reductive to multi -family housing production (mni cap
efforts move forward, advocate for amendments than
PROTECT AFFC]RDABILriY
"reasonable" amount. For an emergency period
disincenlivixe investment).
would allow:
(defined as 15 years), the annual cap would be no
more than CPI+5%. Cerla in exemptions and
CONCERNS
. Uninhibited prod union of new rental units
banking provisions would apply,
. predvChm of housing units because it limits a pnyecr'
and incentives for existing rental units to stay
potential retum on a high -risk inveslment;
rental and not be converted to far -sale units.
Objective: Decrease the rruurlier of honse7eofds at
risk of drspfnrern wt sad to prenrrre Iroarefrssnrss.
. Win fertana and bupme reef of the existing housing stock
' Ensure land lards have ability to rover all
because property owners would be unable to recoup these
necessary maintenance and administrative
investments.
costs,
• Teaanl rartr�We' leading to a potential "cots -match" between
' Allow a reasonable time period for newly
tenants and rental units, which could lead to a dkrcaso in
constructed rental units not be subject to rent
available housing stock. Once a tenant has secured a rent-
cap and then it can apply -
controlled apartment, s/he may not choose to move in the
future and give up the rent-controlted unit, even if housing
rxeds change. Research information saurre:
htt❑s:11�H��-hrnukings:dujr�n arch�uhat-cfrx•�-
rmnnmicsvide�nn•-eel-us-abnut-thr•efferts�rf-rent-nntmI
• Rent control Was recrnfly defeakd al the Nflot Wx,
3. Rent Assistance and Free Legal Counsel: Provide CONCERN STATUS: law, there is a potentially significant
access to free legal counsel and emergency rent urrfiurded warrdafr if cities are responsible for
assistance for tenants with an urgent, temporary administering/ enforcing measures.
financial gap. Funding, pol icies and gui deVne5 to CONCERNS
be determined [presumably by the new regional
housing authority} at a later time. l'resu mes ail tenants lack resources to legal counsel while ail
land Wds do not. The inverse could be tree and result in
Objective: Errsnre HSW to legal rotnrsel, praNde abuse of the systern on the part of tenants seeking to thwart
finrdrng for rmergrmy7rrrr)rarary rent gap, a lawful eviction.
Monitor Icgis[ative progress of these elements. If
efforts move forward, advocate for amendments that
would allow:
• Implementation to occur offer new regional
funding sources are available for administration.
• Administrative responsibility to be assigned to an
existing regional agency (no new regional
bureaucracy).
• A "means test" (derransctration of need) to be
required before receiving free legal assistance.
FUNDING ANO RESOURCES
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) page 2
ATTACHMENT I
4, Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory CONCERN STATUS: Low, cities have generally supported the full support and expansion of this element by:
Dwelling Units (ADUs)r Extend existing state law production of AOUs by making it simpler, faster and cheaper to Extending the fee limitation reduction to all pass -
to allow ADUs an single family lots and multiple build thew unite. lhrough fees (including utility connection fees and
ADUs in existing multi -family buildings with CONCERNS school district fees), provided that the f¢us mmaln
ministerial approval.
• This Element indicates a Sack of understanding that cities proportionate M impacts generated.
Forgives code violations in gra ndfatherd ADUs. serve as a collection point for many pass -through fees to
Impact fees to be based on a square foot basis and other public agencies [such as utility connection and school Developing standardized ADU permit plan' in a
only on net new living area s500 SF, district foes], which represent the majority of all few- range of sizes, pre approved at the State level,
imposed on an ADU. For example, in the San Ramon valley, allowing for minimal local plan check
Objective: bwc se more, ffurdahfc -,its, provide these fees represent 79-percent of the lees incurred by a requirements (reduced plan check time offsets fee
income svurre fur cps t-burdened buxuevxpners• tvpical 742 Sf ADU. limitatiom)_
Given their disproportionate percentage of the total fee Allowing cities tocovnt• by right, ADUs that am
amount, Iimitations and reduction should apply to ALL "affordable by design" in the RHNA process
pass -through public agencies. [examples: count 5 550 SF ADU as "Low" and 551-
LOW 5F ADU as "Moderate' income units].
Removing energy efficiency requirements is contrary to
established Slate Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goals. • Advocate for standardized Building Codes for
ADUs
• Reducing fees across the board without an exa lua Lion of the
impacts to public services and Enfrastrueture• is contrary tv • Ensure existing structures arc brought up to Code
the fiscal sustainabil ity of each city- for legitimate Health and Safety reasons.
