Affordable Housing: ‘a Plan Without a Home’

Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsive for achieving RHNA permitting targets. City response: 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.

City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets. City response: Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 2 because while City and County 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. City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.CI.Oakley.CA.US

There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan. City response: Partially Disagree. We partially disagree with Finding 3 because while there are no legal or financial penalties if the cities and County do not achieve their RHNA targets, there are penalties for not accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive.

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). City response: 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 hgfdsa 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 % permitted permitted 1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% 2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% 2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% 2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a

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; e. Lack of community support; City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition. City response: Partially Disagree. The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City of Oakley does not have restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development.

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. City response: Partially Disagree. The City of Oakley has relied upon the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning process to identify viable properties that are central to transportation, services, and amenities that can be developed for Affordable Housing. In past Housing Element cycles, HCD has been supportive of Oakley’s AHO. Oakley’s AHO has been referred to as a successful tool for AH in a 2019 Terner Center Case Study.

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. City response: 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.

Builder’s Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects. City response: Disagree. Builder’s remedy and SB35 are not intended to address local obstacles. Instead, they are intended to provide a streamlined development process for jurisdictions that have fallen out of compliance with State Housing Law (Builder’s Remedy) or where housing production does not meet the RHNA targets (SB35). The Housing Element and its associated programs are intended to address potential local constraints to housing development. Builder’s Remedy also does not guarantee a good housing project; it simply expedites the review process to eliminate local discretion. City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 3 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us A variety of factors, such as market conditions, capital costs, financing, supply chain disruptions, and labor market conditions, may affect the construction and completion of approved affordable housing projects. These factors are rarely associated with local obstacles and are beyond a jurisdiction’s purview.

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 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. City response: Partially Disagree. While the County and cities 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 Board of Supervisors and Town/City Councils cannot, for example, float bonds any longer without voter approval.

Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and low-income residents. City response: Agree.

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. City response: 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 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.

Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 4 O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects. City response: Partially Disagree. The City of Oakley has proactively engaged citizens, addressed zoning obstacles, identified viable sites for affordable housing, makes reasonable zoning concessions, works collaboratively with developers, provides local funding support, and is united in addressing NIMBY opposition, and still has difficulty attracting enough very low- and very-low affordable housing units to satisfy the RHNA.

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. City response: Agree. Grand Jury Recommendations and City Responses