⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
Within existing city or County infrastructure, there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets. Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 1 because while a single entity is responsible for reporting on RHNA permitting targets, jurisdictions do not develop housing projects. State Housing Law only requires that jurisdictions plan to address barriers to development, accommodate all types of housing based on the RHNA allocations, and report their progress towards RHNA. The Planning Department is responsible for preparing the Annual Progress Report (APR) as required by State Housing Law. These reports are presented before the City Council early in the calendar year, prior to submission to HCD. Furthermore, the Housing Element identifies the department responsible for carrying out the Housing Element’s Plans and Programs. In addition, the City’s Planning Director is tasked with ensuring that we advance our housing related initiatives and undertake outreach to property owners, housing developers, and non-profits to encourage the development of affordable housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan. The recommendation has been implemented. California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demands of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. Cities and Counties are not responsible for the development and construction of housing to achieve the allocated RHNA targets. Instead, they are responsible for the effective implementation of their housing elements and associated programs to address any existing constraints to housing and for tracking and reporting the jurisdiction’s progress toward achieving their RHNA. The Planning Department, and the Planning Director specifically, is assigned the responsibility of the above tasks.
F2
City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing. (RHNA) targets Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 2 because while City officials recognize the challenges ahead, our Housing Element identifies a clear path to accommodate the RHNA targets and we are actively exploring and implementing strategies to work towards meeting state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets. Despite acknowledging the complexity of the task, officials are committed to finding viable solutions and collaborating with stakeholders to address the housing needs of the region. Through ongoing assessments and adaptive planning, they aim to identify feasible pathways to make progress toward meeting RHNA targets. While it may be a challenging endeavor, the dedication and proactive approach of City officials demonstrate their commitment to addressing the housing crisis and fulfilling their obligations in accordance with state mandates. However, cities are not housing developers and do not construct the units. The City has examples of successful affordable and special needs housing developments which have occurred. Two notable approved projects are looking to start construction soon: the Vista Verde Senior Housing Project will include 52 affordable units undertaken by a non-profit, and the Countryhouse Assisted Living Project will include 38- units being implemented by a for-profit developer. The Countryhouse project was subject to a legal challenge which the City and developer successfully defended at a substantial cost and use of staff time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor Meetings. The recommendation has been implemented. State Law (§65400) requires each jurisdiction (City Council) to prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element (HE) using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The HE APR allows HCD to track the progress of the implementation of a jurisdiction’s Housing Element and requires its submission as a threshold requirement for several State housing funding programs (source). Through the forms and tables provided by HCD (link), jurisdictions must report annual data on housing in the APR, including the following: ● Housing development applications received (including proposed number of units, types of tenancy, and affordability levels) ● Building/construction activity ● Progress towards the RHNA ● Sites identified or rezoned to accommodate a shortfall in housing need ● Program implementation status ● Local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing ● Projects with a commercial development bonus 12 ● Units rehabilitated or preserved ● Locally owned lands included in the sites inventory that have been sold ● Locally owned surplus sites Government Code §65400 requires the planning agency to provide this report to the legislative body (i.e., local Council), HCD, and OPR by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year). APRs must be presented to the local legislative body for its review and acceptance, usually as a consent or discussion on a regular meeting agenda. The statute does not specify in which order they be provided, and HCD does not require the report to be submitted to the legislative body prior to submitting it to HCD. However, HCD recommends that planning departments provide the report to the local legislative body prior to sending it to HCD and OPR (source). Biannual reporting would divert staff time from other housing programs.
