California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the creation of a Housing Strike Force within the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the convening of a series of tenant roundtables across the state. Attorney General Bonta today also launched a Housing Portal on DOJ’s website with resources and information for California homeowners and tenants. Together, the Housing Strike Force, roundtables, and Housing Portal are part of DOJ’s new effort to advance housing access, affordability, and equity in California. DOJ’s Housing Strike Force will draw on the expertise of attorneys from the Land Use and Conservation Section, the Consumer Protection Section, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, and the Environment Section’s Bureau of Environmental Justice to address the housing crisis and to alleviate its effects.
“California is facing a housing shortage and affordability crisis of epic proportion,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Every day, millions of Californians worry about keeping a roof over their head, and there are too many across this state who lack housing altogether. Our Housing Strike Force, along with the tenant roundtables and Housing Portal, will allow DOJ to ramp up our efforts to tackle this crisis and advance housing access, affordability, and equity across California. This is a top priority and a fight we won’t back down from. As Attorney General, I am committed to using all the tools my office has available to advance Californians’ fundamental right to housing.”
“California has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address its housing crisis thanks to the historic $22 billion housing and homelessness investments in this year’s budget. But it’ll only work if local governments do their part to zone and permit new housing,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “The Attorney General’s emphasis on holding cities and counties accountable for fair housing, equity and housing production is an important component to the state’s efforts to tackle the affordability crisis and create greater opportunities for all Californians to have an affordable place to call home.”
“Passing strong housing laws is only the first step. To tackle our severe housing shortage, those laws must be consistently and vigorously enforced,” said California State Senator Scott Wiener, Chair of the Senate Housing Committee. “I applaud Attorney General Bonta’s commitment to strong enforcement of California’s housing laws.”
Over the last four decades, housing needs have significantly outpaced housing production in California. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making it harder for Californians to keep a roof over their heads. Despite significant effort, California continues to host a disproportionate share of people experiencing homelessness in the United States, with an estimated 150,000 Californians sleeping in shelters, in their cars, or on the street. California’s 17 million renters spend a significant portion of their paychecks on rent, with an estimated 700,000 Californians at risk of eviction. High home purchase costs — the median price of a single-family home in California is more than $800,000 — have led to the lowest homeownership rates since the 1940s. Due to decades of systemic racism, these challenges have continuously and disproportionately impacted communities of color. For example, almost half of Black households in California spend more than 30% of their income on housing, compared with only a third of white households.
DOJ’s Housing Strike Force will take an innovative and intersectional approach to addressing the housing crisis, focusing on tenant protections, housing availability and environmental sustainability, housing affordability, and equitable and fair housing opportunity for tenants and owners. Specifically, the Strike Force will work to address the shortage and affordability crisis by:
Enforcing state housing and development laws in the Attorney General’s independent capacity and on behalf of DOJ’s client agencies. Earlier this year, the Governor signed AB 215 enhancing the Attorney General’s concurrent role in enforcing state housing laws;
Enforcing tenant rights, mortgage servicing, and other consumer protection laws;
Issuing consumer alerts advising tenants and homeowners on their protections under state and federal law;
Issuing guidance letters to local governments on state housing laws;
Defending state housing and tenant protection laws from legal challenges; and
Advocating with the state legislature, federal agencies, and other state agencies to advance a right to housing.
The Attorney General’s tenant roundtables and Housing Portal will also inform and serve as a repository for the Housing Strike Force’s priorities and work. In the coming months, Attorney General Bonta will travel across the state to meet with tenant groups and identify opportunities for the Housing Strike Force to leverage the tools of the Office of the Attorney General to protect California’s tenants. The Housing Portal, launched today, will give Californians the tools they need to avail themselves of protections under state and federal law. As the Housing Strike Force mobilizes, the Portal will also be updated to include information on the Housing Strike Force’s priorities, enforcement efforts, and roadmaps for citizen involvement. The Housing Strike Force encourages Californians to send complaints or tips related to housing to housing@doj.ca.gov. Information on legal aid in your area is available at https://lawhelpca.org.
Attorney General Bonta is committed to advancing housing access, affordability, and equity. Following the expiration of the statewide eviction moratorium on October 1, Attorney General Bonta issued a consumer alert, and accompanying video, reminding California’s tenants and homeowners of their rights and protections under California law. The Attorney General also successfully defended the constitutionality and statewide applicability of the California Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The HAA protects housing availability and affordability by imposing limits on the ability of cities to reject proposals for housing developments that otherwise satisfy general plan and zoning requirements. Attorney General Bonta supported Assemblymember David Chiu’s AB 215, which solidifies the commitment to enforce state laws designed to address the housing shortage crisis.
