Categories
RHNA

The housing reform bill would right some of redlining’s wrongs

More affordable housing would give more people more choices about where to live.

Misperceptions about proposed land use reforms in Senate Bill 9 — which would make it legal to build duplexes in California — paint an entirely inaccurate picture of developers rushing into the middle- and working-class communities of color to tear down homes and build expensive apartments in their place. On the contrary, the bill is designed to allow people of color to move to exist high-opportunity neighborhoods by making them more affordable and accessible and to enable new generations to stay in existing neighborhoods by creating more affordable new homeownership opportunities. SB 9 helps restore the core of what decades of segregation through bans on housing have taken away: the right to choose where you can live.

Redlining is a California-born and -bred problem. Decades of segregation continue to play out in cities throughout the state. It’s time to build a more inclusive California, one where middle-income families can buy a home that doesn’t cost $750,000 (the state’s median home price); where families can find lower-priced housing in neighborhoods with good schools, convenient transit, and parks; and where people have the option to buy a home in the neighborhood where they grew up. 

The argument that allowing for lower-cost homes will force Black families out and lead to gentrification isn’t true. SB 9 would protect renters from displacement by prohibiting the disruption of existing affordable housing, rent-controlled housing or housing recently leased to a tenant. It also would expand opportunities for multigenerational housing by allowing homeowners to build a modest unit on their property so an aging parent or adult child can continue to live there affordably, and the family can continue to pass on financial security and equity in their home. This is particularly important in Black neighborhoods such as southwest Fresno, where I was raised and where my family continues to live. Here, and in the few neighborhoods like it throughout California where Black families were historically allowed to buy property, homes have been passed down to children and grandchildren and families remain close. Maintaining this dynamic is key to preserving neighborhoods that have strong cultural and community ties. 

Fresno’s Anti-Displacement Task Force last week released a blueprint to address displacement issues that can serve as a guide for other cities. Among the key recommendations in Here to Stay: a community land trust fiscal contribution to be established on an annual basis to create affordable housing that remains affordable; a mandatory impact area notification system to notify all residents located in areas most likely to be affected by a proposed development project; rent stabilization, conversion restrictions, and an ”affordable in perpetuity” designation to achieve long-term housing stability; eviction right-to-counsel; and the establishment of tax increment financing to pay for implementation of anti-displacement policies and programs. 

By creating up to 800,000 new, smaller, lower-cost homes that fit within existing neighborhoods of all types, SB 9 would make it possible for more families to afford to own homes in the neighborhoods they chose (including those where they currently live) and for more, lower- and middle-income families to be able to live in well-resourced neighborhoods. It also would protect current renters from displacement. 

By urging legislators to support SB 9, we can simultaneously unlock the door to homeownership for more Californians while respecting and protecting the intrinsic value of established communities of color. All Californians should have an equal chance to seek out the best opportunities for their families and children, as well as an opportunity to build wealth. Let’s not allow misinformation to keep us tied to housing policy that is rooted in and that perpetuates racial inequity and limited opportunity. 

Categories
RHNA

SCAG Housing information

SCAG HOUSING UPDATESSCAG Releases the Subregional Partnership Program Fact SheetSCAG has allocated approximately $23 million of its Regional Early Action Plan (REAP) funding for the Subregional Partnership Program (SRP) to fund 16 subregions in planning activities that will accelerate housing production and facilitate compliance in implementing a jurisdiction’s 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Review our newly released fact sheet to learn more about the planning activities that this program supports. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Technical Assistance – Webinar & Office HoursInterested in applying for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding? In collaboration with HCD and the Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH), SCAG will be hosting an informational webinar and office hours regarding PLHA grants. The purpose of PLHA funding is to provide a permanent source of funding to all local governments in California to help cities and counties implement plans to increase the affordable housing stock. These funds can be used for a wide variety of affordable housing support and can include partnerships and delegation of implementation.WebinarAttendees will be able to ask HCD, SCANPH, and SCAG staff about the application process, eligibility requirements, and eligible housing activities. The webinar will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 21 from 10 to 11:30 a.m.
Register here! Office hours Schedule one-on-one office hours to receive PLHA technical assistance, including application assistance.
Schedule here! NEW FUNDING$480 Million in Funding Available to SCAG Region Through HCD’s Homekey program on Sept. 9, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) announced the availability of approximately $1.45 billion in funding through a Round 2 Notice of Funding Availability for the Homekey Program. Through this program, the SCAG region could be eligible for approximately $480 million. Eligible applicants for this funding include cities, counties, and all other states, regional, and local public entities, including councils of governments, municipal planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies. Funds must be used to provide housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness and who are inherently impacted by or at increased risk for diseases or conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other communicable diseases. For more information, visit HCD’s Homekey website. HELPFUL EXTERNAL RESOURCES & WEBINARSProject Room Key Motel Turned Permanent Housing – Anaheim’s Success StoryBuilding off the success of Project Roomkey, Homekey is California’s innovative $600 million programs to purchase and rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings and other properties, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Administered by HCD, the program has provided housing solutions to vulnerable populations.  

