HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-09 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, January 9, 2019
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
January 9, 2019Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday,
January 9, 2019, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive,
South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report regarding tenant protection and anti-displacement measures. (Alex Greenwood,
Economic & Community Development Director)
1.
CLOSED SESSION
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 374 Cypress Avenue (Parking Lot #13)
City Negotiators: Mike Futrell and Alex Greenwood
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and John R. Penna
Under Negotiation: Review of Price and Terms
2.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/11/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding tenant protection and anti-displacement measures.(Alex Greenwood,Economic &Community
Development Director)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a report on renter protection measures and provide staff
with direction on exploring further implementation in South San Francisco.
BACKGROUND
This report provides information to support the City Council’s study session on renter protection and anti-
displacement measures.Much of the material presented in this report was developed by 21 Elements,a
consortium of cities in San Mateo County and the County of San Mateo that work together to tackle housing
issues facing the region as a whole.
Impacts of Displacement on People and the Community
Residential displacement occurs when a household is forced to move from its residence due to rent increases or
loss of housing,despite the household having met all other conditions of their lease.Displacement is occurring
throughout the Bay Area and it takes many different forms,including:evictions,demolitions,rent increases,
and/or physical renovations or changes in use.This often results in the tenants becoming unable to find housing
in a neighborhood that was previously accessible and affordable.
Currently,the City receives an average of 50 to 60 new inquiries per month from local residents who are at risk
of displacement.In many of these cases,the displacement is caused by a large,abrupt increase in rent.But
whatever the cause,the displacement can lead to severe impacts at both the personal/household level as well as
the community level. These impacts include:
·Loss of neighborhood stability,
·Overcrowding of units in an attempt to cover rents,
·Personal and community health implications,
·Local businesses becoming less able attract and retain workers,
·Not having flexibility to move to better housing,
·Living with the uncertainty and fear of further increasing rents,
·Crises where people face eviction,
·Not having money available for other living expenses, and
·Increasing commute times.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
Existing City Programs
There are several tenant protection and anti-displacement policies that the City of South San Francisco already
employs. These include the following.
·Single-room occupancy (SRO)preservation.The City’s Zoning Ordinance,Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), permits SROs where they currently exist.
·Condominium conversion regulations.The City’s Subdivision Ordinance,SSFMC Title 19,provides for
specific protections for tenants of residential units proposed to be converted to condominiums.This
includes relocation assistance,freezing of rent increases,options to purchase,and specific noticing
requirements.
·Commercial linkage fee/program.The City assesses a commercial linkage fee on developers per square
foot of new commercial development. Revenues are used to develop or preserve affordable housing.
·Housing trust fund.The City’s Housing Trust Fund,Fund 205,is funded by in-lieu fee payments,
developer contributions,and commercial linkage fees.The Fund is dedicated to supporting affordable
housing construction and programs.
·Density bonus ordinance.City Council has introduced a new ordinance repealing and replacing SSFMC
Chapter 20.390,Bonus Residential Density,which outlines how the City accommodates the State
Density Bonus.Additionally,the City affords developers the opportunity to seek additional,bonus
density in the Downtown Station Area in exchange for providing community benefits,as codified in
SSFMC Sections 20.280.005.Although affordable housing is not an enumerated community benefit,
Council may consider any proposed benefit for additional density.
State Law
Municipalities seeking to enact anti-displacement or other tenant protection measures must do so in the context
of and in conformity with state law.A summary of the state law provisions most likely implicated in local
legislation in this arena is as follows.
Rent Increases
In general,for renters that are listed on a lease,their rent cannot be increased during the lease term.
After the lease term expires,or in month-to-month tenancies,state law allows property owners to
increase the rent as much as they want,as often as they want,so long as they give tenants sufficient
notice.Per the California Civil Code §827(b):Landlords typically must provide 30 days’notice if the
rent increase is 10 percent or less; or 60 days’ notice if the rent increase exceeds 10 percent.
Evictions
State law mandates a judicial eviction process,which starts with a written “termination notice”given to
the tenant.If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the 3,30,or 60-day termination notice,the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
the tenant.If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the 3,30,or 60-day termination notice,the
property owner file an “unlawful detainer”suit against the tenant.Unlawful detainers follow what is
called a “summary process,”meaning they are much swifter than typical lawsuits.A tenant has only five
days to respond to an eviction lawsuit,and the law requires that trial be scheduled within 20 days after
one of the parties (typically the property owner)requests a trial date be set.See Code of Civil Procedure
§§ 1159 et seq.
Property owners may always evict a tenant for cause (nonpayment,breach of the lease,nuisance,etc.).
Under state law,property owners need only provide 3 days’notice to initiate eviction proceedings
against a tenant who fails to pay rent,breaches the lease,creates a nuisance,or the like.During a lease
term (typically one-year),a property owner may not evict a tenant unless the property owner has good
cause, as described above.
For month-to-month tenancies (including tenancies that have “converted”to month-to-month after
expiration of an initial lease term),state law allows property owners to evict tenants “without
cause”(i.e.,for any reason or no reason at all),as long as it is not a retaliatory or discriminatory action,
and as long as adequate notice is given.Per the California Civil Code §1946.1:Property owners must
provide 30 days’notice if the tenant has lived in the property for less than one year;or 60 days’notice if
the tenant has lived in the property for a year or more.
Recent Regional Policy Discussions
During the past year,there have been several discussions about affordable housing by regional policy makers,
including the ongoing 21 Elements discussions mentioned above.In recent months,however,the most
prominent public discussion has been by an ad hoc committee facilitated by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC)-which has been commonly referred to as the “Consortium to House the Bay Area”or
“CASA.”
CASA includes representatives from for-profit and affordable housing developers,property owners,tech
businesses,labor,and elected officials including the mayors of San Francisco,Oakland,and San Jose.CASA
developed a white paper known as the “CASA Compact”,which puts forth 10 proposed policies for addressing
the current housing crisis (see Attachment 2).On December 12,2018,MTC voted to approve the CASA
Compact as an advisory document. Further discussions are expected in the coming year.
DISCUSSION
Below are a range of policies being used in cities throughout the Bay Area.
Minimum Lease Terms
Some jurisdictions,such as Mountain View and Menlo Park,have adopted ordinances requiring longer-term
leases for renters to add more stability for renters compared to month-to-month rental agreements.Ordinances
provide tenants with the ability to reject a written multiple-month lease if a month-to-month lease would better
suit their housing needs.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
The City of Palo Alto has adopted a rental housing stabilization ordinance that provides,among other things,a
landlord must offer the prospective tenant of any rental unit (defined to include all multiple-family dwellings)a
written lease for a minimum term of at least one year.The offered lease must set the rent for the unit at a rate
certain for the entire one-year term of the lease and the rent cannot be changed during that lease term,except as
provided in the written lease.If the tenant rejects the offered one-year lease,the parties are free to negotiate a
lease term of less than one year.Similarly,the City of Menlo Park recently adopted a requirement for landlords
to provide renters with the option of a 12-month lease.This ordinance requires landlords to notify renters of the
12-month lease option.Menlo Park City staff work with property owners,advocate groups and other
stakeholders to provide necessary assistance to ensure landlords are providing this notification.The City of
Redwood City adopted a similar ordinance in March 2018.
