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.
What does RHNA mean for all Cities? What are the plans for the City of Chino to implement RHNA and positive change for all the residents?
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by California State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. SCAG adopted the 6th cycle RHNA allocation plan which covers the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.
The City of Chino is required to use RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth. RHNA has the collective objective for the region and subregion to grow in ways that enhances quality of life, improves access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity and fair share housing needs.
To meet the RHNA requirements the City of Chino needs to update their Housing Elements and local zoning to show how they will accommodate their share of the RHNA allocation over the 2021-29-time frame.
Responsibility of the City of Chino with respect to RHNA are:
Specify goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and constraints for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels.
Identify sites for housing and provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment.
Analyze special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
Demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints that hinder locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.
Analyze existing affordable units at risk of converting to market-rate due to expiring subsidies or affordability contracts.
Assess existing fair housing issues and strategies for affirmatively furthering fair housing.
So, what are the consequences of a community not meeting RHNA requirements:
State Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions plan for all types of housing based on the allocations they receive from the RHNA process by planning, in the form of having a compliant housing element, and submitting housing element annual progress reports, as a threshold or points-related requirement for certain funding programs (SB 1 Sustainable Community Planning Grants, SB 2 Planning Grants and Permanent Local Housing Allocation, etc.). Late submission of a housing element can result in a jurisdiction being required to submit a four-year update to their housing element.
HCD may refer jurisdictions to the Attorney General if they do not have a compliant housing element, fail to comply with their HCD-approved housing element, or violate housing element law, the housing accountability act, density bonus law, no net loss law, or land use discrimination law. The consequences of those cases brought by the Attorney General are up to the courts but can include financial penalties.
In addition, as the housing element is one of the required components of the general plan, a jurisdiction without a compliant housing element, may risk legal challenges to their general plan from interested parties outside of HCD.
Local governments must also implement their commitments from the housing element, and the statute has several consequences for the lack of implementation. For example, failure to rezone in a timely manner may impact a local government’s land use authority and result in a carryover of RHNA to the next cycle. Failure to implement programs can also influence future housing element updates and requirements, such as program timing. HCD may investigate any action or lack of action in the housing element.
For jurisdictions that did not issue permits for enough housing to keep pace consistent with RHNA building goals, a developer can elect to use a ministerial process to get project approval for residential projects that meet certain conditions. This, in effect, makes it easier to build housing in places that are not on target to meet their building goals.
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 – 66499.58] (Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)
DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 – 66301] (Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.)
CHAPTER 3. Local Planning [65100 – 65763] (Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880.)
ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 – 65589.11] (Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143.)
Early attainment of goals
time is of the essence
Is there a shortage of housing in California?
Special attention to low- and moderate-income households
Availability of housing:
decent housing,
suitable living environment,
for all economic levels
Local government focus:
Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community
each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs
Designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of housing sufficient to meet the locality’s housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the state’s housing goals and the purposes of this blog.
What are the mandated housing laws? What is the cost to cities that do not follow the mandated housing laws?
Only 3% of California’s cities and counties are fully on track to meet state goals to build sufficient housing —and 30% are failing to issue permits at all for affordable housing.
The Southern California News Group used that data to create its second annual housing permit report card for all 539 cities and counties in the state. Only 33 were doing well enough to earn an A, while 96 got an F. The average grade was a C-. Of the more than 116,000 permits that jurisdictions reported issuing in 2019, the year cover by the most recent state data, 78% were for above-moderate income housing. A mere 13% were for moderate-income housing and 9% for low and very-low-income housing. Chino needs to build 6974 affordable dwellings.
Here are the RHNA numbers for Chino and Chino Hills:
Total: 6974
Very Low-Income, Low-Income, Moderate-Income, Above-Moderate Income
Chino 2113 1284 1203 2378
Chino Hills 3729 1388 821 789 731
Each jurisdiction’s total is divided into four categories:
–Very-low-income housing that would be affordable for people making less than half of the area’s median income
–Low-income housing for people making 51-80% of median income
–Moderate-income housing for people making 81-120% of median income
–Above-moderate-income housing for people making more than 120%of median income
The low and very low categories are what the state considers “affordable housing”
All Cities and Counties are required by law to adopt land use plans and zone enough land to accommodate their RHNA goals, but not to ensure homes are built—that’s up to developers.
Many cities lack the political motivation to build affordable housing, and residents like the way their hometowns are already like. The residents argue, “We do not want those kinds of people in our city. Or we do not want our city to look like South Chicago. Some residents go on to say, “The character of our city will change if we let Asians, Blacks, and more illegals into our city, we need to stop allowing those people from moving into our city, we need to close our city border”. City councilmembers, likewise, openly state that their city does not want those people moving into the city”. This is clearly against the law and un-American.
The lack of requirements to ensure affordable housing is built makes it easy for city councilmembers “to take the easy way out and deny development that might cause community concerns and their seat on the council, votes.Just pass the Buck and Blame, Blame, Blame!
Affordable housing, as part of a full spectrum of housing opportunities, helps support the local economics and workers—there’s no city that shouldn’t be concerned with nurturing their local economy, especially after COVID-19, and housing should be a part of that.
The city of Chino received a C- in fulfilling its RHNA obligations. And still with no plan. The entire city council seems to blame everyone including Santa Claus. The City Councilmember of Chino needs to work with the State and developers and look at their outdated zoning for the City to make changes. Chino is planning to build affordable housing on the borderlines of the City limits, like the saying goes, “Out of sight…Out of Mind”. The question arises, “Where will our children live?” Many individuals, between 18 and 41, young and old cannot afford rent and are living with their parents. I believe the city of Chino needs to embrace the 21st century and collaborate with the experts. The housing crisis is real according to the NLC (National League of Cities), LOCC (League of California Cities, National Core, and other organizations.
In a recent SOI (Sphere of Influence) meeting residents were given facts and figures from the city’s consultant and planning division. But not once did the city council mention any of the mandated affordable housing laws.
Now let us look at the San Bernardino County RHNA numbers:
What do the numbers tell us? If the City of Chino cannot annex county land, what happens to the SOI (Sphere of Influence), and Protect Chino group? Will the SOI and Protect Chino group tell the county what to do? Will the city of Chino tell the county what to build or what not to build?
Yes, the county of San Bernardino has its own obligation to meet RHNA. In my next blog, I will discuss these questions. Stay tuned.
SCAG 6TH CYCLE DRAFT RHNA ALLOCATION BASED ON FINAL RHNA METHODOLOGY & FINAL CONNECT SOCAL 9/3/20 County Total Very-low Low income Moderate Above income income moderate income San Bernardino 137,786 35,575 21,855 24,087 56,269 Unincorporated 8,813 2,174 1,357 1,520 3,762