One of the success stories is the story of an aging Econo Lodge motel in Anaheim that has been transformed into permanent housing. Developer Jamboree Housing has completed construction and opened the new building “Buena Esperanza” which services the homeless, including military veterans, and people with mental illness. A key element in Buena Esperanza is private-sector funding and “last-mile” funding from the Orange County Housing Trust. It brings 70 affordable homes to Orange County, a great contribution to the 600 affordable homes that stemmed from the Jamboree and City of Anaheim partnership, since 2008.  

This project is a great example of how local jurisdictions can employ a variety of development strategies and programs to address the requirement of the adequate site of the Housing Element law and support RHNA goals.  

For more information visit Jamboree Housing online.Reminder to Submit Annual Progress Reports to HCDBar graph showing the total number of APR's received year over year since 2013All cities and counties are required to adequately plan to meet a broad spectrum of housing needs in updating their general plan housing elements.  Each jurisdiction is required to create an annual report on the status and progress in implementing the housing element of its general plan, known as the Annual Progress Report (APR). The APR must be submitted to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on or before April 1 of each year. Jurisdictions that have not been submitted should submit APRs for any missing years to avoid ineligibility for funding sources. HCD’s Annual Progress Report Dashboard provides interactive data on jurisdictions’ progress towards their housing goals. For more information regarding APRs, including tools to support APR completion, visit HCD’s website. The Housing Innovation CollaborativeThe Housing Innovation Collaborative (HICo) is a nonprofit housing-focused research and development platform – the online platform is a virtual version of a “housing world’s fair,” showcasing the latest new construction, design, financing, and policy solutions in a series of themed exhibitions. While HICo is based in Los Angeles, their examples and best practices span cities and countries and have broad applicability. HICo’s past work has included creating the largest open-sourced database of rapidly deployable shelter solutions in the world: The Rapid Shelter Showcase. In partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency and California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, they have partnered with major cities across the U.S. to showcase how they are ending homelessness with rapid shelter and social impact bonds programs through Project Spotlight. Get Housing Element Insight from the Development Community at ULI-LA’s “Office Hours” As cities are drafting Housing Element updates for 2021-2029, the Los Angeles chapter of the Urban Land Institute (ULI-LA) is offering an opportunity for local government staff to conduct meaningful outreach to the development community around the policy and zoning changes their Housing Elements propose. Join ULI-LA for “office hours” in which city staff can interact with ULI volunteers who have expertise in various aspects of housing development. These sessions are intended to fill a critical gap in public-private sector interaction around housing policy, by allowing cities to receive customized, one-on-one feedback on key issues from expert practitioners in a neutral advisory setting. To participate, please fill out this form and submit your questions for ULI’s expert panel. Topics could include suitable site analysis, development feasibility, upzoning, inclusionary requirements, 100 percent affordable housing, and more.

If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Davis at lisa.davis@uli.org.Additional ResourcesHCD Housing Planning Hub SiteSCAG’s Housing Element Parcel Tool with ADU filters SCAG Logo
View this email in a browser.


900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
(213) 236-1800  |  scag.ca.govCopyright © 2021, Southern California Association of GovernmentsThis email was sent to par913@me.com.
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe
Categories
County RHNA General. Plan Housing Laws RHNA RHNA

Time to Rethink the Mandated State Laws for Affordable Housing

What is the City Council of Chino and their mayor doing? They are ignoring the Laws of California. What will happen? The City will be sued by the State.

The City Council and the mayor have adopted the mindset of ‘NIMBY’, Not In My Back Yard. A clear discriminatory attitude to residents of low social economic status. This is outright racism.The city of Chino has the moral obligation to follow the laws of California and to morally provide affordable housing for all residents.

It’s Time To Embrace Sensible Development

IE Business Daily November 26, 2019

As previously seen in the Chino Champion

By: Jay Prag

The October 26th article in the Chino Champion “Chino Valley hit with state housing numbers” is a wake-up call; heck, it’s an outright sign from above that Chino housing development choices are not going to stay in hands of Chino’s elected officials unless they prove that they are making prudent decisions to address the housing supply crisis.  While fighting statewide housing development mandates might seem like the best approach, such fights aren’t free; if cities fail to fulfill new housing construction quotas; they stand to incur significant legal fees, potentially lose millions in state revenue, and potentially lose outright control over planning decisions to the State. Just look at SB 50 that was temporarily tabled earlier this year by the State Legislature that would have rewritten zoning laws and forced local governments like Chino to allow taller apartment buildings and another multi-family complex near transit areas and job centers. Finding a reasonable middle ground will almost always be cheaper and better for everyone concerned.

To that end, it’s time for the Chino city council to relook at its General Plan Housing Element and seriously attempt to plan many areas of the City and City’s sphere which have good access to transportation and services but have generally planned densities that do not meet market needs nor allow for product types that provide various levels of affordability to Chino residents as state-mandated.  Proposed projects such as Chino Francis Estates offer low-hanging fruit to the City of Chino Planning Commission and Council. This is a low-density single-story project located on 13 blighted acres adjacent to City streets and utilities.  The developers reworked their plans several times to reduce density, provide one hundred percent single-story homes, enhance landscaping, improve existing offsite drainage conditions and address traffic concerns and other issues, proving their desire to make Chino Francis Estates a win-win development.