Requiring a landlord to offer a minimum one-year term for a lease affords the tenant protection against rent
increases during that term.However,while a landlord is required to offer a tenant a new one-year tenancy at the
end of the succeeding one year lease term (if the landlord chooses to renew the lease with that tenant),the
landlord is free to demand whatever rental rate the market will bear at the time of lease renewal.Some of the
concerns expressed at public meetings for 21 Elements about minimum lease terms are that a 12-month lease
restricts the owner’s ability to recoup costs,and a 12-month lease could inadvertently lock tenant into high rent
situation.
Rent Review Board and/or Mediation
In the cities of San Leandro and Palo Alto,mediators or rent review boards mediate between tenants and
landlords on issues related to rent increases and encourage them to come into voluntary agreement.Rent
mediation ordinances typically require owners of residential rental properties to include specified language on
the availability of rent mediation services on rent increase notices to tenants.While there is no limit on how
much rent can be increased,a tenant may request mediation (typically to a Landlord Tenant Mediator or Board)
if she/he feels the increase is excessive.Mediation ordinances typically establish a timeframe for rent increase
notification.A key feature of existing rent mediation ordinances is that the final decision of any mediation
process is non-binding.
The goals of rent mediation generally are the same as rent regulation (limiting unreasonable rent increases and
preventing displacement).The main difference is that mediation programs attempt to achieve this goal through
a non-binding mediation process rather than legally binding regulatory requirements,and that mediation
programs generally tend to be more permissive in establishing acceptable rent increases.Rent mediation can
also be applied to more rental units and not, like rent regulation, only to units built before 1995.
Relocation Assistance
Projects assisted with federal or state funds are subject to requirements to provide relocation assistance to
households displaced by those projects.Lower income housing units removed from the supply by such projects
generally have to be replaced with new units that are comparable in size and affordability.While federal and
state laws impose requirements on projects that receive public funds,privately financed development projects
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
are often exempt from such requirements.
There is no state law mandate for private landlords to assist displaced tenants by compensating for relocation
costs.Some jurisdictions that have just cause for eviction protections also implement relocation assistance
requirements for “no-fault”evictions.For example,tenants may be eligible for relocation assistance if a
landlord evicts them in order to move into the unit or due to extensive renovations to the unit.Tenants who are
evicted due to their own conduct (non-payment of rent,breach of lease,nuisance,etc.)are not eligible for
relocation assistance under any existing policies in California.While relocation assistance ordinances are
prevalent in cities with rent stabilization and just cause,other cities have chosen to adopt relocation assistance
ordinances as a stand-alone policy.
Local jurisdictions often require landlords to provide relocation assistance payments to all tenants when the
eviction is not the fault of the tenant (“no-fault evictions”).Other jurisdictions limit such mandated assistance
based on the type of eviction or the status of the affected tenant;it is particularly common to require relocation
assistance for evictions occurring when landlords require tenants to depart in order to occupy units themselves
(so-called “owner-occupancy”evictions)or Ellis Act evictions (i.e.,an eviction to remove a unit from the rental
market).
In Mountain View,landlords are required to pay relocation assistance when a landlord vacates four or more
rental units within a one-year period in order to (1)withdraw from the rental market (an Ellis Act eviction),(2)
demolish the rental property,(3)perform substantial renovations,(4)convert to condominiums,or (5)change to
a non-residential land use.Further,only tenants with a household income at or less than eighty percent of the
area median household income are eligible for relocation assistance.Other jurisdictions require relocation
assistance payments without reference to the income level of the affected tenants.
Under the Mountain View ordinance the landlord is required to refund the tenant’s security deposit (with
limited exceptions),provide the affected tenants with a 60-day subscription to a rental agency,and pay the
equivalent of three months’rent,based on the median monthly rent for a similar-sized unit in Mountain View.
Certain special-circumstances households,including seniors,persons with disabilities,and families with a
dependent child,are entitled to an additional $3,000 payment.The ordinance also requires 90 days’notice of
termination. Redwood City adopted a similar ordinance in March 2018.
Taking a slightly different approach to relocation assistance,the County of San Mateo adopted an ordinance in
2017 mandating landlords provide assistance to displaced tenants if the unit they were living in was deemed
uninhabitable.Landlords who cannot bring their property up to code within 90 days must provide three months’
fair-market rent for a similar-sized unit,and up to $1,000 in moving expenses.Originally adopted as a pilot
program, the ordinance was made permanent in February 2018.
While not directly a strategy to reduce potential displacement of tenants,since the payment is made after
eviction occurs,the amount of the relocation and any other requirements for the landlord can act as a deterrent
to displacement.Another related question is -if a tenant is displaced due to renovations should they have the
ability to move back into the complex they left?In other words,should temporary relocation be a consideration
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-884 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
ability to move back into the complex they left?In other words,should temporary relocation be a consideration
or should relocation assistance only be provided when permanent relocation is required?
Voluntary Rent Programs
Voluntary rent programs establish guidelines for what is considered “good behavior”in the rental housing
market. Questions related to a voluntary approach include the following.
1.What fair rental practices should be included under this program?
2.Should it be an advisory (publicity and outreach based)and provide an opportunity for landlords to
distinguish their properties by following best and fair rental practices?
3.Should there be more specific program goals, actions and targets identified (expectations)?
4.How should the success of the program be monitored and evaluated?
CONCLUSION
Staff requests that Council provide feedback on which,if any,of the tenant protection and anti-displacement
policies detailed above in the Discussion section should be explored further for implementation in South San
Francisco.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Tenant Protection &
Anti-Displacement Measures
City Council Study Session
January 9, 2019
Household forced to move due to
rent increase or loss of housing
Includes many forms:
◦Evictions
◦Demolitions
◦Rent increases
◦Construction / changes in use
2
Felt at both the household and community level
Neighborhood stability
Financial distress
Overcrowding
Worker shortages
Personal and community health implications
Loss of flexibility to move to better housing
Uncertainty & fear
Increasing commute times
3
Single room occupancy preservation
Condominium conversion regulations
Commercial linkage fee program
Inclusionary housing ordinance
Housing trust fund
Density bonuses
4
State Law
◦Rent Increases
◦Evictions
21 Elements
CASA Compact
5
6
Guarantees tenants the opportunity to sign a
longer lease (as opposed to month-to-month)
Tenants can negotiate shorter term if desired
Used in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City &
Menlo Park
7
Mediators or rent review boards provide
non-binding mediation between tenants and
landlords
Goal is to limit unreasonable rent increases
and prevent displacement
Used in Palo Alto and San Leandro
8
Projects assisted with public funds are
required to provide rental assistance, but
private projects are not
Used in Mountain View, Redwood City & San
Mateo County
9
Would require landlords to provide moving &
rental assistance for evictions due to:
◦Ellis Act evictions
◦Demolition or conversion of property to non-
residential use
◦Substantial renovations
◦Conversion to condominiums
◦Unit is deemed uninhabitable
10
What rental practices should be included?
