HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 TriVlyAffrdHsngRpt&AB51 (2)
;'"
I
.
-
e
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 26, 1993
REPORT PREPARED BY:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
~J:t
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Report on Tri-Valley Affordable Housing
eommittee and draft letter regarding AB 51
~Dennis earrington; Senior Planner
A) ~arch 17, 1993 letter to Henry eisneros
B) ~May 6, 1993 letter from David eohen
e) ~ July 2, 1993, notice from the League of
California cities on proposed changes to AB
51
D) ~raft Letter to Senator Daniel
Boatwright
1) Receive report on Tri-Valley Affordable
Housing Committee.
2) Review the draft letter responding to
proposed changes to AB 51 and either:
A) Give direction on the content of the
letter, or
B) Direct that it be sent out under the
signature of Chairman Tom Vargas to
Senator Boatwright, Tom eook and the
Southern Alameda County Association of
Realtors.
None
On July 12, 1993, the City Council requested a report on the Tri-
Valley Affordable Housing eommittee. The following report addresses
the history of the Committee, its goals and objectives and activities
during 1993.
HISTORY
~
The Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee was established at a
meeting held on May 30, 1991. Several meetings were held that year
and addressed issues such as determination of a locality's "fair
share" of the regional housing need, the eommunity Reinvestment Act
and the joint provision of affordable housing.
In January 1992, the Committee sent a joint letter to then
director of state Housing and community Development, Timothy eoyle,
recommending the revision of State housing legislation to permit the
joint provision of affordable housing at the sUb-regional level. The
subcommittee proposed legislation toward that end and it was
introduced by Senator Daniel Boatwright in February of 1992 as SB
2037. The eommittee worked closely with Senator Boatwright and the
League of ealifornia eities to monitor and comment on the progress of
t~e legislation until its eventual veto by Governor Wilson in
September 1992.
In addition to working on the legislation, the Committee
determined its goals and objectives as an organization, was briefed on
the Bridge Housing eorporation and transitional housing, and received
status reports from member jurisdictions on progress in providing
affordable housing. In December 1992, Assembly Members Goldsmith and
Costa introduced AB 51 as a successor bill to SB 2037 to promote
~;~~;~~~:~=~-~~~~~~:~--~~;~;;-;~~-----;~~i~;-;~~~~~;-
. Aqenda ~e
I C I. T rIll ~ ~ :1 ~ ~ _;
e
e
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following goals and objectives were-adopted by the Committee:
1) To serve as a clearinghouse for Tri-Valley affordable
housing information.
2) To provide feedback to member jurisdictions on programs
which they are developing such as draft ordinances and policy guides.
3) To serve as a clearinghouse for information regarding state
and regional programs through presentations by speakers from
organizations such as state HeD, ABAG, the Bay Area eouncil and non-
profit builders.
4) Evaluation and support of legislation promoting affordable
housing.
5) To provide workshops for member jurisdictions regarding
projects of common interest such as mandated housing element updates.
6) To work toward consistency with respect to housing
requirements at the federal, state, couhty and local level.
7) To evaluate the possibilities of bond issues and other
public funding sources for financing affordable housing projects in
the Tri-Valley area.
8) To evaluate the possibilities of funding affordable housing
through the private sector.
9) To work toward developing a regional housing demonstration
project when favorable legislation is approved.
ACTIVITIES DURING 1993
In March, the Committee sent a letter signed by Chairman Tom
Vargas to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Henry
Cisneros (Exhibit A). The letter discussed SB 2037 and the need for
coordination of resources so that lower cost dwelling units could be
constructed and requested support from HUD in encouraging states to
allow flexibility in their housing programs.
A letter was received (Exhibit B) from David Cohen, Director of
the Office of Affordable Housing Programs of HUD stating the support
of his agency for regional cooperation in addressing affordable
housing needs. Mr. Cohen mentioned the HOME Program (Home Investment
Partnerships Act) which provides for consortia of local governments to
address their low income housing needs. Dublin is currently
participating in an "Urban County" consortium under the HOME program.