Any realistic assessment of the project would see this as an outright Christmas present for the city. In exchange for a truly minor extension of city services Chino would get thirty-nine beautiful, new homes on thirteen acres of new land; this would certainly improve Chino financially and esthetically. But this would also be “free credibility” that Chino’s elected officials could point to and say “We’re going above and beyond to reach our housing goals. We literally grew our city just to add new housing!”

It’s time for Chino to embrace sensible development proposals inside its city sphere that offer differing affordability levels and meet state-mandated housing needs.  Projects such as Chino Francis Estates are a win-win and a political freebie that would redirect the attention of Sacramento and its fast-approaching takeover of cities it perceives as housing obstructionists. 

Categories
RHNA

Politics and Housing in Chino: The Story Goes Deeper Than Many Know (Part I)

What a disarray of misinformation the entire City of Chino Council and the Mayor have given over the many years. Even now, the entire Council and Mayor are untruthful to the residents of Chino. The general plan for the City is a map for future growth in the City of Chino. The City of Chino has an obligation to follow the laws of the State of California. All the city council and the mayor took an oath to follow all city, county, and state laws and rules.

The housing crisis is real and not only in California but throughout the Nation according to the National League of Cities and League of California Cities. What the City Council of Chino needs to correct and follow the crisis of affordable housing? The city is morally obligated to help all residents.

Affordable Housing helps single parents with children (moms and dads), Students, Workers for the city, Veterans, young families, and the homeless to have an affordable place to live. All the residents in afforable housing likewise help the local economy because the residents will more likely visit and purchase what they need amd what they want at the local busniesses.

The City of Chino’s City Council and Mayor ignore the Laws of the State of California and the county rules to update their general plan. The general plan needs to be updates every five years. This code has been ignored by the City Council, the mayor and a few residents who do not what change.

They have adopted the slogan of “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY). This kind of thinking is Modern Day Redlining. The city is telling people with low economic status that they are not wanted. This is discriminatory and affects not only residents but also the economy of the City of Chino. All local retail needs support.

Change needs to happen . The City of Chino will be sued by the State of California if the city decides not to follow the State Laws.

What a crime to throw away money that can be used for the succes of resients and to follow the moral compass of “Life Liberty and the Pursuite of Happines” for all people, not just a few.

Politics and Housing in Chino: The Story Goes Deeper Than Many Know (Part I)

IE Business Daily September 14, 2021

There is virtually no neighborhood left unscathed by the housing market’s supply-and-demand twists, turns, and strife across California as historically low inventory plagues the marketplace — especially when it comes to planning and building new homes and entire neighborhoods.

This issue is oftentimes characterized as activist residents pitted against developers, where “NIMBYs” — the Not-In-My-Backyard types — and environmentalists duke it out against homebuilder-corporate America. One side wins; the other loses.

But that’s only surface deep. The real question is: How are local officials appropriately responding, or not, to housing demand from all socio-economic households and workers as a city projects its future residential needs? And how are elected officials — who claim to be looking out for the best interests of the community while trying to meet state-mandated goals — treating some proposed housing projects versus others, and why?

There are 52 cities and unincorporated townships in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. However, after digging through public records and interviewing key individuals who declined to be identified, IE Business Daily discovered that specific leaders within this one community show a years-long pattern of what sources on deep background say is willfully obstinate negligence and outright abuse, all in the name of representing the interests of the people.

RHNA: State Mandated and Locally Tracked

It starts with “Ree-na,” an acronym city planners and private developers use. Each city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by California law under the state’s general plan. It’s a roadmap into the future that’s routinely updated at the local level every eight years, administered by California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), and monitored by the local San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG).

RHNA shows where a city is hitting its mark or falling short in housing density, affordability, and diversity of structures across suburban neighborhoods. The local supply of apartments, condominiums, townhomes, and single-family detached homes are analyzed in comparison to the number of current and future-forecasted households within five median income brackets, including extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, middle-income, and high-income.

While a municipality proves it is meeting RHNA goals by how much land it appropriately zones for these residential buildouts, it’s not uncommon for a city to miss its RHNA target. The process is a delicate balancing act for city planners and councilmembers.

There’s one strong incentive: the state may have grounds to sue if your city doesn’t hit its RHNA goals. Chino has opened the door to this potentially contentious process, although time will tell how it plays out since the city recently announced its own lawsuit against the state in late July.

Nonetheless, the political reason “why” a city reaches its RHNA numbers — or fails to keep up with the goalpost going forward — is intriguing, as well as “how” it originally projected it would arrive there, especially in the case of Chino. Sources currently or formerly close to the inner workings of the city say this issue lies at the heart of how certain leaders carefully influenced and prioritized some single-family and multi-family residential projects over others.