F3
There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan. Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 3 because while there are no legal or financial penalties if the City does not achieve its RHNA targets, there are penalties for not 4 accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive. In addition, jurisdictions are subject to penalties if they do not adopt a Housing Element that is certified by the State, including designating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA targets. For example, the City may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights’ organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court decisions, local control may further diminish, beyond that prescribed in State law, including, for example, suspending the City’s authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits. The City may also be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion. Regardless of the reasons for lack of building permit activities, if the City does not issue building permits that meet the RHNA targets, developers may choose to use a ministerial process for housing projects that meet specified criteria (SB 35). In addition, a developer could choose to construct housing on sites that the City has not designated for housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community. The recommendation will not be implemented. We appreciate the thoughtful recommendation to create a dedicated Affordable Housing (AH) commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens, led by a current, non-elected, city expert in planning. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of such a commission, after careful consideration, we have decided not to pursue its implementation due to the following reasons: Existing Planning Mechanisms: Orinda has already established planning mechanisms and committees responsible for addressing affordable housing issues, including the Downtown Planning and Housing Element Subcommittee of the City Council. This existing committee provides a platform for community engagement and collaboration, making the formation of a separate commission redundant and potentially duplicative of efforts. Resource Constraints: Establishing and maintaining a dedicated AH commission would require additional financial and administrative resources. At present, our City is already allocating resources to multiple initiatives aimed at addressing affordable housing needs. Adding another commission might spread resources too thin and hinder the efficiency of current efforts. Efficient Decision-Making: By involving a diverse range of citizens and experts in existing planning and housing committees, we maintain a balanced and inclusive approach. This integration ensures streamlined decision-making processes and comprehensive representation of community interests without creating an additional layer of bureaucracy. Alternative Approaches: Instead of forming a separate AH commission, we are committed to strengthening the involvement of community members and experts in our existing planning and housing committees. Enhancing public outreach, conducting regular town hall meetings, and 13 encouraging community feedback will remain focal points in our efforts to address obstacles hindering affordable housing development. While we do not intend to pursue the recommended dedicated AH commission, we value the underlying principle of community engagement and recognize the importance of community input in the decision-making process. We will continue to explore alternative strategies that promote transparency, inclusivity, and community-driven solutions for affordable housing development in our City. We remain committed to finding the most effective and sustainable approaches to address affordable housing challenges, working in collaboration with stakeholders and community members to achieve our shared goals. It should also be noted that the aforementioned Downtown Planning and Housing Element Subcommittee of the City Council has a proven track record providing guidance regarding housing issues, holding 17 meetings between January 2020 and January 2023 regarding the Housing Element and Downtown Precise Plan. At each meeting, the Subcommittee provided guidance to staff, helped inform the public regarding important housing related issues, and provided a forum for public input.
F4
Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low-income residents). Partially Disagree. It is true that many cities and the County as a whole missed their RHNA targets for very low and low-income housing, and that RHNA Allocation for very low- and low- income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA allocation is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and low-income housing requirements. Cycle Very Low % Low % Source permitted permitted 1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% link 2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% link 2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% link 2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a link
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their Community. The recommendation has been implemented. Comprehensive Process Review: As required by State Law, jurisdictions have reviewed existing processes and identified programs to address any potential constraints to development through the Housing Element’s Constraints and Zoning Analysis Section. Orinda has conducted a thorough review of existing processes related to affordable housing development, permitting, and zoning regulations. This review aimed to identify any inefficiencies or barriers (“constraints”) that may have contributed to the challenges in meeting RHNA allocation targets. Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach, stakeholders, including community members, developers, housing advocates, and relevant government agencies, were actively engaged throughout the process. Feedback and input from these stakeholders played a pivotal role in shaping the subsequent actions. Identifying Key Obstacles: Based on the review and stakeholder input, specific constraints hindering the achievement of RHNA allocation targets were identified. These included issues related to zoning restrictions, lengthy permitting processes, funding constraints, and limited community support. Development of a Housing Plan: With a clear understanding of the obstacles, the City developed tailored action plans to address the identified challenges. These action plans outlined concrete steps, timelines, and responsible parties for implementation that have been or are in the process of being deemed appropriate by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Policy and Regulatory Reforms: To streamline affordable housing development, policy and regulatory reforms were introduced to the broader community at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels and noticed public hearings. These reforms aimed to remove unnecessary barriers, expedite permitting processes, and incentivize the construction of affordable housing. Community Outreach and Education: Recognizing the importance of community support, extensive outreach and education efforts were undertaken to inform residents about the benefits of affordable housing and dispel common misconceptions. Outcomes Achieved: As a result of these actions, tangible progress can be made towards meeting RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in each community. The review and reforms will lead to a more efficient and supportive environment for affordable housing development. New affordable housing projects have been approved and initiated, increasing the overall housing stock for low-income residents. The engagement of stakeholders has fostered a collaborative approach to address housing challenges, and community support for affordable housing initiatives has grown significantly. The most recent example is the City Council’s approval of Vista Verde, a 52-unit affordable senior project built at 10 Irwin Way on a parking lot owned by the Orinda Community Church. While challenges persist, the ongoing commitment of the City to address the obstacles identified in the report demonstrates significant strides in advancing affordable housing goals. Continued efforts and collaboration will be crucial in achieving sustained progress and ensuring housing accessibility for all members of our communities.