Should it be advisory only?
Should targets be set for measuring success?
How should the program be monitored?
11
12
1
Memorandum To: Steering Committee members From: CASA Co-Chairs Date: December 7, 2018 Re: CASA Compact Updates and proposed additions and changes ========================================================================== This memo provides you with both a recap of the Technical Committee meeting held on Monday, December 3rd and proposed updates and changes to the Compact. Technical Committee Meeting Recap The CASA Compact has been posted as part of the Steering Committee meeting package. Earlier this week on Monday, December 3rd the Technical Committee voted on the Compact using a gradients of agreement system. The votes were overwhelmingly positive with 28 members voting favorably, and 1 voting negatively. The thoughts shared by the Technical Committee were also very positive reflecting an appreciation for the accomplishments to date, individual commitments to continue the work on selective issues, and the importance of holding the Compact together as a package as we work to move it through the California Legislature. There was also robust public comment with broad support for the tenant protection elements, an appreciation for both the importance and depth of the overall Compact work, and some concerns about how the regional housing entity governance structure will work. Overall, the public comment was 15 speakers supportive, 8 expressing concerns or opposed; and 4 sharing comments but not overtly supportive or opposed. Proposed Compact Updates and Changes The items below are a combination of words or concepts inadvertently left out of the Compact, clarifications where needed, and changes proposed based on Technical Committee meeting. 1.Recommendations for Compact Element #2 Emergency Rent Cap1a) Under the Pass-Throughs section, the following changes are proposed:Delete: A landlord should be able to pass through a percentage of capital improvements and expenses to renters, not to exceed a fixed dollar amount per year. Replace with: A landlord should be able to pass through actual operating expenses increases including water and sewer, wastewater, trash, electric and gas using industry standards such as the RUBS system (Ratio Utility Billing Systems). The costs of capital improvements inclusive of a 4% return on investment that are necessary to maintain the building(s) with reasonable upgrades and maintenance items to address health and safety, shall be allowed to be passed through to tenants on an amortized basis, per IRS standards.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
2
1b) Add the following language at the end of the Compact Element: Add new language: Administration: This Compact Element will likely require some type of oversight function. 2. Recommendations for Compact Element #3 Emergency Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel Under the Desired Effect, the following changes will be made: Substitute: “Bay Area” for “Alameda County” in Paragraph 2 Add the following sentences after Paragraph 2: There is a recognition of the importance of keeping people housed, and a significant portion of funding identified to help with housing instability will likely be earmarked to emergency rental assistance. This Compact Element is not intended to supersede any local government programs that might be more expansive that what is contemplated herein. 3. Recommendations for Compact Element #5 Minimum Zoning Near Transit 3a) Under Minimum Zoning Near Transit, the following language in blue will be added: Add in language in blue:
High quality bus service: Residential uses up to 36’ tall with development standards (such as lot coverage, setbacks, density limits, and maximum unit size) should be allowed within ½ mile of bus stops with at least 15-minute headways at peak periods and 30-minute headways on weekends.
Major transit stop: Residential uses up to 55’ tall (75’ tall with density bonus) that have development standards similar to those above (such as lot coverage, setbacks, density limits, and maximum unit size) should be allowed within 1/4 -mile radius of major transit stops (rail stations and ferry terminals). Neither development standards nor other zoning and design controls should mandate densities lower than those prescribed above. These shall not be used to reduce density where higher local standards or plans apply. 3b) Under the Sensitive Communities section here and elsewhere in the Compact, make the following change:
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
3
Substitute: Wherever the phrase “opt-out period” has been used inadvertently, it will be substituted with “deferral period”. 3c) Replace Figure 5: Map of Transit Access and Sensitive Communities Replace: Current Figure 5 Map will be replaced with an updated Map of Transit Access and Sensitive Communities attached as Exhibit A. The updated map contains the following changes: 1. Removes the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) communities designated by the Air District since it is based on air quality indicators. Sensitive Communities are now the intersection of two adopted definitions of disadvantaged communities, that of MTC and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 2. Consequently, adds additional areas to the Sensitive Communities, including parts of West Bay (East Palo Alto), San Francisco (Richmond District) and North Bay (San Rafael, Santa Rosa, Napa and Fairfield). 4. Recommendations to Compact Element #7 Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing 4a) Under the Desired Effect, the following sentence will be added at the end of the paragraph: Add: The intent of this element is that it does not overrule local inclusionary zoning. 4b) Under Qualifying Projects, add the following sentence: Add: Complies with all proposed labor standards contained in SB 35 and shall include prevailing wages and trained apprentices to help grow the construction workforce. 4c) The following bullet shall be deleted and restated as follows: Delete:
• Restricts at least twenty percent (20%) of on-site housing units to middle-income households (approximately 80% to 150% of AMI depending on local market conditions) with an average affordability of 110% of AMI. Replace with new sentence with changes shown in blue:
• Restricts at least twenty percent (20%) of on-site housing units to middle-income households through recorded long-term deed restrictions (that may range from 80% to 150% of AMI depending on localized rents and market conditions) with an average affordability not to exceed 110% of AMI.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
4
5. Recommendations to Compact Element #9 Funding and Financing the CASA Compact 5a) Under Funding Gap, the following sentence shall be added to the end of the paragraph: Add: Any regional impositions that duplicate similar local impositions shall be reduced proportionally. 5b) Under the Potential Sources section, add the following section before the final sentence of the paragraph: Add: CASA also recommends exploring with other stakeholders whether a ‘mega measure’ involving transportation and funding could be pursued. 5c) Under Potential Sources, the following language in blue will be added to the second sentence: Add the language in blue: In principle, new revenue would be raised from a range of sources to spread the responsibility among different sectors of the economy. 6. Recommendations to Compact Element #10 Regional Housing Enterprise Under the Roles and Responsibilities section, amend the Monitoring and reporting section as follows: Strike, replace and add language shown in strike format and blue in the first sentence to amend the section to read:
Monitoring and reporting – the RHE may will coordinate with MTC/ABAG and local jurisdictions to collect relevant specified data…. 7. Recommendations to Calls for Action section 7a) In Call for Action: Redevelopment 2.0 in the Call to Action section, the following word will be deleted: Delete one word shown in strike format: Pass legislation enabling the re-establishment of redevelopment agencies in California…. 7b) In Call for Action: Proposition 13 Reforms Fiscalization of Land Use, correct this title to read as follows: Delete language in strike format: Proposition 13 Reforms Fiscalization of Land Use
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
5
8. Recommendation to the Local Best Practices section 8a) Delete the section contents in their entirety and replace with the language in Exhibit B.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
6
Exhibit A – New Map The following Figure 5: Map of Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas shall be substituted into the Compact. A larger version of the map will be provided at the Steering Committee meeting.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
7
Exhibit B – Local Best Practices The following new Local Best Practices section shall be substituted into the Compact.