A Moving Target Over Time

According to its 2013 housing plan, Chino planned to reach its 2,894 RHNA units within those five income tiers by the autumn of 2021. About 59 percent of these units would need to be middle or high-income and 41 percent within the lower-three income tiers.

This same plan explicitly states Chino could meet the lowest three of its five RHNA household-income obligations through land set aside within The Preserve at Chino, a well-known sprawling master-developed community taking up nearly 5,500 acres several miles south of Chino’s city center and south of Chino Airport. What’s more: the document’s numbers reveal that taken altogether, two neighborhoods in The Preserve (boasting 10,788 projected units at the time) could very easily meet all the city’s income-tier RHNA responsibilities and still anchor a hefty housing-unit surplus.

What’s interesting is, state law mandates a city cannot concentrate new housing in just one area to fulfill RHNA requirements. Whatever shape or form neighborhoods take, Chino must reasonably spread out units throughout the city.

The majority of The Preserve’s infrastructure for current and future residential homebuilding — sidewalks, roads, the electrical network, and water-sewer systems — was completed in 2013 by one main master developer that took the lead on developing the entire project. That was 10 years after the area was originally annexed by Chino in 2003.

Meanwhile, it was mentioned in the same 2013 housing plan that outside the two master plans, there were only enough “vacant” and “underutilized” properties and land to build 522 residential units citywide to satisfy the remaining RHNA mandate. Councilmembers and leaders knew their community was growing by leaps and bounds but felt they could satisfy their RHNA mandate almost entirely within the master plans.

This planning decision led to major economic and social issues within the city’s center. The council increasingly focused its growth far away from Chino’s center, which has produced blight, struggling businesses, homelessness, and crime. At the same time, freshly painted buildings line the areas situated around the city’s master plans, where retail space and businesses are thriving. Essentially, a lack of investment in the city’s center has equated to run-down neighborhoods, as well as elementary schools attracting low scores on websites and social media.

Dramatic Growth Felt More Than Seen

A 2013 City of Chino Climate Action Plan forecasted a 17 percent population increase from 2008 to 2020 (approximately 75,600 to 88,700 residents). But this number was easily eclipsed two years ago by U.S. Census Bureau estimates in 2019, pegging Chino’s population at nearly 94,400 — a 25 percent jump and the largest number of residents in the city’s history.

Chino may have reached its forecasted RHNA goal within a brief moment in time. But an influx of new residents each year dramatically outperformed Chino’s projections, highlighting the desperate need for all types of new construction and innovative developments anywhere possible in the city’s residential zones and bordering pockets of San Bernardino County.

It’s almost as if a desperate need for more housing in all areas of Chino was evident well before 2013, whether certain city leaders could see it at the time or not — or whether they even wanted to entertain that possibility. Sources interviewed on deep background have pointed to questions arising in the planning department and elsewhere in city offices at that time: Why are some viable residential projects getting a green light to move forward and not others?

Interestingly, the city’s grand plans at The Preserve — which was blessed by the city council long ago and even strongly championed by a select few council members — would only fulfill Chino’s “current and future” housing needs for a short period. As of 2021, it’s likely there are even more residents living in Chino than the 94,400 figure estimated in 2019.

In fact, San Bernardino County’s population, along with the Inland Empire, is expected to continue rising over the next several years. The Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at UC Riverside is projecting the entire region will most likely continue being one of a few geographic engines of economic and population growth driving the entire state’s economy going into the near future.

A key pillar of this forecast is the region’s cheaper housing compared to coastal cities, especially for commuters — only if it’s allowed to be built.

Playing Catch-Up: That Was Then — This is Now

With 2020 in hindsight, it’s worth remembering that housing development and city planning don’t take place over a couple of meetings, or years for that matter. Long-range deliberation that aligns with state and city goals, along with taking the community’s comments into concern, is usually the natural course.

Today, however, Chino is falling well behind in all kinds of housing development that would meet the needs of those bottom three RHNA income tiers compared to surrounding similar-size communities. The location of housing being provided is not benefitting the more established parts of Chino.

Some sources close to the situation have said that the shiniest object on the city’s residential zoning map with the best chance of successfully being developed — The Preserve at Chino — was a no-brainer for local leaders to push forward at the time. That could be true.

But are there other housing projects that have been expressly turned down in public and private city council meetings? And if so, what was the reasoning?

As Chino has been discussing its RHNA projections for 2021 – 2029 that are closely monitored by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), City Attorney Fred Galante announced July 20 to councilmembers that Chino and other cities across Southern California are welcome to join an Orange County Council of Governments (OCCG) lawsuit challenging HCD and the state’s housing mandates (Galante is also general counsel for OCCG). He said Chino must allocate for an “astronomical” 6,959 new residential units over the next eight years, with 3,388 being “affordable” housing.

A closed-session city council meeting is being held this month (September) with Galante to discuss options as further details are forthcoming.

