Planning Committee STAFF REPORT October 5, 2016 Page 2 of 4 jurisdictions adopt a surplus land resolution is excessive and recommending that it be rep

Transcription

1 Planning Committee STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Subject Summary of Issues Recommendations Financial Implications Options Attachments (See PC Packet, dated 10/5/16 for Attachment A, Attachments B & C are New) Changes from Committee Further Discussion of One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) Project Screening and Selection Criteria The combined Call for Projects for OBAG 2 and Measure J programs was authorized for release to project sponsors at the Authority Board meeting held on September 21, Authority members voiced concern, however, about requiring antidisplacement policies as a project selection criterion, and about the requirement for a local resolution pledging adherence to the Surplus Land Act. The Authority requested that staff from MTC and ABAG attend the Authority meeting on October 19 th to discuss the Board s concerns and reply to questions. Following discussion by the Board, direct staff as appropriate regarding OBAG 2 project screening and selection criteria. N/A 1. Modify anti-displacement criteria and/or 2. Express concerns to MTC/ABAG in writing. A. Glossary of Anti-Displacement Policies from the University of California s Urban Displacement Project website ( ) B. Updated Housing Anti-Displacement Policy Survey C. Draft letter to Steve Heminger on the required adoption of a Surplus Land Resolution Planning Committee directed staff to: 1. Evaluate jurisdictions on the housing anti-displacement policies they have adopted and on the reasons they believe those policies have been effective 2. Provide the Authority with the UC Berkeley survey of local housing anti-displacement policies 3. Send a letter to MTC suggesting that the requirement that 4.B.4-1

2 Planning Committee STAFF REPORT October 5, 2016 Page 2 of 4 jurisdictions adopt a surplus land resolution is excessive and recommending that it be replaced by an additional question on the local compliance checklist Background At its meeting on September 21, 2016, the Authority Board approved release of a Coordinated Call for Projects for three funding sources: the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) program, Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC Program 12), and Measure J Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities (PBTF Program 13). An notification went out on September 24 th to all potential project sponsors, and the call is now available on the CCTA website. Total funding available for all three programs is $91,471,000. The OBAG 2 portion of the funding is $56,136,000, and it is allocated to several categories, including Planning and Outreach, Local Street and Roads Preservation (LSRP), Safe Routes to School (SR2S) the Federal-Aid Secondary (FAS) program, and a competitive program for projects that support Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as identified in MTC s adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). For a complete description of each program, please refer to the Coordinated Call for Projects program guidelines now posted on the Authorities website at MTC Resolution 4202, along with State and Federal, place a number of requirements intended to direct the OBAG funds to projects that are most supportive of OBAG program goals, such as achieving the region s Greenhouse Gas (GhG) reduction targets. The requirements include having local (non-federal) matching funds, federal funding eligibility requirements, and that the project is compatible with the applicable federal funding source (for example, federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds may not be used for ongoing transit operations). As with the previous two cycles of funding, rules imposed by MTC during this funding cycle include a number of requirements. OBAG 2, as proposed would require local jurisdictions receiving the funds to have a certified housing element, adherence to complete streets policies, and participate in a pavement management program. Requirement for Surplus Land Resolution A new and recently added requirement pertains to the State Surplus Land Act. To be eligible to receive funding, the jurisdictions in which the project is located must have adopted, by June 2017, a surplus lands resolution that ensures that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdictions complies with the Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135 (Ting ). 4.B.4-2

3 Requirement for Residential Anti-Displacement Policies Planning Committee STAFF REPORT October 5, 2016 Page 3 of 4 A portion of OBAG 2 funds ($17,918,000) will be used to fund projects selected through a competitive process. Working with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), Authority staff developed a project selection process organized into Context Criteria and Project Criteria. Among these criteria are factors such as local forecast housing growth, support of dense job centers, quality transit service, and traffic management strategies. A new requirement recently introduced by MTC is to consider whether the local jurisdiction has adopted housing anti-displacement policies. MTC s Resolution 4202, updated in July 2016, states that the CMAs must adopt a specific scoring methodology for funding allocation to projects within PDAs that rewards jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies [p. 17]. Issues At its meeting on September 21 st, Authority Board members voiced the following concerns: 1. Requirement for a Surplus Land Act Resolution: As noted above, to be eligible to receive any OBAG 2 funding, the local jurisdiction in which the project is located must have adopted a resolution that ensures that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the Act. Authority Board members voiced concerns about resources that local jurisdiction in Contra Costa and the Bay Region would have to expend adopting a resolution stating that it will comply with State law. Some commissioners questioned whether this is good use of government resources. 2. Housing Anti-Displacement Policies: Under the competitive program, projects are rewarded anywhere from zero to four points (out of a total of one hundred points) depending on whether the local jurisdiction in which the project is located has adopted effective policies to prevent or limit housing displacement. Projects within jurisdictions that have minimal displacement policies receive zero points; those with some policies receive two points, and projects within jurisdictions that have a significant number of policies receive four points. A complete list of applicable policies is shown in Attachment A. Authority Board members are concerned that some of the anti-displacement policies on the list may have unintended consequences. For example, there is evidence suggesting that certain policies, such as rent control coupled with just-cause eviction ordinances, 4.B.4-3

