Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Housing Element STUDY STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM 3.1 TO: Town Council March 9, 2021 SUBJECT: Housing Element Community Outreach Program BACKGROUND At the Annual Planning and Goal Setting Workshop (“Annual Workshop”) in February 2021, the Town Council discussed the upcoming 2022-2030 Housing Element update which is anticipated to present significant land use policy challenges for Danville (Attachment A). This is due to: (1) an assigned housing target of 2,241 units, a 4-fold increase from the prior housing element cycle; and (2) new state laws that allow financial penalties to be imposed on communities which fail to meet their assigned targets within the 8-year Housing Element cycle. DISCUSSION The Town Council discussed the challenges at the Annual Workshop, evaluated possible strategies, and directed Town staff to embark upon a community outreach plan to inform and engage the community on this mandated effort as soon as practicable. Based on a schedule dictated primarily by a state-prescribed timeline and recommended by the Town’s Housing Element consultant, staff anticipates that the community outreach effort would occur in three phases: Household Income Category 2015-2022 Housing Assignment 2022-2030 Housing Assignment Difference Very Low 196 652 +456 Low 111 376 +265 Moderate 124 338 +214 Above Moderate 126 875 +749 Total: 557 2,241 +1,684 Housing Element Public Outreach Program 2 March 9, 2021 Phase 1 - Upfront Community Education & Engagement (Spring 2021). This effort lays the factual groundwork for future discussions on housing: • Town Website: Updated to provide information pertaining to Housing Element update requirements, outline of the process, related housing legislation, frequently asked questions (FAQs), email subscription option to stay informed. • Initial Survey: Intended to gather information regarding the housing related perspectives and concerns of interested participants and informs how the Town would proceed with future education efforts. • Town Talks (April 2): Introduces the topic of housing legislation and housing element update in an interview-style format. • Public Information Platforms including quarterly newsletter, social media, mailers and short educational videos on the “what and how” of housing element requirements. • Stakeholders and Commissions: Informational updates to Town Commissioners and identified community stakeholders. Phase 2 - Community Engagement on Housing Opportunity Sites (Summer/Fall 2021). This builds upon the groundwork of Phase 1 and envisions an effort that invites the community to review, comment and provide input on all potential housing opportunity sites based on the state-established parameters. This effort will involve the use of online interactive web tools, similar to ones utilized for the Townwide Bicycle Master Plan. Phase 3 - Community Input during Public Hearing Process (Fall 2022/Winter 2023). The information and engagement in the first two phases would serve to – as much as practicable – inform the community on the challenging land use decisions that would arrive before the Planning Commission and Town Council in late 2022 and early 2023. RECOMMENDATION Consider the community outreach strategy presented and provide feedback, particularly with regard to Phase 2. Housing Element Public Outreach Program 3 March 9, 2021 Prepared by: Diane Friedmann Assistant to the Town Manager Reviewed by: Tai Williams Assistant Town Manager Attachments: A – Town Council Annual Town Planning and Goal Setting Workshop, Agenda Item 4.1 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE: CHALLENGES & STRATEGIES SUMMARY The upcoming 2022-2030 Housing Element update will present significant policy challenges for Danville. This is due to: (1) an assigned housing target of 2,241 units; and (2) new state laws that allow financial penalties to be imposed on communities which fail to meet their assigned targets within the 8-year Housing Element cycle. These challenges occur within the political backdrop of a governor that aspires to aggressively build 3.5 million new units by 2025, a state legislature that seeks to wrestle regulatory control of housing approvals from local governments, and intensifying pressure from pro-housing groups that view having a large housing supply as the main solution to the state’s affordable housing and homeless crises. This paper provides: • Background for this complex multi-faceted challenge; • Update of the Housing Element process; and • Strategies at the state, regional and community levels BACKGROUND California Housing Challenge Historically, California is viewed as having a housing shortage – defined as producing fewer housing units than are deemed necessary to accommodate its population and job growth. Since 2005, California has added just 308 units for every 1,000 new inhabitants (source: 2016 McKinsey Global Institute report). Comparatively, the states of Texas, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada and New York have added 333, 386, 397, 409, 442 and 549 units for every 1,000 new residents, respectively. A report by the California Department of Housing and Community Development substantiates this decline by illustrating that the number of annual housing permits issued – a leading indicator of housing construction – has declined since the housing boom of the 1980s (Figure A). 2 Figure A. Annual permitting of housing units 1954-2016. Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. Critics have long argued that community resistance and local government controls are the main culprits of California’s chronic housing underproduction. RHNA: Purpose and Process In 1969, the state enacted the Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) which requires all cities and counties to ‘plan for’ their fair share of the statewide housing need. This is implemented through the adoption of a Housing Element by every California city and county with a required update every eight years (referred to as ‘cycles’). The broad concept is to spread the responsibility of accommodating new housing units equitably among all communities. The most controversial aspect of each Housing Element update is the requirement for cities and counties to identify specific viable land parcels within their communities to accommodate the new housing target, including units that are affordable for persons/households of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income levels). For built-out communities, this means that lands must be repurposed – usually through a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning – to accommodate higher density housing. Each community receives its assigned housing target through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA) which involves three levels of government, each with its prescribed role: 3 1. State level, State Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) and Department of Finance (DOF) collaborates to determine the number of housing units each region in California needs to plan for. Each region receives its number through State HCD. 2. Regional level, the Council of Governments (COGs) is responsible for developing a method to distribute these units to its cities and counties. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) functions as the COG for the nine-county Bay Area region. 3. Local level, cities and counties must update their Housing Element to accommodate the housing target assigned to them by their COG. As noted previously, the most prominent aspect of a Housing Element involves identifying land parcels that can be repurposed and rezoned for higher density housing development. Within this simplified framework, the Bay Area is currently in the final stages of Step 2 (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION In June 2020, ABAG was assigned a housing target of 441,176 units from State HCD, representing a 135% increase from the previous cycle. During the latter half of 2020, the Town led a Contra Costa coalition to provide input into ABAG’s process of developing a methodology to distribute these units among the 101 cities and 9 counties of the Bay Area. Danville participated in a similar effort as a member of the Tri-Valley Cities (Exhibit B). As a county whose residents endure some of the longest commutes in the Bay Area, the coalition advocated for a method that achieves a greater jobs/housing balance by placing housing units closer to high-wage job centers in the south and west bay where job growth has far outpaced housing growth. 