• Code violations should not be forgiven if they pose health
and salety concerns.
CONTEXT -SENSITIVE HOUSING
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
5. Minimum Zoning Near Transit: Establish state-
CONCERN! STATUS: High, as it it;norv� community context
Oppose unless amendedas follows: CONTEXT-SENISMVE HOLISING
wide Funt a ow zoning for housing on all
with the potential for significant displacement and ]and
BALANCED SOLUTIONS
Allow all cities [opt just Sensitive Communities] to
zones to
a sident Ilow'miss commercial le' and institutional prod product
alto low 'missing middle' housing product types fa
speculation near transit.
develop context serN6ve community plares that INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
be.
CONCERN Sc This is a ones _e-fils-all approach that:
achieves the overall goal of providing affordable
lgsmre+c mtrnnuuify context- Creating potential ]and rcyc
housing around transit and a balanced land use
• Minimum 36-feel h igh within 'A-mi le of high
incompatibility issues with is] I developments immediately
framework.
quality bus seroire, defined as a bus slop with
15-min headways (weekday peak) and 30-min
adjacent to low density areas or within historic
districts/downtowns.
' Focus requirement on density not on height [as she
enton d
n t
headway& Sweekendj
city
tablet fines not more tint fs and
Y 1
• Generates impacts on laul hrfrastmctrrre [i.e., water, sewer,
allow cities to retain design quality control to
• Minimum 55-feet (�� high with density
$ ly
schools, traffic] while fee limitations proposed in Element 6
facilitate local acceptance.
bonusl within rl -mile of a major transit slop,
limits ability to mini to those impacts
defined as a rail station or a ferry terminal]
'
Establish realistic frequency thresholds to be
Creates laud speudn✓ton amend transit zones, driving up
eomidered for rail stations, specifically ACE or
Housing Overlay on Low-Uensirp Conuuerrlai
land costs and in turn causing housing development costs to
Amtrak train lines, which have very llmlt d
Sites: Make housing an allowable use on large
rise
infrequent service,
com merci ally�oned parcels near job centers with
high quality transit.
. Requiring minimum height dons not create rimsily, as it is
Apply density increase as a perrc'u Cage of adjacent
Possible to build a tall mu Ili -story project with lower density
land uses (example: 50% increase in density or
Trnnnt Protecrimrs Sit: rezoned would be
luxury units.
height) in acknowledgement that not all
subject to tenant protections, demolition controls
communities take the same form near transit lines
and "no net loss" provisions.
. Unaware of the fact that lrausii semice is uof sbtie m,
(example: San Francisco vs the Pleasanton/ Dublin
RJfnr4a6fe Norrsfrtg•. Required at levels not less
suburban Cities; tying housing rogvirements to transit routes
Area)'
than state densitybonus law. Pro eels with 1B-20
I
which may be eliminated due to budge! cubs (or lowering
demand) is problematic as it introduces density to areas that
Establish increases contingent upon Funding a
units should have option to pay in -lieu fee as its
may not have any transportation,
fransit agency's ability to maintain head ways for a
affordable housing obligation.
specified number of years.
Smsifive Cumtnvurtfes: receive an automatic 3-
• Unaware of the fact that some commercially zoned
. Allow a lime period for d ties to incorporate these
year deferral on im plementat ton while the city
properties are purposely zoned as such to serve
requlmmenis into their General flans and obtain
develops a context sensitive plan.
prednminately residential areas; as a State Green House Gas
local feedback.
(GHG) reduction goal to lower vehicles miles traveled
Objective: Spar denefopsnettt near transit.
(VhiT).
Exempt hutonc districts/downtowns where high-
• Does not include frequency thresholds or minimum
density housing is not compatible with the historic
headway& for rail station or ferry terminal definitions,
context of the area.
• Creates housing near trawit but is unclear about proximity
Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and
to jobs-
reyui remenl& on"low density" commercial areas,
Balanced Approach: pursue and support policies that
maintain the delicate balance of jobs, adequate
affordable housing, and a robust tramportatinn
network to connect new housing to jobs and daily
services. Actively discourage policies that favors one
of these at the expense of the olhers.