Stay tuned — this first special report is only the beginning. IE Business Daily will continue its investigation into the City of Chino, its housing development dynamics, the mayor’s leadership, city council decisions, and other disconcerting events in local politics in the coming days and weeks…

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

Housing Bills AB 9🏣

City leaders discuss priority housing bills and immediate action steps during a virtual call to action

Aug 25, 2021

The current legislative cycle ends on September 10. Cities still have time to stop several harmful housing measures, including SB 9 (Atkins) and AB 989 (Gabriel).

On Tuesday, hundreds of city officials from throughout the state joined a virtual League of California Cities calls to action to receive the latest update on several priority housing bills moving through the Legislature. The briefing featured updates on measures that would hinder cities’ ability to plan for the type of housing that’s needed in their communities and stifle local democracy, as well as steps that cities can take today to help stop these measures.

The call to action focused on five priority bills: AB 989 (Gabriel), AB 1401 (Friedman), and AB 215 (Chiu), AB 500 (Ward), and most notably SB 9 (Atkins). “SB 9 is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to land use policy that caters to developers, silences community input, and doesn’t even guarantee affordable housing,” said Cal Cities President and El Centro Mayor Cheryl Viegas Walker.

During the briefing, Cal Cities leadership stressed the urgency of taking action now to ensure the voices of city leaders are heard loud and clear in the Capitol.

“You put it all together and these bills are bad policy,” said Cal Cities Executive Director and CEO Carolyn Coleman. “They are bad for our communities and bad for our state. That’s why the message you are hearing today is we need to stop [these bills] now…Not two weeks from now, but immediately.”

Some bills, including SB 9, may be voted on as early as Thursday, August 26. Cities are encouraged to oppose the measures summarized below and can contact their Regional Public Affairs Manager or visit the Cal Cities Action Center for more information.  

SB 9 (Atkins) Housing Development Approvals — Oppose

Although SB 9 was recently amended, Cal Cities’ core argument remains the same: Cities are collectively identifying sites for more than two million additional homes, and SB 9 disregards these efforts by mandating more housing in existing single-family zones. Lawmakers should avoid pushing unproven policies that undermine local planning, change the rules mid-stream, or conflict with the myriad of new housing laws recently passed.

Under the bill’s new provisions, cities may deny a proposed housing project if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment and if there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid said impact. Unfortunately, the amendment’s scope is extremely limited and would likely only apply in a handful of cases.  

Additionally, the measure now requires an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. However, this provision falls short of a mandatory obligation to occupy one of the new units.

What can your city do about SB 9? This bill can be voted on as early as Thursday, August 26. Call your Assembly Member and Senator today and ask them to vote no on SB 9. Then, send a letter of opposition to your Legislator and sign on to Cal Cities’ coalition letter opposing SB 9. Contact your Regional Public Affairs Manager for more information about the bill’s status or the coalition letter.

AB 989 (Gabriel) Housing Appeals Committee — Oppose

Although SB 9 has received the lion’s share of attention, several other bills would also have a negative impact on communities throughout the state. For example, AB 989 would create an Office of Housing Appeals within the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which would have the power to review alleged violations of the Housing Accountability Act for specified housing development projects. The bill allows an appeals panel, not a court, to overturn a local land use decision. Although AB 989 is intended to speed these types of reviews up, it actually slows the process down by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy.

What can your city do about AB 989? Call your Senator if they are a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and voice your opposition to AB 989.​ Then, send a letter of opposition to your Senator.​

AB 1401 (Friedman) Residential and Commercial Development. Parking Requirements — Oppose

Like the previous measures, AB 1401 fails to consider local conditions, circumstances, or needs. The bill would prohibit local governments (depending on population) from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement for residential, commercial, and other developments if the parcel is located within a one-half mile or one-quarter mile walking distance of public transit. However, restricting parking requirements does not guarantee that individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will actually use transit. Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion.

AB 1401 also would give developers and transit agencies — who are unaccountable to local voters — the power to determine parking requirements. Additionally, the bill could negatively impact the state’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring them to include affordable housing units in the project.  

What can your city do about AB 1401? Call your Senator if they are a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and voice your opposition to AB 1401.​ Then, send a letter of opposition to your Senator.​

AB 215 (Chiu) Housing Element — Oppose

Fortunately, Cal Cities helped secure amendments that addressed many cities’ original concerns with AB 215. Unfortunately, the author also added several new amendments that could negatively impact cities. The measure currently authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to appoint or contract with other counsel if the Attorney General (AG) declines to represent the department in a lawsuit against a city. AB 215 would also allow a three-year statute of limitation to apply to any action or proceeding brought by the AG or HCD.   

What can your city do about AB 215? These new amendments may be removed. However, cities should draft a letter of opposition in the event that action is needed. Be prepared to contact your Senator and Assembly Member.

AB 500 (Ward) Local Planning. Permitting. Coastal Development — Reconsidering

AB 500 is the bill to pay attention to for cities in the coastal zone. Cal Cities opposed the bill in its original form, which would have granted the California Coastal Commission housing authority, thus potentially creating two conflicting mandates for cities. The measure was recently amended into a study bill, which Cal Cities does not oppose. However, the bill may be amended again, this time closer to its original form, which Cal Cities does oppose.