4 ABAG ultimately chose a methodology, which has been submitted for HCD approval, that prioritizes ‘social equity’ at the expense of a jobs/housing balance. The draft methodology allocates large housing targets to rural and suburban communities, regardless of their limited land capacity or lack of transportation services, while simultaneously shifting housing growth away from regional job centers (Exhibit C). Based on ABAG’s adopted methodology, Danville’s assigned housing target is now 2,241 units, representing a startling 4-fold increase from the prior cycle. This assignment is equivalent to 14% of the existing housing stock in Danville. At a more granular level, the housing target is divided among five household income affordability levels: Household Income 2015-2022 2022-2030 Difference Very Low 196 652 +456 Low 111 376 +265 Moderate 124 338 +214 Above Moderate 126 875 +749 Total: 557 2,241 +1,684 The most affordable units, which cater to the lowest income category, require the highest density zoning. The concept is that smaller units tend to be more affordable. Typically, ‘very low’ income units take the form of apartments or condominiums, ‘moderate’ units might take the form of townhomes, and ‘above moderate’ units are market rate homes. In practice, this translates to a need to find 70-90 acres of land as designated housing sites that could accommodate the new housing target in the 2022-2030 Housing Element. Why This Matters Since incorporation in 1982, Danville has been a carefully planned community, balancing the need for growth and expansion with the desire to preserve the history and setting that make the community unique. This reflects the concept of local control which was the driving force behind voter’s decision to incorporate. Growth has been linked to the need to preserve open space, provide facilities and infrastructure, while retaining the capacity to serve and maintain the community based upon established service level standards. The current population places the Town at about 95% of the buildout capacity that was envisioned by the current general plan. 5 As a community reaching build-out, it will be a significant challenge to find 70-90 acres of land for higher density housing. Amplifying this challenge are new (more restrictive) definitions on what qualifies as ‘viable’ housing sites. The inability to achieve this objective would render the Town’s housing element to be non-compliant with the State Housing Element Law. Repercussions include: • Limited access to state funding, including transportation funding for local roadway maintenance and capital improvement projects; • Lawsuits: When community’s housing element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan is at risk of being deemed inadequate and therefore invalid, opening the possibility for lawsuits. Consequences of lawsuits include: • Court mandated compliance • Court suspension of local control on building matters, freezing the community’s ability to issue building permits, zoning changes, etc. • Court approval of housing developments on behalf of the community • Attorney fees associated with the lawsuit Over the past 20 years, a number of cities and counties throughout the Bay Area (including Corte Madera, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Alameda, Benicia, Fremont, Rohnert Park, , Menlo Park Napa County, and Santa Rosa) have faced legal challenges to the adequacy of their housing elements. In virtually every case, the city settled by amending their housing element and/or zoning ordinance to accommodate more housing and paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. Each of these cases were filed prior to the most recent amendments to the state housing law which make it exceedingly more difficult for cities to win such cases. • Court imposed fines of $10,000 to $100,000 per month until the violation is cured. The court may triple the amount if non-compliance remains after 3 months; and multiply by a factor of 6 if non-compliance remains after 6 months. The statute also allows the state to collect these fines by withholding state funding due to the city. The crux of the issue is the misconception that local governments control the housing market and should therefore be held accountable for housing production. Consequently, the trend in legislation indicates that municipalities can expect to face increasingly punitive sanctions for failing to accommodate housing targets or ‘produce’ these units. 6 Next Steps: Actions and Possible Strategies Housing Element Update As creatures of the State, cities and counties are bound by Housing Element Law. At present, the next technical step in the RHNA process is to begin updating the Danville Housing Element, which must be adopted and submitted to State HCD for review by January 2023. It is recommended that the Housing Element along with the accompanying General Plan land use amendments and Environment Impact Report (EIR), be considered as one action. This would be a departure from past practice where the Housing Element, General Plan Amendment, and accompanying EIR were considered as separate publicly notified actions. We believe this would minimize public confusion and streamline the process. Procedural and Legal Options Many have observed that the housing targets – compounded by the “No Net Loss Law” requirement - are so substantially out-of-reach as to be infeasible. And even if the Town can find adequate housing sites, the ability to ensure that 2,241 units are built within the 8-year cycle is not only improbable but also out of the Danville’s control. Recommendation: Explore all procedural options and legal remedies, including an appeal of Danville’s RHNA allocation from ABAG and State HCD’s allocation methodology. Building (Broader) Coalitions The Contra Costa and Tri-Valley coalitions were unsuccessful in influencing ABAG’s housing methodology selection. However, the effort illustrated that alliances of cities did catch the attention of ABAG and compel a more thoughtful (if immovable) response to Contra Costa and Tri-Valley concerns. The take-away is that earlier engagement and a broader network is necessary to achieve a higher level of success. Recommendation: Monitor actions other agencies statewide and collaborate with those who are seeking achieve similar or compatible objectives. 7 Community Education and Outreach In prior cycles, our community became actively engaged only when notified of potential rezoning of lands near them. By that point, it was a challenge to provide objective information as community members were already alarmed about changes to their neighborhood. Recommendation: Retain a consultant to assist the Town with developing: • Outreach approach (framework, timeline, channels) • Strategic messaging (tone, delivery, audience) • Public engagement methods (online tools) It is recommended that the community outreach effort begin as early as practicable. 