The committee has discussed the possibility of fee waivers by
utility companies for affordable housing, been briefed on proposed
changes to Housing Element Law, and been briefed on the use of
deferred second mortgages by the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton.
within the past three months, the eommittee has reviewed and
commented on AB 51 as it has progressed through the legislative
process. The bill, as originally proposed, would have allowed the
joint provision of affordable housing and the sharing of credit for
its provision toward their fair share of the regional housing need
only if they had already p~ovided 25% of the needed very low and low
income housing as determined by the Council of Governments.
Research by the League of California cities and the City of
Pleasanton indicated that approximately two-thirds of the cities in
ealifornia would not meet this requirement. When this was pointed
out, the legislation was revised to provide for a sliding scale to
allow participation. For example, cities meeting 0 to 25% of their
need for very low and low income could provide up to 5% of their
e
e
regional housing need outside their jurisdiction and those providing
25 to 30%. could provide 15%, etc.
The bill has gone through continuous change during the
legislative process and the eommittee has been kept up to date on the
progress and responded when necessary. For example, Members of the
Committee received notice from the League of California cities on
July 2, 1993, (Exhibit C) that state HeD was proposing several changes
to AB 51 which would radically impact local land use planning. Among
the changes proposed would be:
· Allocation by Councils of Government or HCD of multifamily zoning
and density to cities to insure the provision of affordable
housing,
· the prohibition of cities from disapproving housing projects unless
HeD approves the Housing Element,
· the creation of an appeals board to allow developers to appeal
project denials to a state body,
· the creation of an assumption that a city General Plan is invalid
if HCD will not approve its Housing Element,
· the establishment by HeD of city-by-city performance objectives for
low income housing, and
· the requirement that localities reduce or defer development fees
for affordable housing projects.
The Committee directed Staff to analyze the proposed changes and
to prepare letters to be sent to Senator Boatwright; Director of HCD,
Tom Cook; and the Southern Alameda County Association of Realtors.
Draft letters were prepared by Staff and a copy of the draft letter to
Senator Boatwright (the letters to the other agencies are identical)
is attached (Exhibit D).
Although communications with the legislative analyst with the
League of ealifornia eities late last week indicated that the
proponents of AB 51 will not attempt to pass it this year (it is now
being proposed as a two-year bill) the possibility exists that the
language proposed by HeD may be included when AB 51 is reintroduced
next year. The Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee is requesting
that each member legislative body review the draft letter and either
comment on the content of the letter or direct the eommittee to send
it out under the signature of Chairman Tom Vargas. It is requested
that the letter be approved as submitted and sent out as soon as
possible given the critical importance of the issue to local planning
and the need for timely input into the legislative process.
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report on the
Tri-Valley Affordable Housing eommittee and that it review the draft
letter responding to proposed changes to AB 51 and either give
direction on the content of the letter or direct that it be sent out
under the signature of ehairman Tom Vargas to Senator Boatwright, Tom
eook and the Southern Alameda County Association of Realtors.
/TVAHe1
------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
COPIES TO:
Senior Planner
Age?da File
'. ~"""'.'" ..;.....,...........~.........'.,...y...,..."...;.;.....:.....'....;.i.O;"~:~ .;.............. . .' .,......'-- ......
March 17, 1993
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
(415) 373-5100
FAX (415) 373.5135
. ~.: .
The Honorable Henry Cisneros, Secretary
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD Building, 451 Seventh Street SW
Washington, DC 20410
Dear Secretary Cisneros:
For the last two years, representatives from the Cities of
Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Danville, as well as
from Alameda and Contra Costa Coun~~es, have met monthly to improve
communication among the communities regarding their efforts to
produce housing for people with incomes below the median.