F5
Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very low and low-income housing, including: a. Limited availability of land; b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding; 5 e. Lack of community support; f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition. Partially Disagree. Though the above list of obstacles can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City has addressed each item in its Housing Element programs, policies, and actions to the extent feasible and considered acceptable to HCD. (a) Limited (b) Restrictive (c) Limited (d) Limited (e) Lack of Availability of zoning policies developer available community Housing specific to interest to bring funding support affordable projects housing forward development Action 1.H: No Action 1.B: Action 1.F: Action 3.B: Action 2.D: Net Loss of Housing Multifamily Extremely Low- Participation in Housing Opportunity Development. Income Housing. First-Time Home Capacity. Sites. Action 1.G: Action 1.G: Buyer and MCC Action 1.I: Action 1.D. Support Support Programs. Senate Bill 9 (SB Residential Affordable Affordable 9) – The Zoning Districts Housing Housing California and Land Use Development. Development. Housing Designation. Action 3.B: Opportunity and Action 4.A: Extremely Low- More Efficiency Amend Income Housing. (HOME) Act. Development Action 3.E: Action 1.K Standards to Objective Design Development on Remove Standards. Non-Vacant Constraints. Sites. Action 1.L Lot Consolidation. Action 2.A: Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units. Action 2.B: Housing Rehabilitation. Regarding Item (f) NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition, the City of Orinda has a track record of supporting projects that could be characterized as being opposed by NIMBYs. In the response to Finding 2, we have noted the defense of the lawsuit challenging the Countryhouse assisted living facility. The City’s recently approved Housing Element is also 6 subject to a legal challenge via a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit, which again, the City is actively defending. One of the obstacles not mentioned in the Grand Jury report which the City is finding difficult to navigate relate to conflicting State goals and requirements, especially as they relate to housing production and the desire to reduce development in areas at risk to wildfire.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets. The recommendation has been implemented. Each jurisdiction (City Council) must prepare an annual progress report (APR) on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element using forms and definitions adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Government Code Section 65400.) Each jurisdiction’s APR must be submitted to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year (CY)). HCD compiles and showcases all APRs through their interactive digital data dashboard with downloadable data sets. (link) In addition, all jurisdictions are subject to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), which was amended in 2017 with SB 166, and requires jurisdictions to maintain adequate sites 15 to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA at each income level throughout the life of an adopted Housing Element. The No Net Loss Law restricts cities from approving a housing project at a lower density, or with fewer units than identified in the Housing Element unless a corresponding number of units are accommodated and identified elsewhere in the city. To assist with the monitoring, cities are developing standard language to include in staff reports when housing projects come forward to decisionmakers for approval and are exploring a No Net Loss Tool to help monitor RHNA progress.