Local Best Practices This section describes local best practices that are relevant to the CASA Compact.
Protection, Preservation and Production (3-Ps) Framework While many jurisdictions in the Bay Area focus on one or two of three Ps, the City of Oakland was one of the first to codify the 3-P framework in a citywide policy developed through a multi-stakeholder process. The underlying policy outcome for Oakland was to address housing insecurity in a rapidly changing community that faces both historic disinvestment as well as very high displacement pressures.
City of Oakland In 2016, the Oakland Housing Cabinet developed a comprehensive plan, called Oakland at Home – Recommendations
for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity, to address the city’s chronic housing affordability and homelessness crisis. The plan outlines a three-pronged strategy to protect renters, preserve existing affordable housing by taking it off the speculative real estate market and produce more affordable and market-rate housing. The plan identifies several strategies under each “P” designed to significantly improve housing affordability in Oakland. CASA borrowed this concept from Oakland’s plan to form the three Ps framework.
Rent Stabilization 13 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of rent stabilization policies. This section highlights two such examples, in the City of Richmond and County of Sonoma.
City of Richmond In 2016, Richmond residents approved Measure L, which established the Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction
and Homeowner Protection Ordinance. The ordinance applies to all multifamily properties, including duplexes. The annual rent increase is set at 100% of the Consumer Price Index. Landlords are required to file all notices of rent increase, termination of tenancy, and change of terms of tenancy notices with the Rent Program. Landlords and tenants may petition the Rent Board for an Individual Rent Adjustment. The city established a Rent Board, an appointed governing body, and a Rent Program Department to administer the program. The department is set up to function on a cost-recovery basis, with no financial assistance from the city’s general funds. Funding for the department comes from Rental Housing Fee, which must be paid by all Richmond Landlords on an annual basis.
City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma On October 9, 2017, the Governor of California issued an Executive Order declaring a state of emergency in Napa and Sonoma Counties due to widespread damage caused by wildfires. California Penal Code section 396 prohibits price gouging (defined as increases over 10%) for necessary goods and services after the governor declares a state of emergency, including rental housing and hotels. The City of Santa Rosa adopted additional protections for tenants, which allow renters to file civil lawsuits for violations. The county also adopted protections for tenants in mobile home parks. In addition, the county adopted several Urgency Ordinances to address the immediate need for housing for persons displaced by the wildfires. The Urgency Ordinance allows: the use of recreational vehicles and trailers as homes, with an emergency temporary permit; a Safe Parking Program for RVs, trailers and campers, to be parked overnight on county-owned land (basic services such as bathrooms, showers, and warming stations are provided); year-round occupancy in seasonal farmworker housing; replacement schools and child care centers in specific zones without a use permit; and long-term rental of bed and breakfasts, inns, resorts.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
8
Just Cause Eviction Protections 10 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have already adopted some form of just cause eviction protections for renters. This section highlights one such example, in the City of East Palo Alto.
City of East Palo Alto East Palo Alto has adopted both a Just Cause for Eviction as well as a Rent Stabilization Ordinance to protect tenants in the city from harassment and displacement due to rising market pressures on the city’s existing housing stock. The just cause policy applies to both mobile home parks and residential rental units, including single family dwellings. The ordinance identifies fourteen just causes for eviction, establishes a noticing and filing requirement (with the city rent board) and gives tenants the right to request documentation of all rent payments and charges. The program is funded entirely through fees, half of which are passed on to tenants.
Access to Legal Counsel
City and County of San Francisco In June of 2018, San Francisco voters approved Proposition F that guarantee free legal representation for any renter facing eviction, regardless of income. Proposition F calls for full-scope representation within thirty days of an eviction notice or filing of an unlawful detainer action. San Francisco estimates that as many as thirty-five hundred tenants a year will be eligible for the free services, for which it earmarked $5.8 million over the first two years of the program. San Francisco also currently spends $4.4 million a year on eviction-related services such as counseling, education, outreach and basic no-cost or low-cost legal services.
Rent Assistance 26 jurisdictions in the Bay Area provide some form of tenant assistance. This section highlights one such example, in the County of Sonoma.
County of Sonoma Lastly, the county’s Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program (TBA) provides rent subsidies to homeless families in shelters, survivors of domestic violence, seniors and persons with HIV/AIDS. Only very low-income individuals are eligible to receive this assistance. They are referred by emergency shelters, transitional shelters, non-profit service providers, the County’s Human Services Department and the Division of Adult and Aging Services. The TBA program is administered similarly to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 program.
Acquisition and Rehabilitation of Affordable Units 30 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have established some form of a preservation program to support acquisition, rehabilitation and protection of affordable units occupied by low-income renters. This section highlights one such example, in the City and County of San Francisco.
City and County of San Francisco Launched by the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development in 2014, San Francisco’s Small Sites Program (SSP) is an acquisition and rehabilitation loan program for small multifamily rental buildings. The program was created to protect and establish long-term affordable housing throughout San Francisco. SSP is funded through multiple sources, including voter-approved bonds, inclusionary housing fees, and the city’s Housing Trust Fund. As of May 2018, the program has acquired 160 units in 25 buildings, serving 327 residents that earn less than 65% of the Area Median Income. The units are located in the following neighborhoods: the Mission District, Downtown/Civic Center, South of Market, Castro/Upper Market, Haight Ashbury, Bernal Heights and Richmond.
Homebuyer Assistance 28 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have established some form of a homebuyer program. This section highlights two such examples, in the cities of Napa and Oakland.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
9
City of Napa Napa’s Down Payment Assistance Program, funded with grants from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, provides assistance to lower-income first time home buyers in the form of a silent (deferred) loan of up to $150,000. To qualify, an applicant must meet income and credit restrictions and cannot have owned a home in the last three years. Homes must be located within city limits and cannot be bigger than 3 bedrooms and 2 baths.