Last year, the consortium worked with Senator Boatwright and
the League of California Cities on a Bill, SB 2037, which would have
allowed the coordination of resources (land, money, subsidizing of .
fees, etc.) so that lower cost units could be constructed. Those
jurisdictions which participated in such a project would receive
credit toward their fair share of affordable housing.,
Throughout the legislative process, as the Bill went from
committee to committee and one house to the other, representatives
of our consortium went to Sacramento to support the Bill. SB 2037
passed both houses of the Legislature'; however, in the process of
doing so, its scope had been limited to our five cities and two
counties. Consequently, when SB 2037 reached the Governor's desk.
he vetoed it with the comment that it was too limited in scope.
(f~\
L~ '<i.'J
lL~~
Since the Cityof---San Ramon is working on a project for
developmentally disabled people to live independently, and the City
of Livermore is working on a project to provide transitional
housing with supportive services, and another project for low income
seniors, the consortium will be trying again to get a Bill through
the State Legislature and signed by the Governor so that these
projects can receive support from adjacent communities.'
~
."
fi~
0",'"
V
'\ ".
~
We believe strongly that this kind of cooperation on a
sub-regional basis can do much to further the cause of housing for
lower income persons, and we would appreciate whatever HUD can do
to encourage states to allow this 'sort of flexibility in their'
housing programs. ,
Sincerely,
Tom Vargas, Cha
IJUT A
IftI ~ I ----=~
I
~~"'~"'[Hro....o<.
o ~I '"
.;*~U*~
\lllllll i
'9....... OE'If."-O'
u.s. DiRTMENT OF ROUSING AND WRBAN DEVEL~ENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-7000 .
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
MAY 6 1993'
RECEIVED
ern' OF LIVERMORE
HAr \0 1113 Ail '93
Mr. Ted Vargas
Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee
Administration Building
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
Dear Mr. Vargas:
On behalf of Secretary Cisneros, thank you for your
March 17, 1993, letter concerning your efforts to promote
affordable housing for low-income persons. You indicated that
you are working to have legislation passed which would allow the
coordination of resources among jurisdictions in your region so
that lower cost units could be built.
,
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does
support regional cooperation in addressing affordable housing
needs. In fact, the HOME Program provides for contiguous units
of local governments ,to form a consortium and work together as
one jurisdiction to address their low-income housing needs. For
your information, a fact sheet on the program is enclosed.
Again, thank you for writing; the Department appreciates
your commitment to working toward meeting your low-income housing
needs.
Very sincerely yours,
11~ 1:.~
rDavid M. Cohen
_Director, Office of
Affordable Housing Programs
Enclosure
.r-----
I
'~
/
I
...:.
It
fFIIV"" 'w I
It
, . . - ~
./
9. Changed Status of Bills PreviOuslv Reported., (a) AB 764 (Goldsmith). Land Use:
General Plans--League to Hold Cooperative' Housing Bill Until Housing Element
Reform Issue Resolved. Held in Committee. Sponsor.
\1.
~
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
~
OPPOSE
Housin: Reaional Housin Needs. AB 51 Costa.
De artment of Housin Seeks to Create Reaional Zonin
Process. SENATE FLOOR ALERT!
The League has opposed AB 51 in its present form and has sought amendments to anow cities to
work together to develop affordable housing projects. However, the author did not accept the
amendments. Last week the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
released proposed amendments to the bill which will make the bill even worse. Among the
amendments are provisions which will: .
1. Require COGs to allocate multifamily zoning and density standards to cities.
2. Require cities to meet HCD approved density standards to obtain Housing Element
approval.
3. Prohibits cities from disapproving housing projects unless HCD approves Housing
Element.,
4. Creates a Housing Appeals Board to allow developers to appeal project denials to
representatives of BCD, OPR, and others.
5. Creates a presumption that a city General Plan is invalid if HCD will not approve
its Housing Element.
6. Allow HCD to establish a city-by-city performance objectives for low-income
housing.
7. Require the reduction or deferral of development fees for affordable housing with
no state funding to offset direct or indirect service costs.