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
6. "Goad Government" Reforms to Housing
CONCERN STATUS: High. This has the potential to
oppose unless amended as follows: FUNDLNG AND RESOURCES
Approval Process: Focused on shea rnlining the
significantly reduce public input in the review poo s which
• Require an "expiration dare" for all fees and CONTEXT -SENSITIVE HOt,ISI NG
permltling poetess and how residential impact
may lead to distrust and community corimm.
regulations locked at application completeness to
fees are se! and enforced.
CONCERNS This is a one-si ze4ils-all approach that:
msun they are applicable to viable projects -
Streamlining (zoning compliant projects 600
• Disincentivires developers to collaborate on delivering
Eliminates abuse by developers vhn might 'lock"
units): includes "locking" rules, fees and
projects that best meet community needs (such as mitigating
a future application to avoid addressing Future
historic status at the date of the "application
traffic and infrastructure impacts, offering community
federal, stale or local rcquiremems that may
omplo—ess"; prnnits no more than 3 de
amenities).
surface.
nova hearings for each project.
Significantly reducers the abili h• to provide public input and
' Require a "react" should substantive project
• h-pare fees: Impose a state standard for
the ability to satisfy the public concerns. Reducing public
changes be introduced during the course of the
establishing and imposing impact fees using
interest may lead to distrust.
development review process to avoid potential
objective standards rather than current
abuse of the system.
"reasonableness" test. Allow for fee deferral
Potentially eliminates ability in negotiate community
Ipay some fees at a later point in the
benefits [services and infrastructure to support those who
• Maintain clear and objective standards and
development process}.
would occupy the housing] as a pan of the development
controls, and support fee deferral programs that
pre"$
ensure context sensitivity.
• Incfrrsfonary Zoning: Establish stale law That
precludes incluslonary programs from being
Seeds a mixed message regarding irKlusionary housing,
' Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to
additive' (density bonus, housing impact fees,
which has been the greatest single contributor In affordable
den ,lop context sensitive community plans that
local inclusionary requi rements). Requires in-
housing the Elements Compactrequire
achieves the overall goal of providing affordable
lieu Fees to bean option for fulfilling
a usiValley. eIha
Inclusianary housing, while this clement a]lrviatea the
housing around transit.
inclusion (i.e., ability,. rbuy, out of providing
inclusionary requirement for developers.
ansite affordable housing].
Monitor any legislation regarding the definition and
• Downzoning am(,Norntoriw State to set
As written, this Elumertt severely limits a city's ability to use
requirements related to an "impositions repor! "
criteria for when these can be used locally.
goon design and planning techniques to integrate new
affordable housing into the fabric of a community, which
• Amur-' ice itiw+s' Repose: Recommends
will likely result in further community resistance be
cities annually, document any impositions
affordable housing development.
(undefined) that would increase the hard rust
Ieacludes labor and materials) of housing
construction {such as fees and inclusionary
zoni ng requi rements.
Objective: Remaae'regnlntory nnevrtaintg'
pereri ed to be n omior — ofecouomirally
ir� GsibfP prn�P[I5.
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
7. Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives:
CONCWN STATUS, High. Much of the Tri-Valley has limited
Opp— unless amended as fellows:
Another permit streamlining effort to accelerate
developable lands remaining. However, the remaining new
- There should be no net hams of local funding.
approvals of zoning -compliant projects and
and infill developments generate impacts that rely on fees to
enable on -site affordability with financial
incentives
miligate. There should be no net loss of local funding.
Require outside agenciers to cap/mcluce fees to
CONCERNS: This ane-sire-Fits-all approach generates many of
stimulate affordable housing-
Srrenmlinin Applies to zoning compliant
the same concerns as described in Element 46, Additionally:
projects that restrict at least 20%of onsite housing
potential to reduce properly tax allocations for each City.
' Require an "expiration date" Far all fees and
units to middle-i acome households, defined as
regulations locked at application completeness to
80-I5CW* of area median income (AM]). projects
Caps on impact fees to a "reasonable" ]evel is currently
ensure they are applicable to viable projecm
gra pled a statutory CEQA exemption and Ii mited
undefined.
Eliminates abuse by developers who might "lock"
discretionary review.
a future application to avoid addressing future
Further caps on impact fees would eliminate funding
Federal, slate or local requirement. that may
Fitimiriaf Ineevi fives include 15-year property tax
sources to provide services and infrastructure (example:
surface.
incremenr abatement, cap on impact fees, parking
school, transit, etc.].
standards reduced to 5W/u of local requirement.