City of Oakland Hello Housing, a regional non-profit organization, has partnered with the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, to acquire and convert formerly blighted and tax-defaulted properties into permanently affordable housing for low-and-moderate income residents. Hello Housing and three local developers have acquired 26 vacant, a majority of which will be developed into single-family homes for ownership and two properties into multifamily affordable rental units to house approximately 15 to 20 families. Construction on the first homes is now underway with occupancy on many of the homeownership properties expected in late 2018 and early 2019.
Permit Streamlining 50 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of permit streamlining policies. This section highlights two such examples, in the County of Sonoma and the City of San Jose.
City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma In the aftermath of the wildfires in Sonoma in 2017, the City of Santa Rosa adopted multiple policies to expedite the permitting process for those who wanted to rebuild. There included: establishing a Resilient City Permit Center with dedicated staff; exemptions from environmental review; expansion of damaged nonconforming residential structures to added living areas, ADUs, and JADUs; increasing the allowable residential floor area in mixed-use projects from 50 to 80 percent; and delaying collection of fees until near occupancy. The county also established a Resiliency Permit
Center to expedite permitting, and relaxed rules related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
City of San Jose In 2014, the City of San Jose formed an ad-hoc committee to explore permit streamlining for small businesses as well as for major projects. Based on the committee’s recommendations, the city created a planning desk dedicated to small projects and recently established an electronic plan review system to simplify permitting. The electronic system has resulted in time and cost savings for both the city as well as the applicant. The system provides real-time updates on the status of the approval process.
Fee Waiver 26 jurisdictions in the Bay Area offer some form of fee waivers to housing developers. This section highlights one such example, in the City of Sunnyvale.
City of Sunnyvale Sunnyvale charges all new rental housing projects an impact fee of $9 to $18 per habitable square feet. If a developer opts to provide affordable units on-site instead of paying the housing impact fee, the city credits the developer $300,000 per very low-income unit and $150,000 for every low-income unit, up to the total housing impact fee amount owed by the project. In case any fee obligation remains after the affordable unit developer credits are applied, the developer may opt to provide additional affordable units to reduce the fee to zero. These developer credits are based on the subsidy amounts required to develop affordable units, which the 2014 rental impact fee nexus study determined to be $302,496 for a very low-income unit and $146,233 for a low-income unit. The city also waives the park and recreation fee for affordable units.
Housing Overlay Zoning 24 jurisdictions in the Bay Area have adopted some form of a zoning overlay for housing projects. This section highlights one such example, in the City of Menlo Park.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
10
City of Menlo Park Menlo Park’s Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zone was established to encourage the development of housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households on housing opportunity sites identified in the city’s adopted Housing Element. The AHO establishes development standards for these sites and is designed to benefit all affordable housing projects, including market-rate developments that provide a higher share of low- and very low-income units than what is called for in the State’s Density Bonus Program.
New Revenue and Organizational Capacity for Housing Multiple cities and counties in the Bay Area have raised new revenue for housing in the last two election cycles and/or adopted a regional or sub-regional approach to solving the housing crisis. This section highlights two such examples, in the counties of Santa Clara and Sonoma.
County of Santa Clara In June 2016, Santa Clara voters approved Measure A, a $950 million affordable housing bond program to build and preserve 5,000 affordable housing units countywide. The bond proceeds will help stabilize housing for the county’s most vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderate-income individuals or families, foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses. Measure A priorities include advancing supportive housing for special needs populations, including homeless and chronically homeless persons and increasing housing supply for extremely low-income populations. As of June 2018, the first year of implementation, the county approved $111 million for 10 projects that will add more than 800 multifamily units in 6 cities. The county also approved $25 million for a first-time homebuyer program.
County of Sonoma The City of Santa Rosa and the county are moving forward with establishing a joint powers authority, called the Renewal Enterprise District (RED), with the explicit goal for regionalizing housing production; pooling and leveraging financing and funding; sharing risks and benefits of development in new ways; streamlining environmental review and providing confidence in good projects; and putting equity, affordability and climate solutions in the center of local economic strategy. When established the RED will focus housing development in specific geographies; define project criteria for which incentives and streamlined permitting processes are appropriate; pursue new models for public-private partnerships; expand, pool, and leverage public and private financing in new ways; explore the most strategic use of publicly-owned land; and leverage the regional housing planning tools and resources of MTC/ABAG
Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration This section highlights the unique process in San Mateo County to coordinate housing strategies across jurisdictions, including conducting a “nexus” study for setting impact fees.
Cities in the County of San Mateo
The 21 Elements Effort 21 Elements is a multi-year, multi-phase collaboration of all twenty-one San Mateo County jurisdictions, along with partner agencies and stakeholder organizations. The project aims to support jurisdictions in developing, adopting, and implementing local housing policies and programs. It is a forum for sharing resources, successful strategies and best practices. The projects is co-sponsored and coordinated by the San Mateo County Department of Housing (DOH) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). The project recognizes that cities in the county often struggle with similar housing issues and consider similar solutions. 21 Elements helps those cities find policies that are right for them, working with their neighbors in a supportive, cooperative environment. Respecting local control, 21 Elements makes it easier to adopt innovative policies that address important housing needs. From affordable housing to accessory dwelling units, 21 Elements has resources to help.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
11
Grand Nexus Study Through a multi-jurisdiction collaborative process, 15 cities in San Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto embarked on developing a nexus study for their respective linkage fee programs. This project, which came to be known as the Grand Nexus Study, reduced costs by 75 percent and helped establish best practices. Customized, jurisdiction-specific reports focusing on local conditions were completed and provided to each participating city in the second half of 2015.
Affordable Housing Needs Allocation In the fourth Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle, 11 of San Mateo County’s 21 jurisdictions engaged in “housing unit trades.” Five of these jurisdictions accepted additional unit allocations for proposed development adjacent to their city limits. Three additional jurisdictions who had already adopted a land use plan that calls for more housing development also accepted additional allocations. In all, these trades covered a total of 396 units, or 2.5% of the total 8-year allocation for the county. While numerically insignificant, the trades represent an important accomplishment for these 11 jurisdictions as they work together on multiple other efforts to meet the county’s housing crisis.