8 RECOMMENDATION Consider the information outlined and provide feedback to staff regarding the recommended actions: 1. Explore all procedural options and legal remedies, including an appeal of Danville’s RHNA allocation from ABAG and State HCD’s allocation methodology; 2. Monitor actions of other agencies statewide and collaborate with those who are seeking achieve similar or compatible objectives; 3. Retain a public relations firm to assist the Town with developing a community outreach approach, strategic messaging, and public engagement methods. Exhibit A: RHNA Process and Timeline Exhibit B: Letters to ABAG: Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG Methodology Committee (August 7, 2020); Contra Costa Mayors Conference to ABAG Executive Board (October 2, 2020) Exhibit C: Town of Danville letter to ABAG Executive Board (November 27, 2020) Exhibit D: News Articles of Interest EXHIBIT A Contra Costa Mayors Conference 1 Letter to ABAG HMC C O U N T Y M A Y O R S C O N F E R E N C E 2221 Spyglass Lane, El Cerrito, CA 94530 August 7, 2020 Mayor Jesse Arreguin, Chair Association of Bay Area Governments Housing Methodology Committee 375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Support for the Plan Bay Area 2050 Baseline Data Methodology Chair Arreguin, The Contra Costa Mayors Conference, representing all 19 cities in Contra Costa county, wishes to convey our appreciation for the Housing Methodology Committee’s work on evaluating housing allocation methodologies for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031). We recognize that it is a daunting task, not only because of the collective recognition to provide more housing that is affordable to a wide range of income levels but also because we can’t forget that where we distribute the 441,176 housing unit assignment by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to the Bay Area is just as important to the overall quality of life for all residents in the Bay Area. In light of these considerations, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference supports and endorses the use of Plan Bay Area 2050 as the baseline data methodology because it is consistent with the decades-long region-wide effort to: 1. Encourage housing development in proximity to jobs, which would in turn; 2. Reduce transit and transportation congestion, helping to alleviate long region wide commutes; and 3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with both AB 32 and SB 375. EXHIBIT B Contra Costa Mayors Conference 2 Letter to ABAG HMC It is of great concern to Contra Costa communities that the alternative “2019 Baseline Household” method would reverse the decades-long region-wide effort to reduce traffic congestion and GHG emissions through a greater jobs-housing balance. We appreciate your consideration of our perspective and recommendation. Sincerely, /Signed hard copy to follow via U. S. mail. / Gabriel Quinto, Conference Chair Contra Costa Mayors Conference Contra Costa Mayors Conference Membership City of Antioch City of Oakley City of Brentwood City of Orinda City of Clayton City of Pinole City of Concord City of Pittsburg Town of Danville City of Pleasant Hill City of El Cerrito City of Richmond City of Hercules City of San Pablo City of Lafayette City of San Ramon City of Martinez City of Walnut Creek Town of Moraga 1 C O U N T Y M A Y O R S C O N F E R E N C E 2221 Spyglass Lane, El Cerrito, CA 94530 October 2, 2020 Mayor Jesse Arreguin, President Executive Board, Association of Bay Area Governments 375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Consideration of a Modified Option 8A using the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Baseline Methodology Chair Arreguin, Once again, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference (CCMC), representing all 19 cities and nearly one million citizens in Contra Costa county, wishes to convey our sincere appreciation for your efforts to facilitate an equitable distribution of the 441,176 housing units assigned to the Bay Area by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the next RHNA cycle (2023-2031). Since our last communication on August 7, 2020, the ABAG Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) has chosen to utilize “Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households” methodology (a ‘middle road’) and a weighting of factors that prioritize ‘access to high resource areas’ over the region-wide efforts to reach a jobs/housing balance. IMPACT OF BASELINE METHODOLOGY CHANGE At a county-by-county level, our analysis indicates that using a new “Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households” baseline results in extraordinarily inequitable – and hopefully unintended – benefits to primarily one county (Santa Clara) at the expenses of nearly all others (Figure A): 2 Figure A. Impact of switching to the Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households Baseline Coincidentally, Santa Clara county is the home to all ten of the San Francisco Bay Area’s largest technology companies including: Apple (188,000 employees), Hewlett Packard (186,000 employees), Google (184,000 employees), Oracle (169,000 employees), Intel (128,000 employees), Cisco (91,000 employees, and Facebook (60,000 employees). Consequently, it seems counter-intuitive to utilize a baseline that reduces the housing assignment to the sub region that is in greatest need of affordable housing and has the largest existing housing deficit illustrated by ABAG’s CASA Compact presentation: 3 4 On a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction level, our analysis reveals an even more alarming pattern that the PBA 2050 Future Households baseline appears to allocate disproportionately large assignments to small and rural communities while alleviating the responsibility of communities with large job centers (Attachment B). This disparity occurs within the county level, as illustrated in Santa Clara county’s numbers. Sampling of Impacted Jurisdictions Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth (advocated by CCMC) Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households (advanced by HMC) Difference % Change Santa Clara County Los Gatos 142 1,430 +1,288 +907% Monte Sereno 3 140 +137 +4,567% Mountain View 12,377 7,810 -4,567 -37% Palo Alto 11,127 6,810 -4,317 -39% San Jose 100,155 67,240 -32,915 -33% Santa Clara 14,285 9,630 -4,655 -33% Sunnyvale 12,025 9,980 -2,045 -17% Alameda County Albany 355 930 +575 +162% Piedmont 60 430 +370 +617% Unincorporated 1,638 5,950 +4,312 +263% Contra Costa County Danville 223 1,820 +1,597 +716% Hercules 411 1,060 +649 +158% Martinez 311 1,670 +1,359 +437% Unincorporated 2,588 7,310 +4,722 +182% Marin County Fairfax 215 460 +245 +114% Mill Valley 27 710 +683 +2530% San Anselmo 202 670 +468 +232% San Mateo County Atherton 30 280 +250 +833% Hillsborough 116 470 +354 +305% Pacifica 199 1,580 +1,381 +694% Portola Valley 3 200 +197 +6,567% Solano County Benicia 258 1,270 +1,012 +392% Dixon 209 690 +481 +230% Rio Vista 84 420 +336 +400% Suisun City 298 1,070 +772 +259% Vacaville 1,056 3,650 +2,594 +246% Vallejo 2,117 5,250 +3,133 +148% Sonoma County Sonoma 184 620 +436 +237% Unincorporated 6,893 9,080 +2,187 +32% 5 RECOMMENDED BASELINE We understand that the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) has chosen to present “Option 8A” to the ABAG Executive Board as the only option for consideration at your October 15, 2020 meeting. It appears that other compelling options – even as a valid minority report - did not have a chance to advance. Consequently, we are appreciative of the opportunity to present an alternative - Modified Option 8A – to the ABAG Executive Board at its October 15, 2020 meeting. Contra Costa’s alternative (highlighted in green) uses the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth baseline and leaves the HMC-recommended factors in place. A summary of the results for each county is shown below and the effects for all cities are included in Attachment B. County Option 8A (2050 Future HH) Modified 8A (PBA 2050 Growth) Change % Alameda 85,690 79,412 (6,278) -7% Contra Costa 43,960 27,890 (16,070) - 37% Marin 14,210 8,803 (5,407) - 38% Napa 3,820 1,655 (2,165) - 57% San Francisco 72,080 57,792 (14,288) - 20% San Mateo 48,440 45,804 (2,636) -5% Santa Clara 143,550 196,746 53,196 37% Solano 11,920 8,075 (3,845) - 32% Sonoma 17,520 15,000 (2,520) - 14% 6 The recommended use of the Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth baseline appears to make significantly more intuitive sense for the entirety of the San Francisco Bay Area as it: •Encourages housing development in proximity to job centers, which would •Reduce transit and transportation congestion, helping to alleviate long region wide commutes; and •Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with both AB 32 and SB 375. Furthermore, alternative Modified Option 8A is consistent with both the RHNA statutory objectives as it would: 1.Increase housing supply, but in a manner that adds much needed housing near the job centers; 2.Promotes infill development and reinvestment in urban centers that wish to redevelop, thereby promoting socioeconomic equity; 3.Protects the environment, agricultural resources, and wild land hazards by moving development pressure away from the urban edges; 4.Helps the San Francisco Bay Area achieve mandated GHG reduction targets through an improved jobs/housing balance; and lastly 5.Ensures policy consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint by more closely aligning the housing assignment at the major centers. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendation and perspectives. Sincerely, /Signed hard copy to follow via U. S. mail. / Gabriel Quinto, Conference Chair Contra Costa Mayors Conference Attachment A: Comparison of Baseline Methodologies and Housing Allocation Alternatives – Option 8A (recommended by ABAG HMC) and Modified Option 8A (recommended by CCMC) 7 Contra Costa Mayors Conference Membership City of Antioch City of Oakley City of Brentwood City of Orinda City of Clayton City of Pinole City of Concord City of Pittsburg Town of Danville City of Pleasant Hill City of El Cerrito City of Richmond City of Hercules City of San Pablo City of Lafayette City of San Ramon City of Martinez City of Walnut Creek Town of Moraga + “Small Town Atmosphere, Outstanding Quality of Life” November 27, 2020 Public Information Office ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 375 Beale Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Methodology for Distribution of RHNA Dear ABAG & MTC colleagues: Once again, the Town of Danville wishes to express our appreciation for ABAG’s work on the 6th Cycle RHNA process. The Town recognizes that it is not an easy task to develop a methodology that appropriately and fairly distributes the 441,176-unit RHND to the 101 cities and nine Bay Area counties. On October 15, 2020, the ABAG Executive Board voted to support the Housing Methodology Committee’s recommended methodology “Option 8A” and to forward it for public review in advance of submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The methodology utilizes the “Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households” Baseline and applies a series of Factors that adjust the Baseline allocation, in a manner which prioritizes a social equity focus (“Access to High Opportunity Areas”) at the expense of region efforts to reach a jobs/housing balance and a greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction targets. Prior to the October public hearing, the Contra Costa Mayors Conference, Alameda County Mayors Conference and cities in the Bay Area submitted letters expressing significant concerns with the proposed methodology. This letter highlights five concerns that have been identified, which is that the proposed methodology is: 1. Inconsistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint. 2. Promotes suburban sprawl and furthers a pattern of jobs-housing imbalance. 3. Inconsistent with other State mandates including the requirement to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 4. Directs growth to areas with limited land capacity, restricted open space and natural hazards. 5. Works against equity and fair housing goals. EXHIBIT C Page 2 This letter also suggests an alternate methodology which would more equitably distribute RHNA and in a manner that is more consistent other State mandates. 1. Insufficient evidence to demonstrate consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint, the Bay Area’s long-range transportation, housing, economic and environmental plan. SB 375 requires that the RHNA is consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy. In other words, consistency between the 2023-2031 RHNA and the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint (PBA 2050) is statutorily required. Page 13 of ABAG’s RHNA methodology report concludes that the two documents are consistent since the 8-year RHNAs do not exceed the 35-year (2015-2050) growth forecasts for sub-regions in the Bay Area. This conclusion is flawed on several levels. First, the 35-year forecast period is more than four times the length of the 8-year RHNA time horizon. It is unreasonable to conclude that a RHNA can be deemed consistent with the SCS if it presumes a sub-regional growth rate that is four times higher than the forecast for that area. It is also unreasonable to presume that a community can condense and assimilate housing growth that is projected over a 35-year period into a much shorter period of time. Second, and more importantly, there is no way to evaluate consistency without jurisdiction-level forecasts. Consistency at a sub-regional level is meaningless, as sub-regions do not have the authority to write, adopt, or implement Housing Elements. This responsibility rests with cities and counties alone. Sub-regions contain jurisdictions with vastly different populations, employment bases, geographies, hazard levels, and physical constraints. Lumping dissimilar cities together as sub-regions in PBA 2050, and then assigning growth at the city-level through the RHNA process, makes it impossible to determine consistency between the two processes. We urge ABAG to publish jurisdiction-level forecasts for PBA 2050 so that consistency can be accurately and transparently determined. If the 2040 forecasts are used as a proxy, the RHNA appears grossly inconsistent with the forecasts for many jurisdictions, including our own. Page 3 2. The Plan Bay Area 2050 Future Households Baseline promotes suburban sprawl by allocating a disproportionate number of housing units to the region’s urban fringes away from the major job centers, furthering the historic pattern of jobs- housing imbalance. Figure A. Impact of switching to the 2050 Future Households Baseline from the 2050 Growth Baseline. Furthermore, this baseline reduces housing assignment in the western and southern subregions of the Bay Area that has historically under-produced housing, at the expense of subregions that have historically been the region’s housing supplier. Under the Draft RHNA, the housing allocation to Santa Clara County fails to match the explosive jobs growth in that County over the past decade. This under allocation of new housing to Santa Clara County results in significantly higher allocations to other counties and fails to adequately address the significant jobs-housing imbalance in Santa Clara County. Page 4 Figure B. Job Growth in the Bay Area between 2010 to 2016, as documented by ABAG. This conflicts with Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), which anticipates a 42% increase in housing growth in Santa Clara while the methodology assigns only 32% of the RHND there. This amounts to over 40,000 units allocated elsewhere in the region – most problematically, to outer suburbs, small cities, and rural and unincorporated county areas. Figure C. Job Growth in the Bay Area between 2010 to 2016, as documented by ABAG Page 5 3. The proposed RHNA methodology is inconsistent with State mandates to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve air and water quality, preserve agricultural land, and focus development away from areas with high wildfire risks. As result of the lack of jobs-housing balance, the Draft RHNA will work against key regional planning goals and State mandates including those to address VMT and GHG emissions by perpetuating sprawl and inefficient growth patterns. The housing distribution under the Draft RHNA conflicts with the requirements of SB 743, which requires use of the VMT standard when evaluating potential environmental impacts of a proposed development under CEQA. The Legislative Intent of SB 743 is to: encourage infill development; improve public health through active transportation; and reduce GHG emissions. Placing the housing in the urban fringes of the Bay Area, away from job centers and transportation hubs, will increase, not reduce, VMT. As a result, review of proposed housing developments under CEQA will not meet established VMT Thresholds of Significance and will result in potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be easily mitigated. The Draft RHNA also conflicts with the GHG reduction requirements under AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197. These laws require that the State limit GHG emissions so that emission levels in 2030 do not exceed 1990 levels. Based on Plan Bay Area’s housing and job projections, and emphasis on housing-jobs balance and transit- oriented housing, the plan would still fall short of GHG emission reduction goals. The Draft RHNA’s departure from prioritizing housing-jobs balance and transit- oriented housing will lead the region and the State further from achieving these GHG emission requirements. This impact is amplified for the Town of Danville as the community is not projected to add a significant number of new jobs over the next 35 years and Danville has limited bus service and limited access to mass transit options. 