4 Planning Committee STAFF REPORT October 5, 2016 Page 4 of 4 may be ineffective in keeping rents low, and could have unintended consequences resulting in higher rents. The Authority Board has the latitude to add or delete policies from the list shown in Attachment A, or formulate a new approach for rewarding jurisdictions with the most effective residential anti-displacement policies. Planning Committee Discussion The Planning Committee members agreed that, since the Surplus Land Act (2014) is State law, all jurisdictions must comply with it. For that reason, they recommended that the Authority send a letter to MTC suggesting that the requirement for jurisdiction to adopt a surplus land resolution be replaced by an additional question on the local compliance checklist. The Planning Committee recommended that, instead of using the survey of policies put together by the Urban Displacement project at UC Berkeley to evaluate how well jurisdictions have done at adopting housing anti-displacement policies, each jurisdiction should describe those policies they have adopted and why they believe those policies are effective. The Authority would provide examples of potential policies to aid in a jurisdiction s response. The Planning Committee did not specify how the responses would be scored. Staff suggests carrying forward the previously recommended approach, rewarding zero to four points (out of a total of 100 points) depending on the strength of the response. Scoring will be initially performed by a subcommittee of the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). 4.B.4-4

5 Attachment B Attachment B: Updated Housing Anti-Displacement Policy Survey Antioch Brentwood Clayton Concord Contra Costa County Danville El Cerrito Hercules Lafayette Martinez Moraga Oakley Orinda Pinole Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Richmond San Pablo San Ramon Walnut Creek Number of Measures 4.B.4-5

6 Page 2 Antioch vacancy rate must be above 4.5% improvements required (2006) (2008) 4.B.4-6

7 Page 3 Brentwood Vacancy rate will be considered during application review, improvements required (2008) - 2% affordable units for more than 25 lots. in-lieu fee (2005, amended 2007 and 2012) Ownership units shall remain affordable for 45 years, rental 55 years (2015) 4.B.4-7

8 Page 4 Clayton - identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive housing and single-room occupancy units (Assembly Bill 2634) 5% affordable to very low- and 5% affordable to low-income households. in-lieu fee. (2010) Updated: from Mindy Gentry, Density bonus in of the City s Municipal Code 4.B.4-8

9 Page 5 Concord 80% of % increase in CPI (2002) -Continue to allow SRO in accordance with State law. Max base number is equal to five percent of the total rental units existing in developments of four or more units at the beginning of the fiscal year as determined and certified by the Housing Division (2008). However, applications for Condo conversions have not been submitted in recent years and currently, the City has no formal applications for a condo conversion. (2007) We use housing impact fees in a trust fund for affordable housing preservation and development For-sale: either 6% affordable to low-income households or 10% affordable to moderate-income households. Rental: either 6% affordable to very low-income households or 10% affordable to low-income households for units receiving City assistance. in-lieu fee. (2004) We also have a density bonus ordinance for projects that provide 40% affordable housing Updated: from Laura Simpson, B.4-9

10 Page 6 Contra Costa County 4.B.4-10

11 Page 7 Danville (2014) Applies to projects of eight or more units with BMRs being for-sale or for-rent units which would be affordable to a moderate income household earning 110% of the current median income as adjusted for household size. Number of required BMRs range from 10% to 15%, dependent on project density and project size. in-lieu fee. (2014) (2014) Updated: from Kevin Gailley, B.4-11

12 Page 8 El Cerrito Annual limitation shall be determined by balancing the existing vacancy rate, the number of units produced in the previous year and the existing housing stock (2008) (2008) 4.B.4-12

13 Page 9 Hercules - permitted conditionally in the Historic Town Center zone 15% affordable units and of these, 40% must be affordable to very low-income households. in-lieu fee. (2006) 4.B.4-13

14 Page 10 Lafayette Max 12 units in one calendar year; max 20 units in total. Other requirements: sound control; laundry facilities; private storage space; parking; landscape maintenance; refurbishing and restoration. Flexible vacancy rate. Year: 1979, amended B.4-14

15 Page 11 Martinez Vacancy rate in City must be above 5%. Relocation expenses must be 1.5x the monthly rental rate. Other requirements: 150 cubic/unit private storage space; 100 sq. ft appurtenant usable private area; 100 sq. ft open space; energy conservation; must be approved by Design Review. Downtown Martinez Core Area exempted from some. Year: B.4-15

16 Page 12 Moraga Limited to the town's potentially convertible rental stock; no tenant rent increases for 2 years; Vacancy rates of existing apartment residential units not a criterion. Year: The Town does have additional density bonus provisions in its 20 Dwelling Unit/Acre zoning district, which allow up to 30 DUA in the zone if the project is senior housing Updated: from Ellen Clark, B.4-16

17 Page 13 Oakley - Located exclusively in the General Commercial (C) Zone District Min. 10% affordable to low- or moderate-income households. At least 40% of these affordable housing units must be available to and occupied by very low-income households. in-lieu fee. (1999) 4.B.4-17