Agenda Item III Attachemnt a
A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the
San Francisco Bay Area
December 2018
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Contents
CASA Preamble .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Tenant Protections
Compact Element #1: Just Cause Eviction Policy .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Compact Element #2: Emergency Rental Assistance and Rent Cap .......................................................................................................... 9
Compact Element #3: Emergency Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel ............................................................................. 11
Housing Inclusion and Capacity
Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs ................................................................................................................... 13
Compact Element #5: Minimum Zoning near Transit ................................................................................................................................. 15
Compact Element #6: Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process ........................................................................... 17
Approval Process and Timeline
Compact Element #7: Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing .......................................................... 19
Compact Element #8: Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing ........................................................................................................ 21
Funding and Coordination
Compact Element #9: Funding and Financing the CASA Compact .......................................................................................................... 23
Compact Element #10: Regional Housing Enterprise .................................................................................................................................. 25
Calls for Action
Call for Action: Redevelopment 2.0 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Call for Action: Lower the Voter Threshold for Housing Funding Measures ...................................................................................... 27
Call for Action: Proposition 13 Fiscal Reforms Fiscalization of Land Use............................................................................................ 27
Call for Action: Homelessness ................................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Call for Action: Grow and Stabilize the Construction Labor Force.......................................................................................................... 28
Local Best Practices
Appendices
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
The Bay Area faces many pressing
regional problems — traffic congestion,
air pollution, the threat of earthquakes
and other natural disasters, to name a
few. But the housing shortage has
reached crisis proportions. During our
remarkable run of economic expansion
since the Great Recession ended in 2010,
the Bay Area has added 722,000 jobs but
constructed only 106,000 housing units.
With housing supply and demand that
far out of whack, prices have shot
through the roof and long-time residents
as well as newcomers are suffering the
consequences.
In one of the wealthiest metropolitan
areas on the planet, hundreds of
thousands of our fellow citizens are ill-
housed or not even housed at all. Many
more families are just one missed
paycheck away from eviction. While the recent wildfires
have underscored the devastating effects of suddenly
losing a home, the reality is that too many Bay Area
residents face that situation every day.
Our housing crisis is also a transportation crisis. Nearly
190,000 workers commute from outside the nine-county
Bay Area to the business parks of Silicon Valley and the
Tri-Valley, and more than 220,000 East Bay residents
cross the toll bridges to the Peninsula every day. Driven by
the search for reasonably-priced housing, these “super-
commuters” are clogging the roads and transit systems
that we all rely on.
The Bay Area faces a housing crisis because we have failed
at three tasks: (1) we have failed to
produce enough housing for residents
at all income levels; (2) we have failed
to preserve the affordable housing that
already exists; and (3) we have failed
to protect current residents from
displacement where neighborhoods
are changing rapidly.
These 3 P’s — Production,
Preservation, and Protection — are
not only the signposts of our collective
failure, but they should be the focus of
our future efforts to overcome the
crisis we have created.
What is CASA? Of course, it is the
Spanish word for “house”. It is also the
name of a blue-ribbon task force of
elected and civic leaders convened by
the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) and
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC). Its three Co-Chairs
are Fred Blackwell of the San Francisco
Foundation, Leslye Corsiglia of Silicon
Valley @ Home and Michael
Covarrubias of TMG Partners. The CASA
Compact is a 15-year emergency policy
package to confront the region’s
housing crisis head-on. It includes a
series of policy reforms that will allow
the Bay Area to build more housing at
all income levels while protecting
tenants and low-income communities
from unjust evictions and displacement.
The Compact also includes a series of
revenue recommendations needed to,
preserve our existing housing stock,
subsidize the construction of more
affordable housing, and provide
assistance to tenants facing eviction.
Finally, the CASA coalition proposes to
create a new Regional Housing Enterprise to provide
technical assistance to local governments, collect data to
monitor our progress, and administer any new regional
funds that might be approved. The new enterprise will not
have direct land use authority. These three R’s — Reform,
Revenue, and Regionalism — form the crux of the CASA
Compact.
Animating our work has been a deep concern about how
we grow housing in a more inclusive manner in all
neighborhoods and not accelerate displacement in the
most vulnerable communities. The Bay Area’s segregated
housing patterns — both by race and by income — are a
legacy of decades of discriminatory government policies
and private sector lending practices. The
CASA Compact contains specific
protections for neighborhoods and
residents most affected by that horrible
history. And while the Compact was not
designed to deal directly with all aspects
of the region’s chronic homelessness
problem, many of its elements should
result in more and better options to
shelter this particularly vulnerable
segment of the Bay Area’s population.
When Bay Area residents are polled about
who is responsible for the region’s
housing crisis, they spread the blame far
and wide: it’s the businesses who create
all the jobs, it’s the developers who build
the luxury housing, it’s local government
officials who oppose new housing
developments, it’s environmental and
labor interests whose demands make new
housing more expensive, it’s community
CASA Preamble
“The Bay Area is in a state of
great peril today; CASA is the
best chance to fix this crisis.”
FRED BLACKWELL
“Our goal is to reach
responses that will move the
needle on housing
LESLYE CORSIGLIA
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
groups who fear the changes that new
development will bring.
All those interests (and more) came
together around the CASA table for the
past 18 months. They worked in the
spirit of finding common ground,
working through entrenched
differences and charting a course
forward for the good of the region. The
resulting Compact represents an
interlocking series of agreements
among the negotiating parties. Each
signatory to the Compact pledges to
support the entire agreement and all of
its provisions.
The signatories to the CASA Compact
further pledge that their work will not
stop when they put down their
ceremonial pens. The real work will
have just begun.
Implementation of the CASA Compact
will require bills to be passed in Sacramento, it will
require leadership from our new governor Gavin Newsom,
it will require regional ballot measure campaigns in 2020
and the years beyond, it will require
changes in transportation and housing
policy-making at both ABAG and MTC, and
it will require every local government in
the Bay Area to do their part.
It is a commonplace to say problems that
have been decades in the making can’t be
solved overnight. But we can’t afford to
take our time in confronting the Bay
Area’s housing crisis. We need to make
significant progress in the next 3–5 years.
The CASA Compact is detailed,
comprehensive, and actionable. Yet, the
region’s housing challenge really boils
down to a simple, quite personal question:
shouldn’t our region be able to grow and
prosper while also ensuring that our kids
and grandkids can live as adults in the
neighborhoods where they grew up?
We say the answer is yes.
CASA is about what kind of place our kids and grandkids will live in.
break
down silos, and
Bay Area.”
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
5
Introduction
About CASA
The recommendations in this Compact are the result of an intensive dialogue among the key interests who are collectively
responsible for housing the Bay Area. Over the course of 18 months, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) convened a series of structured discussions with local government officials,
developers, major employers, labor interests, housing and policy experts, social equity advocates and non-profit housing
providers. The goal was straightforward but by no means simple: find common ground on a comprehensive set of solutions to
the Bay Area’s housing crisis.
CASA was led by three Co-Chairs (Fred Blackwell, Leslye Corsiglia and Michael Covarrubias), and Steve Heminger, Executive
Director of MTC/ABAG. It was structured around a Technical Committee of policy experts and practitioners and a Steering
Committee of elected officials, thought leaders and major employers. The Technical Committee’s role was to recommend
actions for addressing the crisis. Those recommendations went to the Steering Committee for review, refinement and final
approval. The CASA effort was supported and staffed by MTC/ABAG and a team of consultants. Profiles of the Co-Chairs and
rosters for both the Steering and Technical Committees are included as appendices to this document.