4. The proposed RHNA methodology directs growth to cities and unincorporated county areas with limited to no develop-able land, restricted open space areas, land outside of voter-approved urban growth boundaries, areas that lack mass transit, and natural hazard constraints. Sampling of Impacted Jurisdictions PBA 2050 Growth Methodology (Proposed Altern) PBA 2050 Future Households (HMC Option 8A) Difference % Change Santa Clara County Los Gatos 142 1,430 +1,288 +907% Page 6 Monte Sereno 3 140 +137 +4,567% Mountain View 12,377 7,810 -4,567 -37% Palo Alto 11,127 6,810 -4,317 -39% San Jose 100,155 67,240 -32,915 -33% Santa Clara 14,285 9,630 -4,655 -33% Sunnyvale 12,025 9,980 -2,045 -17% Alameda County Albany 355 930 +575 +162% Piedmont 60 430 +370 +617% Unincorporated 1,638 5,950 +4,312 +263% Contra Costa County Danville 223 1,820 +1,597 +716% Hercules 411 1,060 +649 +158% Martinez 311 1,670 +1,359 +437% Unincorporated 2,588 7,310 +4,722 +182% Marin County Fairfax 215 460 +245 +114% Mill Valley 27 710 +683 +2530% San Anselmo 202 670 +468 +232% San Mateo County Atherton 30 280 +250 +833% Hillsborough 116 470 +354 +305% Pacifica 199 1,580 +1,381 +694% Portola Valley 3 200 +197 +6,567% Solano County Benicia 258 1,270 +1,012 +392% Dixon 209 690 +481 +230% Rio Vista 84 420 +336 +400% Suisun City 298 1,070 +772 +259% Vacaville 1,056 3,650 +2,594 +246% Vallejo 2,117 5,250 +3,133 +148% Sonoma County Sonoma 184 620 +436 +237% Unincorporated 6,893 9,080 +2,187 +32% Page 7 5. While the Draft RHNA provides an emphasis on equity and fair housing which is vitally important, we believe the unintended consequences of the growth patterns dictated by Option 8A may actually work against equity goals by: o Requiring people who are unable to work from home to travel long distances from where they live to where they work. o Increasing auto reliance those residents who are unable to work from home for daily commutes by underemphasizing transit access – at a significant economic, social and environmental cost to those residents. o Disincentivizing urban re-investment on in-fill lots and brownfields by prioritizing housing growth away from cities that want and need new housing to serve their communities and support their local economies. o Allocating a disproportionate number of housing units to communities that are largely built out, with little undeveloped or under-developed lands, would result in the need to re-designate lands for housing which already contain either viable housing and/or high assessed-value developments. Page 8 In terms of economics, this makes these lands un-likely to redevelop regardless of the change in land use designation, especially when multiple properties would need to be aggregated to create a viable site. Furthermore, assigning units to physically constrained communities in some instances would require the removal of existing affordable units (due to their age and/or other characteristics) in order to accommodate a high housing assignment. In either scenario, these lands would carry a high land cost and any resulting re- development would result in housing units that would be far from affordable without significant subsidies. Adopting a RHNA that more equitably assigns units to under-developed urban areas would result in timely re-development addressing the States critical housing shortage. Recommended Alternative Baseline and Factors As previously requested, and similar to the approach advocated by Contra Costa Mayors Conference and others at the Executive Board’s October public hearing, we would urge the Executive Board to consider an Alternative to Option 8A, that uses the “Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth” Baseline. We would also seek further refinements to the Factors as follows: HMC Option 8A Proposed Alternative Methodology Baseline Plan Bay Area 2050 Households Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Factors and Weighting Very-Low and Low Income Units • 60 % Access to High Opportunity Areas • 20 % Jobs Proximity – Auto • 20 % Jobs Proximity - Transit Moderate and Above Moderate Income Units • 40 % Access to High Opportunity Areas • 60 % Jobs Proximity Auto • 20 % Access to High Opportunity Areas • 40 % Jobs Proximity - Auto • 40 % Jobs Proximity - Transit Together, these changes would have the following beneficial outcomes for the region, each of which would improve its consistency with Plan Bay Area: • Increased share of RHNA to the “Big Three” cities and inner Bay Area, and a corresponding decrease in that assigned to the outer Bay Area, unincorporated, and small and rural communities by approximately 30,000 units. This will ensure Page 9 that that the largest share of housing growth is allocated to the region’s biggest job centers, in areas well-served by transit and infrastructure. • Reduced allocation to unincorporated county areas by over 10,500 units – avoiding further residential growth pressures in areas most subject to natural hazards, lack of infrastructure capacity, and threatened loss of agricultural and open space land. • Alignment of the share of housing growth in Santa Clara County to match Plan Bay Area 2050 and the County’s significant jobs growth of the past decade. Santa Clara, home of some of the region’s largest tech firms, has the largest numeric deficit in housing production to jobs production over the past decade, which could be corrected in part by this adjustment. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or would like to discuss this letter further. Sincerely, TOWN OF DANVILLE Karen G. Stepper, Mayor C: Danville Town Council 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… 1/13 ______ Construction workers unload roofing tiles at the future Santa Ana Veterans Village,Construction workers unload roofing tiles at the future Santa Ana Veterans Village, which will provide permanent supportive housing to ex-service members. The citywhich will provide permanent supportive housing to ex-service members. The city helped developers get financing by committing a stream of revenue from futurehelped developers get financing by committing a stream of revenue from future “project-based” rent vouchers to the project. Santa Ana is one of just 15 California“project-based” rent vouchers to the project. Santa Ana is one of just 15 California jurisdictions on track to meet state-mandated housing goals. (Photo by Mindyjurisdictions on track to meet state-mandated housing goals. (Photo by Mindy Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG)Schauer, Orange County Register/SCNG) NEWSNEWSHOUSINGHOUSING California needs more housing,California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and countiesbut 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enoughare failing to issue enough RHNA permitsRHNA permits 2018 data shows most California cities got a failing2018 data shows most California cities got a failing grade in permitting new homes.grade in permitting new homes. EXHIBIT D 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/2/13 By By JEFF COLLINSJEFF COLLINS | | JeffCollins@scng.comJeffCollins@scng.com and and NIKIE JOHNSONNIKIE JOHNSON | | nijohnson@scng.comnijohnson@scng.com | Orange County Register | Orange County Register PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: December 9, 2019 at 7:40 a.m.December 9, 2019 at 7:40 a.m. | UPDATED: | UPDATED: December 10, 2019 atDecember 10, 2019 at 6:37 p.m.6:37 p.m. Neighborhood leaders gathered in Long Beach in the spring of 2017 to discussNeighborhood leaders gathered in Long Beach in the spring of 2017 to discuss a City Hall plan to address the city’s housing shortage. What they learneda City Hall plan to address the city’s housing shortage. What they learned sparked a revolt.sparked a revolt. To increase the housing supply and stem skyrocketing residential costs,To increase the housing supply and stem skyrocketing residential costs, planners proposed multi-story apartment buildings line major streets andplanners proposed multi-story apartment buildings line major streets and boulevards throughout the city, including its affluent, mainly suburban eastboulevards throughout the city, including its affluent, mainly suburban east side.side. To the planners, it was an equitable solution to the housing crisis. ToTo the planners, it was an equitable solution to the housing crisis. To neighborhood associations, it was