In California, where home prices are pushing people farther from their jobs, rising traffic is creating more pollution.
California has long been seen as a leader in climate change. The state’s history of aggressive action to reduce air pollution, accelerate the use of renewable energy and speed the transition to a low-carbon, the climate-resilient economy has inspired governments around the world to set more ambitious climate goals.
But there is trouble on the horizon, and California’s climate leadership is at risk.
Across most of the state’s economy, greenhouse gas emissions have been trending steadily down. But ballooning car traffic on city streets and freeways is negating much of that progress. In California, about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation, and they are increasing. In some California counties, two-thirds of emissions are from vehicles.
In November, the California Air Resources Board released an update on efforts to reduce pollution from transportation. The numbers were alarming. Despite headlines about California’s push for more electric vehicles, pollution from cars is still climbing. “With emissions from the transportation sector continuing to rise, California will not achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet mandates for 2030,” the board warned.
The solution? “Significant changes to how communities and transportation systems are planned, funded, and built,” the board said. Put more directly, to solve the climate crisis, we must solve the housing crisis.
Numerous climate researchers have a similar conclusion. In an assessment of the carbon footprint of 700 California cities, experts with the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, including one of us (Dr. Kammen), found that, for most coastal California cities, “infill” housing — that is, housing built in urban areas, near transit, jobs, and services — can reduce greenhouse gas pollution more effectively than any other option.
The relationship between housing and transportation emissions is not complicated. The housing crisis in our cities and job centers — California is short 3.5 million homes according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute — is forcing more workers to “drive till they qualify,” the term used by real estate agents for what a growing number of Californians must do to find housing they can afford. As cities that are job centers make it hard or impossible to build housing — for example, through de facto bans on apartment buildings in areas zoned for single-family homes — people who have pricedout move further away, resulting in the sprawl that covers up farmland and open space, clogs freeways and increases greenhouse gas emissions.
The results are anything but equitable. By making housing shockingly expensive near jobs and transit, cities force low-income and working-class people to live far away from where they work. Our communities lose their economic diversity, while the abundant opportunities, services, and neighborhood amenities of cities are walled off to all but the very wealthy.
Low-density, single-family-home zoning is effectively a ban on economically diverse communities.
Californians need more and better alternatives to cars for transportation and easier access to walkable communities and affordable housing near mass transit. Of course, we also must accelerate the electrification of our vehicles, another way to reduce pollution from cars. But, as the air resources board has found, electrification alone cannot happen fast enough to solve the problem, and we need to reduce the number of miles people drive by 25 percent.
In his first major speech since taking office, Gov. Gavin Newsom placed solving the housing crisis at the top of his agenda. Under his proposed budget, cities that don’t build enough housing will lose state transportation funding.
And this legislative session, a bipartisan coalition of California legislators is supporting the More Home which is sponsored by one of us (Senator Wiener). The bill would override local restrictive zoning by legalizing small to midsize apartment buildings (up to five stories) near job centers and public transportation and set minimum affordability standards for some of those units. The legislation would also help existing renters keep their homes in areas that qualify for new housing. The measures are intended to stem the growth of super-computers — workers who are priced out of areas near their jobs and forced to drive long distances to get to work.
Cities across the United States face issues like those in California, too many of which have largely closed the doors to new residents — only to force them into similar patterns of crushing commutes and worsening pollution.
Measures like the More Homes Act offer a road map to cities and states that want to address these issues head-on. In fact, we’d argue that surging interest in urban housing and transportation issues, and the rise of the grassroots Yes in My Back Yard (YIMBY) movement that’s behind it, is perhaps the most hopeful development in the American climate movement in recent years.
Unlike many of our climate policy challenges, housing and transit are largely controlled by cities and states. If we can build more momentum for more homes near transit and jobs, we can continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in California and around the country, and make sure our progress continues apace.