Phase One: Foundational Work (June 2017-Jan 2018)
The first phase of the CASA process was focused on learning, sharing perspectives, and developing a framework for the
process of developing the CASA Compact. Experts from UC Berkeley provided in-depth analysis of the many causes and
consequences of the crisis, ensuring that all members of the Committees were operating from a shared base of knowledge.
On the basis of this shared understanding, the Co-Chairs and Committee forged a detailed framework (shown as Figure A) to
shape the CASA process and the ultimate Compact. The framework is organized around three principal outcomes, or ‘Three Ps’
as they became known in CASA parlance:
(1) Increasing housing production at all levels of affordability,
(2) Preserving existing affordable housing, and
(3) Protecting vulnerable households from housing instability and displacement.
Phase Two: Brainstorming Action Ideas (Jan-July 2018)
Next, the Committees spent six months brainstorming and vetting upwards of 30 action ideas. This process was driven by
workgroups who dedicated hundreds of hours to meeting, researching and drafting ideas. Community-based organizations
and members of the public also participating in generating ideas. A series of listening sessions around the region solicited
input from vulnerable households in identifying priority actions that CASA should consider. Members of the public also shared
ideas and feedback through public comment. Each idea was written up and presented to the Technical Committee for vetting.
The Committee members used a “gradients of agreement” tool to score each idea on a scale of 1 -5. The Steering Committee
reviewed and refined the most promising ideas that emerged from the Technical Committee.
Phase 3: Crafting the Compact (Sept-Dec 2018)
In the final phase, the Co-Chairs distilled the 30+ action plans into the Compact you see before you. This happened through an
iterative process, with successive versions of the Compact presented to both the Technical and Steering Committees and
refined based on their input.
Phase 4, CASA Implementation
CASA leadership and key members will continue to work in cross-sector coordination with State and local elected officials and
agencies to implement the principles of the CASA Compact.
Core Principles
Over the course of this process, the participants forged an understanding around core principles that underpin the
recommendations in this document. These include:
1. Shared responsibility: All sectors and interests should share the burdens and benefits of housing the Bay Area.
2. Inclusion everywhere: Find ways to include more housing at all income levels, in every jurisdiction.
3. Promote ‘Missing Middle’ housing types: Encourage the development of smaller homes that are more affordable by
design and less likely to cause displacement.
4. Stabilize communities: Preserve the historic diversity and access to opportunity in the Bay Area.
5. Balance across the Three Ps: Individual components of the Compact should move forward together and avoid
undermining each other.
6. Level the playing field: The Compact should create fair, more uniform standards for the housing development process,
across the Bay Area.
7. Minimize administrative burden: We should minimize new administrative requirements and focus on strategies that can
be implemented rapidly and efficiently.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure A: The CASA
Compact Framework
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
7
Compact Element #1: Just Cause Eviction Policy
Brief Summary: Ensure that all Bay Area tenants are protected from arbitrary evictions by adopting a region-wide policy
requiring landlords to cite specific "just causes" (both fault and no-fault) for termination of tenancy, such as failure to pay
rent or violation of lease terms. Require landlords to provide relocation assistance for covered no-fault evictions.
Desired Effect: Just cause protects tenants from arbitrary evictions. Studies show that eviction can cause health issues,
emotional trauma, school disruption for children, longer and costly commutes, and reduced wage earnings for adults. Just
cause eviction protections promote tenant stability and limit eviction-related health consequences. See Figure 1 for recent
eviction trends in San Francisco.
References and Models: Action Plan 2.1; NJ state Just Cause Law; Large cities in CA (SF, Oakland, San Jose, LA)
Detailed Proposal:
Permissible causes for eviction: both fault and no-fault evictions should be allowable under a region-wide just cause
policy. Fault eviction causes should include failure to pay rent, substantial breach of a material term of the rental agreement,
nuisance, waste, or illegal conduct. No-fault causes should include owner move-in, withdrawal of unit from rental market
(Ellis Act/condo conversions), unit unsafe for habitation, or demolition/substantial rehabilitation
Coverage: just cause eviction standards should apply to all rental units except the following:
Government owned and government subsidized housing units or housing with existing government regulatory
assessments that govern rent increases in subsidized rental units (e.g., Section 8)
Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in Civil Code Section 1940(b)
Housing accommodations in nonprofit hospital, religious facility, or extended care facility
Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education or a K-12 school
Tenant shares bathroom/kitchen with the owner who maintains principal residence there
Single owner-occupied residences including when the owner-occupant rents or leases 2 units (including ADU and JADU)
or bedrooms
Resident-owned nonprofit housing
Waiting Period: the protections should apply only after a tenant has been in occupancy (with or without a lease) for at least
12 months. All existing tenancies should be subject to these protections, effective immediately upon the policy being signed
into law.
Notice Requirements: owners should be required to provide notice to tenants at the beginning of each tenancy as to tenant
rights with copy of lease. This notice should be in the form of a lease addendum that is signed by the tenant at the time the
lease is signed. The grounds for eviction should be set forth in the notice to terminate tenancy.
If the reason for the termination is a curable lease violation, the owner should be required to provide an initial no tice with
an opportunity to cure before the notice of termination. If the lease violation is related to specific illegal activity that
presents the potential for harm to other tenants, there should not be a right to cure. Separate provisions should be made for
domestic violence situations.
Relocation Assistance: relocation assistance should be provided in all covered no-fault causes where tenants have been in
occupancy for at least 12 months, except in cases where the owner is moving into the unit. At time of service of notice to
quit, the landlord should notify the tenants of their right to relocation assistance and provide payment directly to the tena nt.
The amount of relocation assistance should be tiered based on number of bedrooms (see San Jose example). Relocation
assistance should be available to all qualifying tenants regardless of income.
Preemption of Local Ordinances: this law should not preempt more restrictive local ordinances.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 1: Low-Income Renters in 2016 and Sensitive Communities
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
9
Compact Element #2: Emergency Rent Cap
Brief Summary: Establish a Bay Area-wide emergency rent cap that limits annual increases in rent to a reasonable amount.
Desired Effect: An emergency rent cap would prevent extreme increases in rent on a year-to-year basis, thereby decreasing
the number of households who are at risk of displacement and homelessness, decreasing the number of households who are
rent burdened, and promoting tenant and community stability. Extreme rent increases can pose a particular burden for
tenants who are low and fixed income. Can be extended after the emergency period. Figure 2 maps the many Bay Area
communities at risk of displacement.
References and Models: Action Plans 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; Existing State Anti-Gouging Law in States of Emergency
Detailed Proposal:
Cap on Annual Rent Increase: for an emergency period (15 years), no landlord should increase rent by more than CPI+5%
in any year of tenancy. The notice of allowable rent increase should be provided annually.