armageddon.neighborhood associations, it was armageddon. “There was a passionate, angry plea … demanding the city halt the plans for“There was a passionate, angry plea … demanding the city halt the plans for ruining neighborhoods,” said activist Corliss Lee. “With increased buildingruining neighborhoods,” said activist Corliss Lee. “With increased building heights comes lots of people and cars.”heights comes lots of people and cars.” In the ensuing outcry, residents mobbed town hall meetings and ultimatelyIn the ensuing outcry, residents mobbed town hall meetings and ultimately forced the city to compromise, concentrating new housing mostly inforced the city to compromise, concentrating new housing mostly in downtown Long Beach.downtown Long Beach. The Long Beach revolt may be symptomatic of California’s losing battle withThe Long Beach revolt may be symptomatic of California’s losing battle with an ever-worsening housing crisis, some housing officials say.an ever-worsening housing crisis, some housing officials say. California needs between 1.8 million and 3.5 million new homes by 2025,California needs between 1.8 million and 3.5 million new homes by 2025, state and private reports say. To get there, cities and counties would havestate and private reports say. To get there, cities and counties would have to approve two to four times the number of homes they’ve been permitting into approve two to four times the number of homes they’ve been permitting in the past few years.the past few years. But instead of approving more homes, almost every California city and countyBut instead of approving more homes, almost every California city and county is falling behind its state-mandated housing goals, a is falling behind its state-mandated housing goals, a Southern California NewsSouthern California News Group analysis of state dataGroup analysis of state data shows. shows. Most cities and counties comply with a state law requiring them to plan andMost cities and counties comply with a state law requiring them to plan and zone for housing at all income levels. But fewer than 3% — just 15zone for housing at all income levels. But fewer than 3% — just 15 jurisdictions — were on track to actually build those homes by the end ofjurisdictions — were on track to actually build those homes by the end of 2018.2018. 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/3/13 Among SCNG’s findings:Among SCNG’s findings: 97% of all cities and counties were behind in permitting new housing97% of all cities and counties were behind in permitting new housing sought under the sought under the Regional Housing Needs AssessmentRegional Housing Needs Assessment process, or RHNA process, or RHNA (pronounced “reena”).(pronounced “reena”). Almost two-thirds of local governments are less than 50% on track.Almost two-thirds of local governments are less than 50% on track. Almost half are behind in all four homebuilding categories: very-low-Almost half are behind in all four homebuilding categories: very-low- income, low-income, moderate-income and above-moderate-income.income, low-income, moderate-income and above-moderate-income. The problem is worse for low-income housing: Just 22% of the state’sThe problem is worse for low-income housing: Just 22% of the state’s jurisdictions are on track for permitting low-income housing, while 45% are onjurisdictions are on track for permitting low-income housing, while 45% are on track for upper-income housing.track for upper-income housing. And the inability to stay on track will be even more acute for SouthernAnd the inability to stay on track will be even more acute for Southern California in the decade ahead California in the decade ahead when the region’s target is expected to triplewhen the region’s target is expected to triple.. A scorecard created by SCNG showed that just one-sixth of California citiesA scorecard created by SCNG showed that just one-sixth of California cities and counties earned an A or a B based on building permit numbers. Moreand counties earned an A or a B based on building permit numbers. More than half earned a D or an F.than half earned a D or an F. “The numbers accentuate why California is in our worst housing crisis in state“The numbers accentuate why California is in our worst housing crisis in state history,” said David Chiu, chair of the state Assembly Housing and Communityhistory,” said David Chiu, chair of the state Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. “We’re not building enough homes, pure andDevelopment Committee. “We’re not building enough homes, pure and simple.”simple.” California “is all talk and virtually no action,” added John Burns, an Irvine-California “is all talk and virtually no action,” added John Burns, an Irvine- based homebuilding consultant.based homebuilding consultant. “Most cities and counties celebrate economic growth, yet don’t permit enough“Most cities and counties celebrate economic growth, yet don’t permit enough housing to accommodate the additional workforce, resulting in high homehousing to accommodate the additional workforce, resulting in high home prices, high rents and worsening traffic,” Burns said. “Anti-growth stancesprices, high rents and worsening traffic,” Burns said. “Anti-growth stances seem to be the key to getting reelected in many cities.”seem to be the key to getting reelected in many cities.” City and county officials around the state lamented that while they see theCity and county officials around the state lamented that while they see the need for more housing, their RHNA targets are unrealistic given the risingneed for more housing, their RHNA targets are unrealistic given the rising costs of construction, a labor shortage, aging infrastructure and neighborhoodcosts of construction, a labor shortage, aging infrastructure and neighborhood resistance to change.resistance to change. RHNA is “the worst four-letter word you’ve never heard of,” said aRHNA is “the worst four-letter word you’ve never heard of,” said a commentary by Laguna Niguel Mayor John Mark Jennings, who dislikes thecommentary by Laguna Niguel Mayor John Mark Jennings, who dislikes the process even though his city got an A- in the SCNG scorecard after permittingprocess even though his city got an A- in the SCNG scorecard after permitting eight times its RHNA target.eight times its RHNA target. The need for more housing “is not in question,” Jennings wrote.The need for more housing “is not in question,” Jennings wrote. 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/4/13 But “this one-size-fits-all, oversimplified, top-down approach creates a host ofBut “this one-size-fits-all, oversimplified, top-down approach creates a host of problems that cities are left to address,” he wrote. “Never mind allowing localproblems that cities are left to address,” he wrote. “Never mind allowing local residents and business owners to decide what is right for their communities.residents and business owners to decide what is right for their communities. And never mind that a city is built out leaving no space for the mandatedAnd never mind that a city is built out leaving no space for the mandated units.”units.” The consequences of not meeting state housing goals, however, “are dire,”The consequences of not meeting state housing goals, however, “are dire,” Chiu warned.Chiu warned. “We will lose our workforce and our competitiveness. Hundreds of thousands“We will lose our workforce and our competitiveness. Hundreds of thousands of families will be pushed out on the streets and into homelessness,” Chiuof families will be pushed out on the streets and into homelessness,” Chiu said. “… When you have a huge percentage of our state paying an enormoussaid. “… When you have a huge percentage of our state paying an enormous portion of their monthly income on housing, it makes it harder for everydayportion of their monthly income on housing, it makes it harder for everyday Californians to put food on the table, afford health care (or) pay forCalifornians to put food on the table, afford health care (or) pay for educational expenses.”educational expenses.” 