New Housing Element Adoption and Rezoning LegislationGovernor Newsom recently signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1398 (Bloom), which will affect housing element rezoning deadlines for all California jurisdictions –including those within the SCAG region. Below are the primary changes resulting from AB 1398:Four-year Cycle Requirement RemovedSixth cycle housing elements within the SCAG region are due to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by Oct. 15. Prior to AB 1398, jurisdictions that did not adopt a housing element within 120 days of this date (by Feb. 11, 2022) were required to develop a housing element every four years instead of eight. AB 1398 has removed the requirement for a four-year housing element regardless of when a housing element is adopted by a jurisdiction.New Rezoning Completion DateWith the enactment of AB 1398, jurisdictions that adopt a compliant housing element by Feb. 11, 2022, will still have three years after adoption to complete necessary rezoning. However, jurisdictions that do not have an adopted housing element found to be in substantial compliance by HCD by Feb. 11, 2022, must complete all necessary rezoning within one year of the housing element due date. For the SCAG region, this means that jurisdictions that do not adopt a compliant housing element by Feb. 11, 2022, must complete all rezoning by Oct. 15, 2022.
Jurisdictions that do not complete necessary rezoning by Oct. 15, 2022, may trigger additional housing element review by HCD and potential removal of compliance status or litigation under AB 72. Jurisdictions that adopt more than one year after Oct. 15, 2021, cannot receive housing element compliance status from HCD until the rezoning is complete. HCD is currently developing guidelines for AB 1398 and SCAG will continue to monitor and facilitate discussions regarding housing element compliance with HCD.
We are in the middle of a housing and homelessness crisis both statewide and here in Los Angeles County. California is estimated to need an additional 3.5 million homes by 2025 to meet the demand. In our region, many residents struggle to pay rent and cannot afford to buy homes in neighborhoods where they grew up. More people are experiencing homelessness as a result. Our communities need a wide range of housing types (apartments, townhouses, and condos,etc.) and size to meet different needs. The amount and types of housing in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County are not meeting the overall housing need. The Housing Element for 2021-2029 will help address this need.
What is the Housing Element?
The Housing Element is the County’s housing policy guide for the unincorporated areas – areas that are NOT within any city. The County of Los Angeles, along with all California cities and counties, is required to update its Housing Element every eight years. The Housing Element identifies housing conditions and needs and establishes the County’s housing strategy through goals and policies. It also includes programs to ensure decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for current and future residents of the unincorporated areas, including those with special needs. The County is currently updating its Housing Element for 2021-2029.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The foundation for the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), in which the State estimates each region’s housing needs for the upcoming eight years. State law requires each city and county to plan for the estimated number of homes for its current and future residents through land use and zoning regulations. These regulations include the number of homes per acre that are allowed on a parcel, and the allowable housing types (such as single-family homes, apartments, and townhouses).
The RHNA for the unincorporated areas for 2021-2029 is approximately 90,000 homes, which is the largest number the County has ever had. Neither property owners nor the County is required to build these housing units.
Sites Inventory
Per State law, the Housing Element must include a Sites Inventory to show that there is enough land in the unincorporated areas where the 90,000 new homes are allowed to be built under current land use and zoning regulations. In general, the Sites Inventory includes two types of sites:
Vacant sites where one single-family home is allowed per parcel; and
Vacant or underused sites where multi-family housing development (e.g. apartments and townhouses) is allowed.
An important step in the selection process for the Sites Inventory is to consider whether a site is developable and suitable for a particular housing type, such as a single-family home or a multi-family housing development. Environmentally sensitive or naturally constrained areas, as shown on the map below, are not suitable for multi-family housing development.
Sites that are outside of environmentally sensitive or naturally constrained areas must meet several other requirements to be included in the Sites Inventory for multi-family housing development, including an allowable density of 30 or more units per acre. Also, these sites must have the potential for more homes to be built compared to what is currently on the ground.
Sites that are in the draft inventory are shown on the map below. As the Sites Inventory falls short of the goal to have enough land zoned for the 90,000 new homes, the Housing Element includes a rezoning program to allow for more housing, as required by State law.
Rezoning Program – Site Selection
Per State law, the Housing Element Update rezoning program must include a list of sites that will be rezoned between 2021-2024. The site selection process involves many factors. Together, these factors address two questions:
Where should more housing, especially multi-family housing types (e.g. apartments and townhouses) be built in the unincorporated areas?
How likely is a particular site to be suitable for housing development in the upcoming eight years?
Where should more housing, especially multi-family housing be built?
When determining where to rezone to allow for more housing, especially multi-family housing types such as apartments and townhouses, the main goals are to encourage infill development in urbanized areas, and to prioritize public health, safety, and equity.