Categories
Housing Laws

The Elderly Suffer

Why elderly renters are being priced out of their apartments in this California city

BY CASSANDRA GARIBAY

AUGUST 24, 2021 10:11 AM

Play Video

Duration 1:30

Woman leaves Clovis apartment when told rent was going up. Now she lives in her car

Deborah Berlin Cortes was on low-income housing assistance, but when she was told that the Sierra Ridge Apartments was ending compliance with the program, she sold off most of her belongings and began living in her car. BY CRAIG KOHLRUSS

When 66-year old Clovis resident Deborah Cortes received notice that her rent would soon double, she made the decision to sell all of her belongings and move into her Nissan Versa Note.

She said it made more financial sense to keep up with her car payments than to continue to pay rent at an apartment that she would inevitably be priced out of.

“I know my finances; I knew I wouldn’t have made it,” Cortes said. “It’s terrible; it’s very terrible.”

Cortes, who lives off about $2,000 a month, said she fell behind on one month’s rent due to a parking ticket. She moved out July 30, roughly two months after receiving notice that her rent would soon jump from the restricted rate of $591 to the market rate, which she was told was about $1,295, not including utilities.

“I’m living day by day,” said Cortes, who bounces between Clovis and the Bay Area, sleeping in friend’s driveways and at grocery store parking lots.

Now, other tenants at the Sierra Ridge apartment complex in Clovis are fearing the same fate. As many as 36 households at Sierra Ridge are at risk of being priced out of their homes as the apartment complex’s contract to maintain affordable housing units comes to an end.

Tenants living in rent-restricted affordable housing units at Sierra Ridge apartment complex owned by Golden State Financial (GSF) Sierra Ridge Clovis Investors were told in late April that their units would soon become market-rate — doubling the price in some instances from $591 to $1,295 for a one-bedroom or from $699 to around $1,400 for a two-bedroom.

One resident’s daughter, Cheryl Silveira, said her mother June Horton, 82, has lived at the apartment complex for 26 years and is “horrified” that she will be displaced, but “doesn’t get the full scheme of it.”

“Ethically, what they are doing is criminal,” Silveira said.

Legally, however, the property owners are allowed to convert the units to market-rate so long as they follow specific rules during the transition period.

GSF Properties did not return several requests for comment made via phone call.

ELDERLY TENANTS FEAR THEY WILL HAVE NOWHERE TO GO

Silveira, who is her mother’s caregiver, said Horton’s rent is expected to jump from $591 to around $1,295, excluding utilities, according to a notice her mother received about three months ago. It was the same notice that Cortes received.

“I don’t get it under normal circumstances,” Silveira said of the return to market rate. “ I especially don’t get it during COVID-19.”

Silveira said she lives in a two-story house that her mother would not be able to navigate and is on a fixed income herself. She and her sister are struggling to put together a plan for their mother.

“We’re in an impossible situation,” Silveira said. “It’s like throwing a life preserver to somebody, and then you’re going to drown.”

Error! Filename not specified.CRAIG KOHLRUSS CKOHLRUSS@FRESNOBEE.COM

Eloy Cardenas, Horton’s next-door neighbor, said he was told by management that the rent for his two-bedroom apartment would rise from $699 to around $1,400 a month in January 2022.

Cardenas, 67, has lived at Sierra Ridge for two years after waiting one year for a unit to open up at the apartment complex. He shares the two bedroom apartment with his aunt who has moved into a family member’s house since she learned of the upcoming rent increase.

His daughter, Holly Cardenas, a Fresno State student, said she is worried for her father, but she lives in a market-rate one-bedroom that does not have the space for him to move in with her. She has called a handful of affordable housing apartments in Clovis and Fresno and placed her father on waitlists wherever they are open, but with only 583 affordable housing units in Clovis and a shortfall of 36,000 affordable housing units in Fresno, she knows that finding a low-cost unit for her father before the deadline is not realistic.

“Clovis is short on affordable housing units,” Holly Cardenas said. “Village on Shaw no longer has a waitlist, and others have a three to the five-year waitlist. Some even have a seven to the 10-year waitlist.”

Cardenas said he is not sure what he will do when his rent is raised.

specified. CRAIG KOHLRUSS CKOHLRUSS@FRESNOBEE.COM

Other tenants who rely on Section 8 housing vouchers, but do not reside in rent-restricted apartments, said they have had recent rent increases and are also fearful of being eventually priced out.

“They don’t want low-income (tenants) here anymore,” said James Evans, who lives across the way from Cardenas and Horton.

Evans is paraplegic and has lived at the complex for 16 years. His friend Michelle Toler, who lives on the other end of the apartment complex, and relies on Section 8 vouchers, said her rent recently increased by $300.

Toler said if the rent increases again, she will be homeless.

“I don’t think there is anywhere to go; my neighbor upstairs sold everything and moved into her car,” Toler added, referring to Cortes.

HOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS CAN BE CONVERTED TO MARKET RATE

Despite the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 — which prohibits landlords from increasing rent more than 10% annually in California — units that were rent-restricted through the low-income housing tax credit program can be raised to market rate once the contract between developers and the state has ended.