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/5/13 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/6/13 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/7/13 Mostly voluntaryMostly voluntary Until recently, RHNA goals have been mostly voluntary, and few municipalitiesUntil recently, RHNA goals have been mostly voluntary, and few municipalities met their targets to actually build housing.met their targets to actually build housing. Although state leaders have enacted several measures designed to “put teeth”Although state leaders have enacted several measures designed to “put teeth” in RHNA, few sanctions exist for cities and counties failing to meet actualin RHNA, few sanctions exist for cities and counties failing to meet actual construction goals.construction goals. Senate Bill 35Senate Bill 35 forces communities failing to meet RHNA construction goals to forces communities failing to meet RHNA construction goals to automatically green-light residential projects meeting zoning and planningautomatically green-light residential projects meeting zoning and planning rules and other standards. But so far, rules and other standards. But so far, just 44 projects around the state havejust 44 projects around the state have sought approval under SB 35sought approval under SB 35, mainly for affordable housing, according to data, mainly for affordable housing, according to data compiled by the Bay Area News Group.compiled by the Bay Area News Group. Other laws opened cities up to lawsuits if their plans fail to include enoughOther laws opened cities up to lawsuits if their plans fail to include enough housing or if they fail to approve developments that comply with their land-housing or if they fail to approve developments that comply with their land- use policies. So far, use policies. So far, Huntington Beach remains the only city sued by the stateHuntington Beach remains the only city sued by the state under those laws.under those laws. In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to withhold transportation fundingIn January, Gov. Gavin Newsom threatened to withhold transportation funding from local governments that failed “to make progress toward requiredfrom local governments that failed “to make progress toward required production goals.” But in June, Newsom production goals.” But in June, Newsom backed down during budgetbacked down during budget negotiationsnegotiations from imposing financial consequences on localities that fail to from imposing financial consequences on localities that fail to build enough housing.build enough housing. Under the RHNA process, the state housing department determines howUnder the RHNA process, the state housing department determines how many homes each region must plan for over a five- to eight-year period. Thenmany homes each region must plan for over a five- to eight-year period. Then regional planning agencies like the regional planning agencies like the Southern California Association ofSouthern California Association of GovernmentsGovernments or the or the Association of Bay Area GovernmentsAssociation of Bay Area Governments divvy up the divvy up the numbers among local cities and counties.numbers among local cities and counties. For the scorecard, SCNG looked at how far each jurisdiction is into its RHNAFor the scorecard, SCNG looked at how far each jurisdiction is into its RHNA cycle and compared how many building permits it has issued with the numbercycle and compared how many building permits it has issued with the number it should have issued by now to be on track.it should have issued by now to be on track. Asked to explain their housing performance, all 25 of the jurisdictions reachedAsked to explain their housing performance, all 25 of the jurisdictions reached by SCNG — even those that had earned a D or an F — said they’re pro-by SCNG — even those that had earned a D or an F — said they’re pro- housing and understand the need for stepped-up homebuilding.housing and understand the need for stepped-up homebuilding. But many argued they’re only responsible for “setting the table” forBut many argued they’re only responsible for “setting the table” for development under RHNA. They must adopt land-use plans and ensuredevelopment under RHNA. They must adopt land-use plans and ensure there’s sufficient zoning for new housing, but aren’t responsible if the homesthere’s sufficient zoning for new housing, but aren’t responsible if the homes don’t get built.don’t get built. 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/8/13 Finding solutionsFinding solutions “State law does not require cities to achieve their RHNA goals because cities“State law does not require cities to achieve their RHNA goals because cities only control one aspect of the development process — plans andonly control one aspect of the development process — plans and development regulations,” said Brian Saeki, city manager for the San Gabrieldevelopment regulations,” said Brian Saeki, city manager for the San Gabriel Valley town of Covina, which received an F in the SCNG scorecard for failing toValley town of Covina, which received an F in the SCNG scorecard for failing to report the 80 building permits it issued since 2014.report the 80 building permits it issued since 2014. “We’re at the mercy of the market,” added Albert Lopez, planning director of“We’re at the mercy of the market,” added Albert Lopez, planning director of the Bay Area’s Alameda County, which received a C- after permitting aboutthe Bay Area’s Alameda County, which received a C- after permitting about half of the homes needed to be on track. “If the builders want to come in, wehalf of the homes needed to be on track. “If the builders want to come in, we will accommodate them.”will accommodate them.” Scott Wiener, chairman of the state Senate Housing Committee, called thoseScott Wiener, chairman of the state Senate Housing Committee, called those answers “an excuse.”answers “an excuse.” “We hear this all the time,” Wiener said. “Cities don’t build housing. It’s all the“We hear this all the time,” Wiener said. “Cities don’t build housing. It’s all the developers’ fault.”developers’ fault.” While most cities do “set the table” by adopting land-use plans, they alsoWhile most cities do “set the table” by adopting land-use plans, they also adopt restrictive regulations and high “impact” fees that keep housing out,adopt restrictive regulations and high “impact” fees that keep housing out, Wiener said.Wiener said. “There are far too many cities in California that make it extremely difficult or“There are far too many cities in California that make it extremely difficult or even impossible to build new housing,” he said. “Cities that have veryeven impossible to build new housing,” he said. “Cities that have very restrictive zoning. Cities that put you through a multi-year approval process,restrictive zoning. Cities that put you through a multi-year approval process, even for a small project. Cities that will zone for, say, 20 units, but then forceeven for a small project. Cities that will zone for, say, 20 units, but then force you down to five units. … The list goes on.”you down to five units. … The list goes on.” Communities that are on track don’t agree cities should merely “set the table.”Communities that are on track don’t agree cities should merely “set the table.” “Cities can modify how the table is set,” said Peter Noonan, rent stabilization“Cities can modify how the table is set,” said Peter Noonan, rent stabilization and housing manager for West Hollywood, which got an A after issuing 20and housing manager for West Hollywood, which got an A after issuing 20 times the 77 building permits it’s required to provide. “RHNA is the minimum,times the 77 building permits it’s required to provide. “RHNA is the minimum, not the maximum.”not the maximum.” Cities can change standards such as parking requirements and height limits,Cities can change standards such as parking requirements and height limits, and they can set density minimums to spur development, Noonan said.and they can set density minimums to spur development, Noonan said. Successful cities and counties have “inclusionary zoning” laws, create housingSuccessful cities and counties have “inclusionary zoning” laws, create housing trust funds, lower development fees and, in some cases, buy the land or buildtrust funds, lower development fees and, in some cases, buy the land or build infrastructure to spur affordable homebuilding.infrastructure to spur affordable homebuilding. 