18 Page 14 Orinda Rent must not be raised more than 100% of CPI; moving assistance; improvements required; at least 10% discount for tenants 4.B.4-18

19 Page 15 Pinole Vacancy rate in City must be above 5% (2010) Min. 15% of units to be affordable and of these, 40% must be affordable to very low-income households. in-lieu fee. (2010) 4.B.4-19

20 Page 16 Pittsburg Max # is established by the city council at the beginning of each year. Vacancy rates are considered. Relocation assistance; restricted annual rent increase for low and moderate income households. Year: 1989, amended 1993, Rental: 6% affordable to very low-income households and 9% affordable to low-income households; or 10% affordable to very low-income rent units; or 6% affordable to extremely low-income renter units. For-sale: 9% affordable to lowincome households and 6% affordable to very low-income households; or 20% affordable to low-income households (2004, amended 2007) 4.B.4-20

21 Page 17 Pleasant Hill - SRO facility may be proposed and approved in the multifamily, retail business and professional and administrative office zoning districts Vacancy rate in City must be above 5%; tenant relocation plan; improvements required; total city housing stock must be above 20%. (1991, amended 2000, 2005, 2007) 5% affordable to very low- and 10% affordable to low-income households. in-lieu fee. (1996, amended in 2004 and 2005) 4.B.4-21

22 Page 18 Richmond Because SROs typically have unusual site development features or operating characteristics that require special consideration, they are not allowed as a matter of right. SROs are conditionally permitted in the MFR-2, MFR-3, MFR-4, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-B, and C-C zoning districts. other changes related to SRO units are anticipated as part of the comprehensive update to the City s Zoning Ordinance that is currently underway. 17% affordable to moderate-income households; or 15% affordable to low-income households; or 10% affordable to very-low-income households; or min. 12.5% available to a combination of very low and low-income households including at least two affordable to very low-income households. in-lieu fee. (2001) (NCLT) 4.B.4-22

23 Page 19 San Pablo Conversions may only be 3% of the total rental stock, and vacancy rate in City must be above 5%. Includes tenant protection and assistance provisions and homeownership assistance. Year: 1980, amended % affordable to very low- and low- income households. in-lieu fee. (2006) -additional bonus for each 1% increase in target units 4.B.4-23

24 Page 20 San Ramon City Housing Authority- mediator and work towards affordable housing goals - amended the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the provision of SROs consistent with SB 2 enacted in (2008) (2009) For projects with more than 10 units, 25% of total units must be BMR. in-lieu fees. (not a policy, but negotiated like an exaction) - for senior citizen housing developments (Updated 2006) 4.B.4-24

25 Page 21 Walnut Creek Requires major rehab (1984, last amended 2011); improvements required; tenant's right to Purchase; restricted rent increase; Vacancy rate in City must be above 5% (1982) (2005) $5 per square foot (2005) For projects of 10 or more units: Rental: all projects must pay an Impact Fee. For-sale: 6% of units must be affordable to very low income households, 7% to low, and 9% to moderate income housing or pay in-lieu fees. (2004, amended 2009, 2010, 2011) 4.B.4-25

26 This Page Intentionally Blank

27 Attachment C COMMISSIONERS Dave Hudson, Chair Tom Butt, Vice Chair Janet Abelson Newell Arnerich David Durant Federal Glover Karen Mitchoff Julie Pierce Kevin Romick Don Tatzin Robert Taylor Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director October 20, 2016 Mr. Steve Heminger Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA Subject: Surplus Land Resolution Dear Mr. Heminger, Resolution 4202, which established the Commission s blueprint for the second cycle of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) program, contains the following requirement: Cities and counties receiving funds through the County Program must adopt a surplus land resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The resolution must verify that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the State Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135, We would note, however, that since the Act is State law, cities and counties must comply with its requirements already. Requiring cities and counties to adopt a separate resolution seems to us to be a useless exercise and a waste of governmental resources. We suggest that MTC amend Resolution 4202 to eliminate the surplus land resolution and incorporate the requirement as follows into the local compliance checklist found in Appendix A-10: 2999 Oak Road Suite 100 Walnut Creek CA PHONE: FAX: a. Does Has the jurisdiction understand and comply met MTC s Surplus Land Requirements for OBAG 2 prior to the CMA submitting its program, through adoption of a resolution demonstrating compliance with the State s Surplus Land Act (AB 2135 amended)? (This question Resolution requirement applies only to general law cities and counties S:\05-PC Packets\2016\10\Authority\04 Attach C CCTA Letter on Surplus Land Act.docx 4.B.4-27

28 Mr. Steve Heminger October 20, 2016 Page 2 unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities must comply with the provisions of this Act.) This rewording achieves the Commission s purpose in reminding cities and counties of this requirement and ensuring their commitment to carrying out the Act s purposes. If you have further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Martin Engelmann, Deputy Executive Director for Planning, by phone at or by at mre@ccta.net. Sincerely, David E. Hudson Chair File: 3.16 S:\05-PC Packets\2016\10\Authority\04 Attach C CCTA Letter on Surplus Land Act.docx 4.B.4-28