The low income-affordable tax credit program has helped create and preserve affordable homes in California and is the biggest driver for new affordable housing developments; but as is the case with Sierra Ridge, when the affordable housing contracts expire, there is no guarantee that the owners will choose to keep them affordable.

Sierra Ridge, which has more than 180 units, received low-income tax credits in 1990 with the stipulation that 36 of the units be rent-restricted from 1990 to Jan. 2021, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as well as a notice tenants received from Sierra Ridge management.

As of Jan. 2021, the developer’s contractual agreement was complete.

Now the property owners are in a transitional period to convert the 36 units to full price, effectively displacing tenants like Cortes, Cardenas and Horton, with fixed incomes. The Bee could not confirm whether all 36 rent-restricted units were currently occupied.

According to Matt Schwartz, the President, and CEO of the California Housing Partnership, converting affordable housing back to market rate “is not very common” in California. However, a 2017 California Housing Partnership analysis of low-income housing tax credit developments found that it is more common if the properties are not owned by a large, stable non-profit or mission-driven developer and if the property doesn’t have overlapping funding that extends affordability.

The 2017 study identified nine developments (274 affordable homes) in the Central Valley which were at risk of conversion.

“There’s no strong mechanism at the statewide level to renew those contracts,” said Andrew Haussler, the Clovis Community and Economic Development director.

“Those developers have the opportunity to either refinance those and be done with the affordability covenants or seek funding for more affordability,” Haussler said. “But these projects cost in the neighborhood of $20 (million) and $40 million, and the level of subsidy needed to make it affordable is significant.”

While it is within the property owner’s legal right to convert the units to market-rate once the agreement expires, there are certain regulations during the transition process that must be followed, according to the HCD.

Sierra Ridge property owners must give tenants a 12-month notice and then a six-month notice that rent restrictions will expire. All notices to tenants and public agencies affected must be made by first-class mail, according to the state preservation notice requirements.

The property owners must also issue a Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase, which would allow non-profits and other entities the chance to buy the building and keep the units affordable. Even if GSF Properties does not intend to sell the property, they must give others the opportunity to make a bid, according to the HCD. If they reject any offers made, then they must commit to not selling the property for at least five years.

So far, tenants said they have received only one notice that was posted to their door in late April, not via mail. Beyond being told their rent would increase, tenants also said they’ve been left in the dark about when exactly that change will occur and where else they could move.

Holly Cardenas said she contacted The Bee upon realizing that many tenants impacted by this rent hike were elderly, some without families.

“The thing is,” she said, “a majority of the residents don’t know the gravity of this.”

The Fresno Bee submitted a public records request with Fresno County on Friday to determine whether any bids for the property have been made or rejected.

The HCD said if regulations are not followed, tenants have a “legal footing to enforce their rights under the law.” GSF Properties did not return several requests for comment.

COULD THIS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED?

In the city of Clovis, affordable housing is difficult to come by, so much so that the city is currently in the midst of a lawsuit for not meeting affordable housing zoning requirements based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Haussler said a “financing gap” and lack of state resources have made it challenging to bring new affordable housing units to the city.

According to Haussler, in Clovis, there are 582 multifamily affordable housing units, he said, but “there are waiting lists for almost all of those, and there is a lack of supply; there’s incredible demand throughout the region.”

“We have a lot more (affordable housing) to replace that 36 underway, but it doesn’t mean it is matching up with these residents in particular,” Haussler said.

Haussler said he reached out to Sierra Ridge management and was told that they are meeting their contractual agreements with the state. Haussler also said Clovis tracks when contracts are set to expire — the next complex is set to expire in 2053.

According to the California Housing Partnership, there are several ways local jurisdictions can take part in preserving affordable housing that is at risk of conversion — including, tracking contracts in the area, identifying potential buyers, providing tenants with legal services, setting up local housing trust funds to purchase properties or requiring owners to provide relocation assistance. However, Haussler said Clovis’ limited housing funds has narrowed what the city can do at this point.

“It’s almost easier to build new projects,” Haussler said. “It’s been a challenge, and it’s unfortunate.”

Haussler said tenants at Sierra Ridge who have reached out to the city have been directed to other affordable housing complexes in the area.

While the city said they aren’t able to step in directly, Silveira said Sierra Ridge’s property management company could have.

GSF Properties, which owns and manages Sierra Ridge, also manages Solivita Commons, a new 60-unit affordable housing complex owned by Fresno Housing Authority in Clovis.

A lottery for Solivita Commons was opened to the public from March 22 to April 5, prior to Sierra Ridge tenants receiving a notice dated April 28 that stated the affordable housing program at their complex was ending. Several tenants said they received the notice in May.

“They put it up to the public in a lottery before they would offer it to their own residents who they knew they were displacing,” Silveira said.

Fresno Housing communications manager Brandi Johnson said the housing authority does not track expiring low income housing tax credit contracts throughout the county and does not have affiliation with Sierra Ridge, despite the property management company overlapping.