Sites in environmentally sensitive or naturally constrained areas, such as the Coastal Zone, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Significant Ecological Areas, and Hillside Management Areas are not selected for rezoning as these areas are not suitable for multi-family housing development.
Sites that are outside of environmentally sensitive or naturally constrained areas are then prioritized based on additional locational criteria. Sites that are located near transit, amenities, and services, and within areas served by existing infrastructure (e.g. public water and sewer systems) are considered more suitable for multi-family housing development and thus rezoning.
Also, historic, discriminatory land use and housing policies have resulted in disadvantaged communities with concentrated poverty. To encourage diverse, inclusive, and mixed-income neighborhoods, sites that are located in areas with more resources and opportunities in terms of educational attainment, employment, and economic mobility as identified by the State are also prioritized for rezoning.
How likely is a particular site to be suitable for housing development in the upcoming eight years?
Per State law, sites that are included in the rezoning program must be suitable for a housing development during the upcoming eight years. In other words, the site must be developable, with sufficient water, sewer, and other utilities available to support housing development. If a site is not vacant, the following factors are considered to determine whether the site will likely be suitable for more housing in the upcoming eight years:
Age of Existing Buildings: Property owners and developers are more likely to redevelop the site if the existing buildings are relatively older. We use 20 years as the threshold for existing non-residential buildings, and 50 years as the threshold for existing residential buildings;
Land Value vs. Improvement Value: If the land is more valuable than the existing improvement, the property owner is more likely to redevelop the site with a more intense use, such as multi-family housing development; and
Contamination: Sites that are or have been contaminated (e.g. gas stations) often require a lot of money and time for clean-up. These sites are unlikely to be suitable for housing development in the near future.
In addition, State law requires that the rezoning must allow at least 16 additional homes to be built on a given property compared to what is currently on the site.
Senate Bill 9 is the product of a multi-year effort to develop solutions to address our state’s housing crisis. The Senate Housing Package of bills, ‘Building Opportunities for All,’ establishes opportunities to make real progressive and positive changes in our communities to strengthen the fabric of our neighborhoods with equity, inclusivity, and affordability.
Provides options for homeowners to build intergenerational wealth. SB 9 provides more options for families to maintain and build intergenerational wealth a currency we know is crucial to combatting inequity and creating social mobility. The families who own these properties could provide affordable rental opportunities for other working families who may be struggling to find a rental home in their price range, or who may be looking for their own path to home ownership.
Benefits homeowners NOT institutional investors. Recent amendments require a local agency to impose an owner occupancy requirement as a condition of a homeowner receiving a ministerial lot split. This bill also prohibits the development of small subdivisions and prohibits ministerial lot splits on adjacent parcels by the same individual to prevent investor speculation. In fact, allowing for more neighborhood scale housing in California’s communities actually curbs the market power of institutional investors. SB 9 prevents profiteers from evicting or displacing tenants by excluding properties where a tenant has resided in the past three years.
Establishes a maximum number of units. Recent amendments clarify that this bill would allow no more than four units on what a single-family parcel is currently.
Preserves historic neighborhoods. SB 9 excludes historic and landmark districts.
Respects local control. Homeowners must comply with local zoning requirements when developing a duplex (height, floor area ratios, lot coverage etc.) as long as they do not physically preclude a lot split or duplex. This bill also allows locals to require a percolation test for any duplex proposed to be on septic tanks.
Promotes strategic infill growth. Under this bill, the parcel must be located in a jurisdiction that is part of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the US Census. This means that it applies only to areas that meet certain population and density thresholds. It excludes the provisions of the bill being used in very high fire hazard severity zones, prime agriculture land, hazardous waste sites, earthquake zones, floodplains that do not have adequate mitigation, and others. At the end of the day, if local governments do not allow people to build homes in an area, then the bill does not apply.
What this bill does: Senate Bill 9 – the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act streamlines the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot. Any new housing created as a result of this bill must meet a specific list of qualifications that protects historic districts, preserves the environmental quality and the look of communities, and prevents tenants from being displaced. This legislation will enable homeowners to create intergenerational wealth and provide access to more rental and ownership options for working families who would otherwise be priced out of neighborhoods.