• Require a "reset" should substantive project
projects to pay prevailing wage,
ffegvircment to pay prevailing wage is inconsistent with the
changes he introduced during the course of the
overall goal to lower housing construction costs-
development mview process to avoid potential
Sensitive Cwmnunlrics: receive an automatic 3
abuse of the system.
year deferral on implementation while the city
develops a context -sensitive plan.
Reducing tax al tocatiuns given to each city without an
. Implement and maintain clear and objective
evaluation that the impacts generated continue to be
standards and controls to ensure context
Objective: SrrfId strove madernte fueamr housing
covered
covered is contrary to the fiscal sustainabiiity of each city.
units.
• Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to
develop context sensitive community plans that
achieves the overall goal of providing affordable
housing around transit-
* Consider middle income hou5elydd definition of
Wl20% of area median income, consistent with
local standards (instead of 80.150% of AMI), which
makes units more affordable.
• 50% parking reduction from local standards
should initially be applied only in transit rich areas
where residenis actually have to option to use
frequent and high qualify puhiie transit.
• Pntj cis should be required to agree to a 30-50 year
inclusipnary requirement to receive the
streamlining and financial incentives listed -
FUNDING AND RESOURCES
CONTEXT -SENSITIVE HOUSING
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
8, Unlock Public lands for Affordable Housing
Promote use of "surplus" and "underutilized"
public lands [undefined] for affordable housing
through legislative and regulatory changes.
This would also create a database listing all
publicly owned land in the Say Area, limit
approval process to no more than two years, and
deploy 10 percent of underufipublic
land to affordable housing development on an
annual basis.
CONCERN STATLrS High. The Tri-Valley has varying
Supporl wish amendments as follows: CONTEXT -SENSITIVE HOUSING
amounts of public land between cities. however, the remaining
Allow all cities (not just Sensitive Communities) to BALANCED SOLi1TIONS
public lands should include Context sensitive community plans
develop context sensitive community plans that
for each City-
achieves the overall goal of providing affordable
CONCERNS,. This is a one-sire-hts•all approach that:
housing around transit-
. Ignores community context - creating potential land use
incompatibility issues with tall developments immediately
' Provide clear and objective standards for the
adjacent to low density areas or within historic
definition of "surplus land."
districts/downtowns.
• Ignores the fact that not all public lands have the same
Element also calls for policies to help expand the value for affordable housing development, as some large
housing construction labor pool, including tracts of public land am located at the urban fringe, away
requiring trained apprentices and prevailing from transit and is inappropriate for housing development
wages. Exceptions would apply to temporary that leads to sprawl.
housing built to address an emergency.
Objective: Fircurrm re-rrse fpobfir 1-1far ' Ignores the fact that ability to deploy land is driven by
mixed inro—l'iffunfu ble hunsrng units. market forces, which cities do not control.
• Disregards the efforts underway by local communities to
plan vacant lands around transit in a context�sensib ve
manner.
limit a rity's ability to use good desi>ym and planning
techniques to integrate new affordable housing into the
fabric of a community, which will likely result in further
community resistance to affordable housing development
• Lacks a definition for surplus and underutilized land and
how this proposal relates to the exiting Surplus Land Act
requirement to offersurplus land to affordable housing
developers and other pubic agencies.
• Should prioritize land around existing or
approved transit stops
• Require projects to be consistent with focally
adopted land use plans that are already in
place (e.g. specific plans) and consistent with
objective local standards.
Monitor any developing legislation regarding the
definition of"surplusfunderufflized"lands- As
appropriate, advocate for amendments that would
allow:
• Cities to partner with the public entity which owns
the surplus land to ensure projects am developed
in a manner consistent with local plans and design
standards-
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
9. Funding and Financing the CASA Compact: Raise CONCERN STATUS,, high. Though not included in the
$l.s billion new revenue annually fmm broad Compact, the Governor has already suggested withholding S61
range of sources including (but not limited to) funds from cities that do not mint their RHNA assignment.
property taxes, V Kent sales sax, head tax, and hlnst citi4 do not meet the RHNA assignment for at least tow
General Obligation Bonds (reissued every 5 and very low units, mostly b--- such aFfurdability requires
years)- Of the total 5i9 bill ton, SM million significant local subsidies to even get built - the private market
would come fmm local communities (former RDA simpty won't build these units on its own.
set aside and future tax increment).