Silveira said her mother and other Sierra Ridge tenants would not be in the situation they are in now if they had been given priority to apply to Solivita Commons, or even notice that their rent would increase prior to the application window for Solivita Commons closing.

There is currently no availability at Solivita Commons, Johnson said.

Haussler said he did not know why GSF did not prioritize displaced Sierra Ridge tenants for units in Solivita Commons. GSF Properties did not respond to multiple requests for comments.

“Everybody is standing by and saying, ‘Yeah, go ahead and kick these senior citizens out,’” Cardenas said. “Somebody needs to step up and get something corrected.”

The Fresno Bee will be following the stories of tenants who are facing potential displacement through the process.

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)

What is the position of the City Council of Chino? It appears that the leadership of the council and its mayor embrace NIMBY.

This stance is an attempt to return to “Red Lining” that puts minorities in ghettos and barrios. Or, not to allow for building affordable homes to very low, medium low, and low income individuals as the California housing mandate. This includes single family parents, veterans, students, elderly, middle class, and the homeless.

This is backwards thinking, and not realistic with the current local and National housing crisis. Despite the outcome of this attempt, the California Housing Crisis will continue.

What is your opinion? Homes in California are out of the reach of people, too expensive? What is your position?

Opinion: Amid NIMBY Opposition, Will California Ever Build Enough Housing?

By Dan Walters • CalMatters Columnist

Posted by 

Times of San Diego

Times of San Diego

 1 day ago

🏘

A building under construction

Description automatically generated with low confidence. An infill townhouse project in San Jose. Photo by Wingchi Poon via Wikimedia Commons

California had a huge and growing housing problem before COVID-19 reared its ugly head 18 months ago, falling well short each year of state construction goals.

The pandemic, which continues to flare up, “exacerbated a long-standing housing shortage, intensified a statewide affordability crisis, and provoked housing instability,” the new state budget declares.

While suddenly unemployed workers struggled and often failed, to make their monthly payments, the prices for homes soared, freezing out many who aspired to ownership.

The budget projects that California will add, at best, about 100,000 housing units this year, which is scarcely half of the 180,000 units state housing authorities say are needed to meet current demand and reduce the backlog. And that projection did not take into account the current COVID-19 surge.

The Legislature has reconvened after its summer vacation and is sprinting toward adjournment in mid-September. Housing is or should be, at the top of its agenda.

While many factors affect the housing shortage, the most important is the reluctance of suburban communities to embrace multi-family housing projects, particularly those for low- and moderate-income renters.

Dubbed “not-in-my-backyard,” or NIMBY, it is by no means a recent phenomenon. One could trace it back to the anti-Asian exclusion laws of the 19th century, and 20th-century anti-okie laws and whites- and Christians-only deed covenants.

As California’s population exploded after World War II, some rural communities attempted to avoid becoming commuter suburbs. When Petaluma adopted a strict growth control law in the early 1970s, developers sued and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which allowed Petaluma’s law to remain in effect.

The state has made multiple attempts to overcome NIMBYism, such as imposing residential zoning quotas on regions and cities. Recent versions contain some penalties for cities that ignore their quotas and the state sued one city, Huntington Beach, for ignoring its quota.

One of the state’s many anti-NIMBY actions is the Housing Accountability Act, first enacted in 1982 and later tightened up. It essentially bars local governments from arbitrarily blocking housing projects that are “consistent with objective local development standards.”

Citing the law, pro-housing organizations have been challenging local governments when they reject low- and moderate-income projects and two cases are looming as tests of the law’s efficacy.

One is in Huntington Beach, which rejected a 48-unit project. The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) sued but a local judge ruled for the city, declaring that it had valid reasons, such as increased traffic, to deny a permit for the project.

CaRLA is also suing San Mateo, which imposed stringent design requirements on a 10-unit project that its developers said was onerous. Once again, a local judge ruled for the city and even questioned whether the Housing Accountability Act can be constitutionally applied to a charter city under the home rule doctrine.

Both cases are headed up the legal appeals chain and state Attorney General Rob Bonta is intervening in the San Mateo case to defend the law’s application.

That brings us back to back to the final weeks of the legislative session and two highly controversial anti-NIMBY measuresSenate Bill 9 is the latest effort by Senate President Pro Term Toni Atkins to allow small multi-family projects on lots zoned for single-family homes, while SB 10 would allow local governments to approve up to 10 units of housing on any lot, regardless of current zoning, near transit.

Whether they pass or fail will tell us much about the direction of housing policy as California’s crisis continues.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.

Categories
Housing Laws RHNA

More Than a Checkbox: Better Community Engagement 🏘

Click below for presentation

Categories
RHNA

LINKING CALIFORNIA’S PROJECT HOME KEY TO HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATES

Click below for information

SCAG 2020 Project Homekey Developments.xlsx

Categories
RHNA SCAG

TACKLING CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CRISIS – HOUSING STRATEGIES TO HELP ADDRESS THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS 🏘

Click below for information on webinar

Tackling California’s Housing Crisis – Housing Strategies to Help Address the Homelessness Crisis – Southern California Association of Governments