The bill will not be in print until after the Senate Housing Committee has approved it. HCD and
the California Association of Realtors wish to move the bilI without a hearing on its substance so
that they can create a Conference Committee to write the bilI at the end of the session. That is
the process which gave us SB 2557 and other misguided legislative efforts.
','
Assembly Member Jan Goldsmith (R-Poway) crafted a mandate relief proposal for the Assembly
12
July 2, 1993
e
e-
Republican Caucus to carry out GovefhOf Wilson's call for local mandate relief. Goldsmith's
package included allowing cities to self-certify their compliance with Housing Element
requirements. The self-certification proposal was not included in the adopted mandate relief
package. Ironically, .the Wilson administration now appears to be using AB Sl to create a number
of new state mandates.
-\
AB Sl would increase the level of HCD involvement in local planning and give the Department
six new areas for review and approval of local plans. AB Sl moves 180 degrees away from
mandate relief by increasing local responsibilities and increasing state bureaucratic oversight.
City officials should immediately do the following:
1) Write your Assembly Member and State Senator and ask them to oppose AB Sl
and ask for a NO vote on the floor.
2) Write the Governor and ask him to direct HCD to drop their last minute efforts to
increase local housing mandates.
3) Write your local Board of Realtors and ask them to drop their sponsorship of
AB 51. AB 51 will create state and regional controls over zoning. This is counter to
Realtors' long-standing interest in local control.
(Referred to previously in Bulletin #14-1993.)
'.... ~ .:.-
, .
. '. ,," .
.'
"
. .....
", .'
.",' .
..' -, .
t,',' ..
t' .. ,"
....
.: ," .
.....
. ..' . " " . .:. ;',
. I. "..
. .' :..'
:". ..'
." .
. ,.-..
.". .,'
" '
. ......
... ..' .,.
. ,'; .........-.
.... .....
. .", ...........
I' ....
; .': :'
. . .', .;
'... 0"
,,-. '.
",. "
'1'\' .,::<', '.'
'", .
. ..... .
. :'1:'; ",:.' ~....'.": .
..... ...- '..
".., ','::
'.: . ..' .. .-..
'. .": ".: :.. ,-
'.' . ...:." ",'
.... ....
I.....:.: '
..........
" .... "::-',~. :.,: j:::..:' .i~'~.-. -:: ..... . .::. ."
.... ".'
. . ." . ."
..'~' '.' .
" : ". .' ..'~
'. ..'1:; ;:. ;.:~~'~" :
.' ,.' ~ . .
. '.' .,
..;." ...
. . . '. . . .
. I'. . . .' . .
.. '.
.-
, ,0
. ....
--' " I
.-.
~. ., . '. ".... .
I'"
'. . ..' :" . .~, .
,;,., ..
. . . -.'
, --
. ..' .
:.' "..' .'
. .
. . .. . .. . .
..,'. .'. .
,"
,.'
" "
. .. .'. .
I:
',-
'. .....
..' "
:.'
'. ...:
, .'.
,00
;..:. .
, . ......
.' ': -.
:.,"
, "
" i .
........... .
. . .
..... .:....:..:;.......
'.' ".
TRI.VALLE~.FFORDABLE HOUSING C!MMITfEE
3311 Pacific Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
510-373-5148
FAX 510-455-8323
July 14, 1993
The Honorable Daniel Boatwright
3086 State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Also sent to: Delaine Eastin
Richard Rainey
Johan Klehs
Subject: Regional Housing Needs / AB51 (Costa)
Dear Senator Boatwright:
Representatives from the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and
Danville, as well as from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, have been meeting monthly
for the past two years as the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. Our efforts have
focused on improving communication and cooperation among the communities in an effort
to produce housing for people with very low and low incomes.
Last year, the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee supported SB2037 which
would have allowed the coordination of resources Oand, money, subsidizing of fees, etc.) so
that lower cost housing could be constructed cooperatively in their member communities.