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/9/13 ObstaclesObstacles West Hollywood passed an “inclusionary zoning” ordinance in 1986 —West Hollywood passed an “inclusionary zoning” ordinance in 1986 — requiring developers to either include affordable units in their projects or payrequiring developers to either include affordable units in their projects or pay a fee into an affordable housing fund. It also created a nonprofit housinga fee into an affordable housing fund. It also created a nonprofit housing provider, the West Hollywood Community Housing Corp., which partners withprovider, the West Hollywood Community Housing Corp., which partners with the city in low-income housing development.the city in low-income housing development. San Bernardino County, which permitted 45 times its RHNA target, bought aSan Bernardino County, which permitted 45 times its RHNA target, bought a 15-acre tract in the unincorporated community of Bloomington to build 15-acre tract in the unincorporated community of Bloomington to build anan almost 300-unit affordable housing developmentalmost 300-unit affordable housing development.. The county then found funding to replace the area’s septic systems withThe county then found funding to replace the area’s septic systems with sewers and storm drains. The development, which has been opening insewers and storm drains. The development, which has been opening in phases since 2016, included a new library and a pool.phases since 2016, included a new library and a pool. “Communities can be less than enthusiastic about a new affordable housing“Communities can be less than enthusiastic about a new affordable housing project in their neighborhood,” said David Wert, San Bernardino Countyproject in their neighborhood,” said David Wert, San Bernardino County spokesman. But when projects look high-end, include a new library and bringspokesman. But when projects look high-end, include a new library and bring needed infrastructure to an area, “it becomes an asset.”needed infrastructure to an area, “it becomes an asset.” The development’s existence “meant a world of difference” to Jennifer Gibson,The development’s existence “meant a world of difference” to Jennifer Gibson, 43, who moved to Bloomington Grove about two years ago after becoming43, who moved to Bloomington Grove about two years ago after becoming disabled. “We have higher rent in California than a lot of other states have, sodisabled. “We have higher rent in California than a lot of other states have, so it’s extremely important for there to be some type of affordable housing. It’sit’s extremely important for there to be some type of affordable housing. It’s families that are working hard — just a normal, average family trying to makefamilies that are working hard — just a normal, average family trying to make a living and survive.”a living and survive.” If she and her children, now 18 and 22, hadn’t been able to move intoIf she and her children, now 18 and 22, hadn’t been able to move into Bloomington Grove, Gibson said, they would probably have to live withBloomington Grove, Gibson said, they would probably have to live with relatives. Without sufficient affordable housing options, “there would be a lotrelatives. Without sufficient affordable housing options, “there would be a lot more homeless people, a lot more people in shelters, a lot more people notmore homeless people, a lot more people in shelters, a lot more people not able to be independent,” she said.able to be independent,” she said. But cities and counties say they face a host of obstacles to getting homes built.But cities and counties say they face a host of obstacles to getting homes built. Chief among them is steady push-back from so-called “NIMBYs,” or localChief among them is steady push-back from so-called “NIMBYs,” or local residents resistant to change.residents resistant to change. Cities and counties also cite the high cost of land, construction and financing.Cities and counties also cite the high cost of land, construction and financing. 1/25/2021 California needs more housing, but 97% of cities and counties are failing to issue enough RHNA permits – Orange County Reg… https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/10/13 “There’s a labor shortage that brings the price up. The cost of materials …“There’s a labor shortage that brings the price up. The cost of materials … (also) is very high,” said Matt Hertel, senior planner for the city of Sacramento,(also) is very high,” said Matt Hertel, senior planner for the city of Sacramento, which got a C in the SCNG scorecard after issuing just over half the 15,000which got a C in the SCNG scorecard after issuing just over half the 15,000 permits it needed to be on track. “The infrastructure is aging and doesn’t havepermits it needed to be on track. “The infrastructure is aging and doesn’t have the capacity for added development.”the capacity for added development.” Even though California allocated billions of dollars for affordable housing inEven though California allocated billions of dollars for affordable housing in the past year, local officials say they’ve been stymied by the 2011 decision tothe past year, local officials say they’ve been stymied by the 2011 decision to shut down redevelopment agencies, wiping out about $1 billion a year in low-shut down redevelopment agencies, wiping out about $1 billion a year in low- income housing funding.income housing funding. Outdated planning documents, environmental concerns and a lack of land forOutdated planning documents, environmental concerns and a lack of land for new housing likewise complicate development.new housing likewise complicate development. “Torrance is a largely built-out city,” said long-range planning manager Gregg“Torrance is a largely built-out city,” said long-range planning manager Gregg Lodan, whose city got an F in the RHNA scorecard after falling behind in allLodan, whose city got an F in the RHNA scorecard after falling behind in all four housing categories.four housing categories. Some cities also disputed whether the RHNA numbers were allocated fairly.Some cities also disputed whether the RHNA numbers were allocated fairly. UCLA urban planning Professor Paavo Monkkonen agreed, arguing in a recentUCLA urban planning Professor Paavo Monkkonen agreed, arguing in a recent “issue brief” on RHNA the process bases numbers more on politics than need.“issue brief” on RHNA the process bases numbers more on politics than need. “That’s why Beverly Hills … was famously determined to ‘need’ only three new“That’s why Beverly Hills … was famously determined to ‘need’ only three new units of income-restricted housing between 2013 and 2021, while otherunits of income-restricted housing between 2013 and 2021, while other similarly sized cities and much more affordable cities were determined tosimilarly sized cities and much more affordable cities were determined to ‘need’ hundreds of units,” Monkkonen’s brief says.‘need’ hundreds of units,” Monkkonen’s brief says. RHNA, Monkkonen said, “creates unrealistic production goals.”RHNA, Monkkonen said, “creates unrealistic production goals.” In Long Beach, residents who helped stop the spread of high-densityIn Long Beach, residents who helped stop the spread of high-density development last year say they’re feeling the pressure from Sacramento, anddevelopment last year say they’re feeling the pressure from Sacramento, and worry about its impact on their neighborhoods.worry about its impact on their neighborhoods.   “Not all cities are the same,” said Joan Greenwood, president of Long Beach’s“Not all cities are the same,” said Joan Greenwood, president of Long Beach’s Wrigley Neighborhood Alliance. “I don’t think it makes sense to put all thisWrigley Neighborhood Alliance. “I don’t think it makes sense to put all this density in an area where they can’t accommodate it with schools and parks.”density in an area where they can’t accommodate it with schools and parks.” “Local control of zoning is one of the most important issues of freedom there“Local control of zoning is one of the most important issues of freedom there is,” added Robert Fox, executive director of Long Beach’s Council ofis,” added Robert Fox, executive director of Long Beach’s Council of Neighborhood Organizations and a candidate for the City Council’s 2ndNeighborhood Organizations and a candidate for the City Council’s 2nd District seat. “American democracy is local control.”District seat. “American democracy is local control.”