What’s different from last year: We took what was a good bill – which had widespread support in both the Senate and Assembly at the end of last year and was on track to pass before it fell victim to the clock – and improved upon it since reintroducing it as SB 9 this year. We listened to concerns from homeowners, municipalities, and other stakeholders, and have incorporated many amendments to make the bill stronger, clearer, and address those concerns. Because of all the variables that make a neighborhood what it is – the size of lots, local ordinances, the desire of homeowners to even use this option – not everyone will choose to do a lot split or turn their home into a duplex, just like not everyone added an ADU when that good law was enacted.
MYTHS VS. FACTS
What this bill does: Senate Bill 9 – the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act streamlines the process for a homeowner to create a duplex or subdivide an existing lot. To be eligible for the streamlining provided by this bill, a parcel must meet a specific list of qualifications that protects historic districts, preserves the environmental quality and the look of communities, and prevents tenants from being displaced. This legislation will enable homeowners to create intergenerational wealth and provide access to more rental and ownership options for working families who would otherwise be priced out of neighborhoods.
What’s different from last year: We took what was a good bill – which had widespread support in both the Senate and Assembly at the end of last year and was on track to pass before it fell victim to the clock – and improved upon it since reintroducing it as SB 9 this year. We listened to concerns from homeowners, municipalities, and other stakeholders, and have incorporated many amendments to make the bill stronger, clearer, and address those concerns.
Myth: My neighbors are going to be able to build 5 or 6-units next door to my single-family home.
Fact: SB 9 would allow no more than four units on what a single-family parcel is currently. This bill encourages neighborhood-scale homes – meaning modifications to a property need to be in keeping with the look of the neighborhood.
Myth: This is going to ruin the look of our neighborhood.
Fact: In many communities across California – including in San Diego – there are beautiful duplexes and triplexes next door to traditional single-family homes. Look at Linda Vista, Hillcrest, North Park – these are communities central to the city and job centers that are coveted places to live. In fact, many are beautiful and well-kept, providing not only a bright spot on the street but a comfortable place for not just one but two households to call home.
Myth: This bill won’t help expand housing options that are more affordable and help real people.
Fact: The HOME Act builds intergenerational wealth. For homeowners, it provides more options to maintain and build intergenerational wealth – a currency we know is crucial to combatting inequity and creating social mobility. There is no silver bullet to solving the housing crisis that has been decades in the making. SB 9 is one modest tool in the toolbox. This bill allows for more types of housing to create more equitable and inclusive neighborhoods.
Myth: This is a land grab by institutional investors looking to ruin our neighborhoods.
Fact: This bill benefits homeowners, and homeowners alone. SB 9 contains an owner-occupancy requirement, which requires a homeowner to live in one of the units for three years from the time they get approval for a lot split. Additionally, this bill prohibits the development of small subdivisions and prohibits ministerial lot splits on adjacent parcels by the same individual to prevent investor speculation. In fact, allowing for more neighborhood-scale housing in California’s communities actually curbs the market power of institutional investors. SB 9 also prevents profiteers from evicting or displacing tenants by excluding properties where a tenant has resided in the past three years.
Myth: This bill will destroy historic neighborhoods.
Fact: SB 9 excludes historic and landmark districts.
Myth: This will change local control of land-use decisions.
Fact: Homeowners must comply with local zoning requirements when developing a duplex (height, floor area ratios, lot coverage, etc.) as long as they do not physically preclude a duplex. This bill also allows locals to require a percolation test for any duplex proposed to be on septic tanks.
Myth: Under SB 9, a lot split requires a single-family home to be demolished.
Fact: This bill provides options for homeowners and does NOT require any demolition. SB 9 contains strong tenant protections to ensure rental housing is not demolished. A recent study shows that the additional housing options provided by SB 9 actually decrease the likelihood of a single-family home being torn down and replaced by a larger single-family home. Additionally, nearly 97% of all single-family homes would be retained under SB 9. This bill is one way to help solve the state’s housing production crisis. SB 9 provides more pathways to homeownership and expands access to the California dream.
Myth: This bill does not take into consideration environmental and infrastructure concerns.
Fact: Under this bill, the parcel must be located in a jurisdiction that is part of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the US Census. This means that it applies only to areas that meet certain population and density thresholds. It excludes very high fire hazard severity zones, prime agriculture land, hazardous waste sites, earthquake zones, floodplains that do not have adequate mitigation, and others. At the end of the day, if local governments do not allow people to build homes in an area, then the bill does not apply. Additionally, SB 9 does NOT make any changes to existing law, which specifies a local agency’s ability to impose impact fees.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
1 day ago
🏘
. 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 measures. Senate 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.