CONCERNS
New revenue allocd Lion for -mu la: No "return to source" formula at the city -level, resulting in a
- lip to Ma for local jurisdiction incentives greater perception of wme communities being "donor
- Remainder to tenant protection, preservation, communities" without having resources to meet its assigned
housing subsidies housing obligation.
Yew revenue distribution formula: Vacant pmpern., lax could bo punitive to small property
75 % to county of origin ("return to source') uwners, particularly if vacancy is beyond their control-
• 25% to regional program ("revenue sharing"] Potential unfunded mandate if responsibility for
Revenue collection and disbursement would be enforcement fails upon local cities.
managed by a new regi anal housing authority Commercial fees/taxes may be counterproductive if it
(described in Ecmcnt 101, drives employers out of the region and suppresses business
retention.
Objective: Fund elements of tine Compact that
requires public subsidy fe,g., rental nssistnrrce free . The property tax "set aside" is punitive to tlmse0les whose
legal counsel, finrmcidl ydreutives, &0, tax base is largely from property taxes.
• Wide range of new taxes and fees may limit a ciVs taxing
capacity (limit its voters appetite to pass local funding
measures).
Oppose unless amended to eliminate any reduction in FUNDING AND RESOURCES
current property tax or transportation funding to cities
and amended as follows,
• Defined mtum-ta-source hording formula at a city
level -
Regional "fair share" housing assignment (RHNA
process) is correlated to level of funding received
(Le., the less regional funding a city receives, the
lower the regional housing assignment] je.g., we
do not want to be donortities).
Support 5rr the fallowing funding souro
• Statewide voter-apprnw.d sales tax ar General
Obligation bonds for affordable housing to pay for
housing initiative.
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1
10. Regional housing Enterprise (RHE): Establishes a
CONCERN STATUS: High. The Tri-Valley does not support Oppose because it is not representative of each city FUNDING AND RESOURCES
new independent regional housing agency -
creating an unrepresentative layer of oversight. and includes taxation without representation.
funned through state legislation - to implement
CONCERNS
the Compact. It would have the authority to
collect and distribute revenue, issue debt,
Creating an entity that is not comprised of elected officials
buy/leasefhuld laird, and trackireport on local
does not allow it to be accountable to the voters or tocaI
progress. No regulatory or enforcement powers.
needs, and appears to be structured to exclude local
government input.
Composition: i ndependeni hoard With
representation from MTC, AS AG, and
• Creating a regional entity introduces another burcaucnary
stakeholder groups that created the Compact.
with its own unique set of "ui rerrunts takes staff time
away from Facilitating housing production and committing
Objective: Administers tke C.u.p ct,
it to report production [in addition to the ones filed with
State HCD and Department of Finance].
• Creates taxation without representation.
• Existing agencies that could do the same functions, with
additional funding, are not being considered instead of a
row public agency-
Tri-Valley Cities Policy Framework - Attachment 1: CASA Compact (February 2019) Page 9
ATTACn,J 'T 's
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 mare 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
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 an indicators such
as percentage of tenant households living at, or under, the poverty line relative to the
region.
Specifically, SIB 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 55915 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.
❑ A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5
automobile parking spots per unit.
a 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:
❑ 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.
❑ 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.
❑ 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. Eligible 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 underutilized 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 1214118)
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
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-03
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RESETTING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT/SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT FEE IN THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the MC desires to support more affordable housing in the Tri-Valley to
help address the housing crisis; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
("HCD") has advised that a way for local jurisdictions to encourage the development of
accessory dwelling units ("ADU") is to reduce or eliminate fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Joint Exercise of Powers Authority ("JEPA"),
the TVTC Board can recommend fee amounts; and
WHEREAS, the TVTC recommends setting the ADU/SDU fee at $0 in order to support
the development of affordable housing in the Tri-Valley area.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The TVTC finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated into this Resolution; and
2. The MC recommends setting the MD Fee for Accessory Dwelling
Unit/Secondary Dwelling Units at $0.
3. The TVTC recommends member agencies implement this fee by September
30, 2019.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at the meeting of July 15, 2019, by the
following votes:
AYES: Narum, Munro, Andersen, Perkins, Josey, Stepper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Haggerty
ABSTAIN: None
_-
Kathy Narum, Chair
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
ATTEST:
Cedric No nario, TVTC Administrative Staff