F6
Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development. Zoning obstacles include: a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities. Partially Disagree. AB 1397 set forth strict criteria for adequate sites. These criteria are somewhat arbitrary (e.g., not smaller than 0.5 acre and not larger than 10 acres). The requirement to demonstrate substantial evidence that existing uses do not impede redevelopment also tends to steer sites selection to neighborhoods with declining uses and lower and moderate resource areas. Most jurisdictions consider amending/changing the zoning while reviewing their Housing Element and/or updating the General Plan, not just when a project is proposed for development. 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(b), Housing Element sites must include information on the number of dwelling units that a site can realistically accommodate, the RHNA income category the parcel is anticipated to accommodate, whether the parcel has available or planned and accessible infrastructure, and the existing use of the site, amongst other details. When selecting sites to accommodate the lower income RHNA, HCD provides jurisdictions with best practices to consider factors such as: (1) Proximity to transit (2) Access to high performing schools and jobs (3) Access to amenities, such as parks and services (4) Access to health care facilities and grocery stores (5) Locational scoring criteria for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding (6) Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities (7) Sites that do not require environmental mitigation (8) Presence of development streamlining processes, environmental exemptions, and other development incentives. However, sites that meet these locational criteria do not always meet the other existing use criteria needed to demonstrate substantial evidence for existing uses to discontinue within the planning period. These include high vacancies, deteriorating conditions, marginally operating businesses, underutilization of sites, etc. These conditions are 7 often directly contrary to access to high performing schools and jobs, amenities, adequate infrastructure, and clear of environmental hazards. In addition to the above requirements and pursuant to AB 686 (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)), Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing (AFFH). AFFH means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Very often the approach to sites selection is to target declining areas for redevelopment. Without tax increment financing as a reinvestment tool, jurisdictions must rely on private investments as catalyst to induce redevelopment in declining neighborhoods. Housing is the best catalyst. For jurisdictions that take a neighborhood revitalization approach to accommodating the RHNA, place-based strategies that focus on public improvements, economic development, prioritization of funding, and targeted outreach are used to complement the sites inventory strategies. As such, Housing Element plans provide an inventory of land that addresses the unique conditions of each jurisdiction. 2. According to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), local agencies are required to allow increased density, reduced standards, and development incentives based on the number and type of affordable housing units proposed in a project. The SDBL applies to housing projects, including mixed-use developments, new subdivisions, or common- interest development. Developers may request incentives and concessions from the jurisdiction’s regulatory or development standards that result in actual and identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The number of required incentives is based on the percentage of affordable units provided in the qualifying project. For example, developers may ask for increased height above that allowed by the zoning regulations. As such, height and density do not represent a restriction to development. Furthermore, many sites are located in transit-oriented neighborhoods where recent State laws have preempted restrictions on height and density. 3. Although Orinda does not currently have an inclusionary housing ordinance, 6th Cycle Housing Element Action 3.G requires the City to research and consider adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. On May 9, 2023, after the City’s adopted Housing Element was certified by HCD, the City Manager brought a report to the City Council outlining the various options to consider when adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance. Staff anticipates that a more focused report will be presented to the City Council in Fall 2023 based on the feedback received at the May 9, 2023 Council meeting. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes. The recommendation has been implemented. As required by State Law, jurisdictions are required to prepare a site inventory identifying land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s regional housing needs by income level. Please see the response to Finding 6(a) for details. Further, in addressing HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements there is a thorough review of the site selection via the Tax Credit Allocation’s Committee (TCAC) Resource Map that designates areas of low-, moderate- , high-, and highest-resource within a jurisdiction and requires specific justification for placing affordable housing projects within low-resources areas.