Jurisdictions participating in an affordable project would receive credit toward their fair
share of such housing. Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed the Bill, commenting that it
was too limited in scope.
.. '
. ~. This legislative session, two Bills, AB764 and AB51, were introduced, both of which
would allow communities to share resources to develop affordable housing. It is our
understanding that AB764 has been removed from the legislative process until efforts
toward reforming Housing Element Law have been resolved, but that AB51 is still moving
through Senate Committee review.
Unfortunately, the Department of Housing and Community Development has
released proposed amendments to AB51 which will replace local control with increased
State and regional level oversight.
1;'he impact of these amendments would be immense, as described below:
o Require Councils of Government to allocate multifamily zoning and density standards
to cities. This would take responsibility for residential land use regulation away from
local governments and give it to the Councils of Government. Councils of
Government allocation of multifamily zoning and density standards would require even
more bureaucratic layers than now exist and would inevitably result in land use
decisions potentially harmful to local jurisdictions because decisions made from afar do
not take local concerns into account. ,- - ----'-'..--'-
~'
e
The Honorable Daniel Boatwright
Page 2
e,
Regional Housing Needs
AB51 (Costa)
o Require cities to meet Housing and Community Development approved density
standards to obtain Housing Element approval. Local acquiescence to State mandated
multifamily zoning and density standards would be accomplished by holding the Housing
Element and the General Plan, of which it is a part, hostage until local governments
comply. Furthermore, this provision seems to conflict with the previous provision that
requires Councils of Government, not Housing and Community Development, to
allocate multifamily zoning and density standards to cities.
o Prohibit cities from disapproving housing projects unless Housing and Community
Development approves their Housing Element. This provision would effectively subvert
local control to State mandates. Any housing project, no matter how egregious, could
not be disapproved unless localities had State approved Housing Elements.
o Create a Housing Appeals Board to allow developers to appeal project denials to
representatives of Housing and Community Development, Office of Planning and
Research, and others. It appears that a Housing Appeals Board could be~.used by
developers to appeal a project denial, even when the denial was in the context of an
approved Housing Element. Such a Board would be flooded with hundreds or thousands
of cases a month. The bureaucracy to coordinate such a process would be immense and
would constitute a new level of land use control in Sacramento. The cost of this new
State function is incalculable.
o Create a presumption that a city General Plan is invalid if Housing and Community
Development will not approve its Housing Element. It appears that this presumption
would mean that no land use decisions could be made which require a finding of General
Plan consistency until approval was achieved. Again, effective local regulation of land
use would be replaced by State imposed mandates.
o Allow Housing and Community Development to establish city-by-city performance
objectives for low income housing. This is unrealistic, given that Councils of
Government currently have that function and have difficulty understanding local needs
and responsibilities from their relatively local perspective.
o Require the reduction or deferral of development fees for affordable housing with no
State funding to offset direct or indirect service costs. This requirement is confiscatory
arid reflects a complete misunderstanding on the part of the authors of fiscal realities
facing local governments today. Such reductions or deferrals could potentially bankrupt
local government in California.
The Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee understands that the proposed
amendments are not yet in print, and that AB51 will not be printed until after the Senate
Housing Committee has approved it. We believe that the Department of Housing and
Community Development and the California Association of Realtors want to move the Bill
without a hearing on its substance so that they can create a Conference Committee to write
.
The Honorable Daniel Bo!right
Page 3
e, ,
Regional Housing Needs
AB51 (Costa)
the Bill at the end of the session. The Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee is
concerned about a last minute effort to insert the amendments so that their full impact on
local planning will not be adequately understood by the Legislature.
Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee representatives urge you to oppose AB51
with the Housing and Community Development amendments in the interest of local
planning and the ability of local governments to work cooperatively to provide more
affordable housing for the residents of California.
Sincerely,
TRI-V ALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
Tom Vargas, Chairman
TV/pH