F7
Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval. Partially Disagree. We agree that there are penalties that are directly related to not meeting statutory deadline of the Housing Element. Builder’s Remedy, where individuals may apply for a building permit on land that is not designated for housing, is one such penalty that is directly linked to meeting state deadlines for Housing Elements. We partially disagree with Finding 7 because there are other penalties that are not directly tied to the statutory deadline. There are penalties associated with lawsuits, which are rarely brought forward for simply missing the statutory deadline, but more due to a perception of continued inactions. Penalties also include eligibility for funding. As stated in the response to Finding 3, the City may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights’ organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court decisions, the City may lose additional local control, such as suspension of authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits; and/or the City may be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion. In addition, depending on specific programs, eligibility for some state funds requires a certified Housing Element (such as PLHA and State HOME funds). Finally, loss of local control is not limited to jurisdictions that do not meet specified timeframes for a certified housing element. For example, SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, the No Net Loss Act, Density Bonus Law, and AB 2011/SB 6 specify what types of projects local jurisdictions must approve and where such projects must be approved, regardless of whether jurisdictions meet state deadlines for Housing Elements. Link to information on HCD’s accountability efforts and enforcement authority: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/accountability-and- enforcement
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community. The recommendation has been implemented. Through the Housing Element process, jurisdictions have reviewed their zoning policies and identified potential affordable housing development constraints unique to their jurisdiction. The Housing Element Program Section outlines forthcoming changes to their zoning policies with specified timeframes to address the identified constraints.
F8
Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects. Partially Disagree. While Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects are valuable tools that can expedite affordable housing development, they may not comprehensively address all the ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that hinder the completion of approved AH projects. The effectiveness of these streamlined processes can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while they can help overcome certain barriers like restrictive zoning policies and prolonged approval timelines, other challenges mentioned in the report, such as limited available funding, community support, and NIMBY opposition, may continue to persist in diverse degrees in different locations. To achieve the successful completion of approved AH projects and effectively address these obstacles, a multifaceted and jurisdiction-specific approach is required, taking into account the unique circumstances and complexities faced by each locality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy (if not already in place). The recommendation has not yet been implemented. Thank you for your recommendation to consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of our standard development policy We agree that this is an important aspect to explore further and would like to provide you with an update on the progress made towards implementing this recommendation. As described in response to Finding F6 above, Orinda’s Housing Element Action 3.G requires the City to consider an inclusionary ordinance, and the City Council is actively working toward this goal, having received a report from the City Manager in May 2023 and with an anticipated follow-up report, to provide direction to staff, in Fall 2023. The time frame for the analysis and preparation for discussion is set to be completed within the 6th cycle, perhaps in early 2024. This ensures sufficient time for a rigorous and inclusive analysis. As we move forward, we will continue to keep the public informed about our progress and invite feedback and engagement from all stakeholders. We thank you for bringing this recommendation to our attention and assure you that we are diligently working towards finding the most effective and appropriate approach to adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance.
F9
When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities, did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing 9 or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted. Partially Disagree. While the City did not create or find new sources of funds for affordable housing after the State discontinued 452 RDAs, State law limits local jurisdictions’ ability to create new funding sources. Voters need to approve virtually all new funding or financing mechanisms to generate the revenues or funds needed to preserve existing affordable housing and construct or finance new affordable housing. The City Councils cannot, for example, float bonds any longer without voter approval. While Measure X, the countywide 20-year ½ cent sales tax was approved in November 2020, Measure X is projected to provide up to $12 million annually for “housing and related services” for the entire County (emphasis added). Measure X Affordable Housing funds will be distributed through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, a competitive process. Other attempts to address the lack of funding for housing are: • Inclusionary Housing – Orinda’s 6th Cycle Housing Element requires the City to consider an inclusionary housing ordinance as a way to generate affordable housing and in-lieu fees for affordable housing. • Working with Churches - Orinda has identified three church sites for affordable housing in the 6th Cycle Housing Element and in August of 2022, the City Council approved a rezoning and a 52-unit affordable housing project on a fourth church site. • Orinda is pursuing the possible development of a Caltrans owned site called the Gateway site, which while excluded from the RHNA allocation of our approved Housing Element by HCD, the City is still pursuing. If the City is able to get the Gateway site included through the Governor’s Executive Order (EO) N-06-19 for Affordable Housing Development (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Projects/Page-Content/Projects-List-Folder/Executive-Order-N- 06-19-Affordable-Housing- Development#:~:text=To%20address%20the%20shortage%20of,%2C%20cost%2Deffective%2 0housing%20projects) process, that can provide a defacto subsidy in that property can be made available on a low to no cost long-term lease. • Working with the Acalanes Union High School District on the possible development of affordable housing on an undeveloped portion of the Miramonte High School campus.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing. The recommendation has been implemented. Orinda’s adopted and certified 6th Cycle Housing Element includes several programs to promote the development of very low- and low- income housing throughout the planning period. Some of the programs include: • Action 1.G – Support Affordable Housing Development • Action 2.A – Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units • Action 2.B – Housing Rehabilitation • Action 3.B – Extremely Low-Income Housing • Action 3.G – Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The 6th Cycle Housing Element also includes a number of programs that require the City to annually reach out to housing developers, regional agencies, and property owners to facilitate the development of housing for all income categories. The City has updated its zoning code to be consistent with state law including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and SB 9 legislation. The ADU and SB 9 ordinances permit for ministerial approval of ADUs, SB 9-unit development, and SB 9 lot splits. The City continues to inform interested property owners and developers of recent state laws including AB 2011 and SB 6 to encourage the development of very low- and low-income housing throughout the City. Earlier this year, the City Council adopted the Downtown Precise Plan, Housing Element, and Safety Element, collectively referred to as the “Plan Orinda” project. The Downtown Precise Plan includes objective design standards that will streamline development of project subject to ministerial review. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Plan Orinda project. The EIR analyzed the potential environmental impact of development with the project area. Future projects proposed within the project area will be able to utilize the EIR without further environmental analysis if the project falls within the parameters that were analyzed in the EIR. Furthermore, as part of the City’s biennial budget that was adopted by the City Council in June 2023, additional funds were dedicated to implementation of Plan Orinda. This includes funding for staff time and resources to facilitate implementation of the programs and action items of Plan Orinda.
F10
Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low-income residents. Agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income 17 residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes. The recommendation will not be implemented. Measure X is a countywide 20-year, ½ cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020 “to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.” Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13% of FY 2022-23 funding and about 4.5% of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) and the Health Services’ Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD-H3) Services and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. The use of Measure X funds for housing are reported by the County here: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8530/Measure-X. To the extent the City and its affordable housing development partners are successful in accessing erasure X funds to facilitate an affordable housing project in Orinda, we will share that with the community at the that time, as we would all funding sources used to allow an affordable project to proceed. 18
F11
Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development. Disagree. While local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund in Contra Costa County can be a beneficial component, it is not a critical factor in a developer's overall 10 ability to raise funds for an affordable housing (AH) development. Developers often require multiple sources of funding, or “stacking” strategies available to them, including federal and state grants, tax credits, private investments, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations. While local funding can certainly enhance a project's financial viability and facilitate its development, affordable housing projects cannot move forward successfully without a combination of various funding sources and partnerships that fill the funding gap between market rate and affordable housing feasibility. The critical aspect lies in the ability of developers to strategically leverage and combine these funding options to meet the financial requirements of the project and ensure its feasibility.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects. Disagree. The City of Orinda actively engages with its community and citizens through community meetings, social media and direct mailer public outreach, opinion surveys, dedicated web pages, addresses zoning obstacles through its Housing Element programs and provides zoning concessions and incentives for affordable housing development projects, as required by State Law. The City also works collaboratively with developers with predevelopment meetings and, to the extent feasible, expediting of affordable housing projects as was done for the Vista Verde affordable housing project approved August 2022, and encourages developer outreach efforts to address community and neighborhood concerns, including any NIMBY oppositions throughout the lifetime of the development process. These proactive steps alone are not enough to successfully attract affordable housing projects. Additional factors that curb interest in affordable housing projects include, though are not limited to, land availability and costs, lacking or inadequate infrastructure, environmental constraints, gaps in funding or financing, supply chain and material/labor costs, and reluctant or unwilling landowners.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low and low-income housing. Partially Disagree. It is true that RHNA Allocation for very low- and low-income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA allocation is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and low-income housing requirements. Please see the response to Finding 4 for detailed RHNA numbers from previous Housing Element cycles. 11
No recommendations for this finding