Vacancy Provision: the cap on rent increase should apply to the renter, not the unit.
Coverage: the following unit types should be exempt from the cap:
Affordable housing properties governed by regulatory agreements;
ADUs on owner-occupied properties;
Dormitories.
Pass-Throughs, Banking and Capital Improvements: if rent has declined or if landlord has not increased rents for several
consecutive years, landlords should be able to bank those unused rent increases for 3-5 years. When drawing upon banked
rent increases, landlords should not be allowed to increase rents more than 10-15% annually.
A landlord should be able to pass through a percentage of capital improvements and expenses to renters, not to exceed a
fixed dollar amount per year.
Preemption of Local Ordinances: this law should not preempt more restrictive local ordinances.
State of Emergency: rent cap shall be evaluated before any extension is granted to study impact of rent cap on housing
market overall.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 2: Map of Displacement Risk
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
11
Compact Element #3: Emergency Rent Assistance and Access to Legal Counsel
Brief Summary: For low-income tenants facing eviction, provide access to free legal counsel and emergency rent assistance.
Desired Effect: Access to a lawyer can be the difference between losing a home and keeping it. Ensuring that all tenants
facing eviction have access to legal counsel would create a fairer justice system; prevent evictions and homelessness;
improve health, stability, and opportunity for thousands of residents including children; and preserve existing affordable
housing.
Non-payment of rent is the leading cause of evictions in the Bay Area. Figure 3 shows rent increase trends in Alameda
County. An emergency rent assistance program would assist in cases where tenants have an urgent, temporary financial gap.
It would help tenants stay in their homes, preventing evictions, periods of marginal housing, and homelessness for
households at risk of eviction due to financial instability.
References and Models: Action Plans 3.1 and 4.1; SF Prop F (June 2018); New York City; Santa Clara County Emergency
Assistance Network
Detailed Proposal:
Legal Representation: all tenants who are faced with legal proceedings to evict them from their residence should have
access to legal counsel, except when eviction proceedings are brought by a landlord or master tenant who resides in the
same dwelling unit or property with tenant. The term “legal representation” should mean full scope representation
provided to an individual by a designated organization or attorney which includes, but is not limited to, filing responsive
pleadings, appearing on behalf of the tenant in court proceedings, and providing legal advice.
Emergency Rent Assistance: low-income tenants facing eviction and homelessness due to non-payment of rent should be
eligible to receive emergency rent assistance. This assistance should be targeted to tenant s who have an urgent, temporary
financial gap and are at high risk for becoming homeless if evicted. The Regional Housing Enterprise (see Compact Element
#10) should establish guidelines and policies for administering the program, including how to determin e eligibility. The
regional agency should identify, fund and oversee local service providers (public or non-profit) to carry out the program.
Cap on Assistance: the amount of total assistance should be capped at $5,000 - $10,000 per tenancy.
Landlord Obligation: landlord obligation should be limited to providing an addendum notice of this access in lease and
eviction notice. Landlord should have no payment or any other obligations. If a tenant fails to seek legal counsel, it will not
impede eviction proceedings for landlord.
Means Testing: emergency rental assistance should be limited those whose incomes do not exceed 80% of AMI. Legal
services should be provided to all qualifying tenants regardless of income.
Funding: generate significant funds through Compact Element #9 to fund regional access to legal counsel and emergency
rent assistance. Pro-bono counsel for tenants shall be encouraged.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 3: Map of Rent Increases, 2010-2016
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
13
Compact Element #4: Remove Regulatory Barriers to ADUs
Brief Summary: Extend current Bay Area best practices regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to every jurisdiction in
the region. Amend existing state ADU law to remove regulatory barriers including ministerial approval for ADUs and Junior
ADUs in residential zones, allowance for multiple ADUs in multi-family homes, and creation of a small homes building code
(AB 2890 Ting).
Desired Effect: Existing single-family homes make up a significant portion of the region’s land base. Local best practices in
the region today allow both an ADU and Junior ADU on single family lots and multiple ADUs in existing multi -family
buildings with ministerial approval. See Figure 4 for a prototypical ADU. Expanding these best practices regionwide would
allow for a rapid increase in more affordable homes, and would help stabilize cost-burdened homeowners by creating a new
source of income. If 20% of the region’s 1.5 million single-family homeowners choose to build an ADU, this policy could
create 300,000 new homes distributed throughout existing neighborhoods. This includes about 50,000 new units in Priority
Development Areas alone.
References and Models: Action Plans 10.3, 10.4; UCB Chapple 2014; UCB Terner Center 2017; Legislative history SB 1069,
AB 2890; Arlington VA, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Vancouver BC, State of Oregon Tiny Homes Code.
Detailed Proposal:
Local Standards for ADUs (see AB 2890 Ting): new state law should require local jurisdictions in the Bay Area to
encourage the creation of ADUs as follows:
Require ministerial approval for both an ADU and a Junior ADU (JADU) in all residential zones including in rear yards or
by division of existing homes into two units;
ADUs receiving ministerial permits should not be used for short-term rentals;
Encourage forgiveness of code violations (except health and safety) in grandfathered ADUs;
Apply the Housing Accountability Act’s provisions for determining project consistency.
Sprinklers should be required for ADUs if required under the building code for comparable home construction. Use of
unlicensed contractors under “owner builder” permits shall be discouraged by requiring that a statement of owner liability
be provided when building permit is issued.
Impact Fees: require impact fees for ADUs and tiny homes to be charged on a per-square-foot basis and (2) only on net new
living area over 500 sq. ft. per accessory unit.
Small and Tiny Homes Building Code: state law should create a building code for small homes and wheeled homes to
reduce non-safety code requirements that disproportionately make small homes and tiny homes infeasible including energy
standards, appliance and room sizes, and similar. Life-safety standards must be upheld.
Owner Occupancy: Local jurisdictions should be encouraged to adopt owner occupancy requirements for properties
containing ADUs. If owner occupancy is required, reasonable annual monitoring programs that rely on existing published
documents should be established.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 4: Prototypes for Accessory Dwelling Units
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
15
Compact Element #5: Minimum Zoning near Transit
Brief Summary: this element includes three components. In neighborhoods served by high quality bus service, establish
minimum zoning on all residential, commercial, and institutional zones to all ow ‘missing middle’ housing types up to 36’ tall.
In neighborhoods surrounding the region’s major transit stops (rail stations and ferry terminals), establish minimum zoning
to allow midrise residential housing up to 55’ tall (75’ tall with a density bonus). Allow sensitive communities to defer
rezoning above 36’ while they develop context-sensitive plans. On large commercial-zoned parcels located near job centers,
make housing an allowable use. For projects with 20 units or more, require inclusion of affordable units.
Desired Effect: This policy would create an inclusive mix of homes near transit and jobs, consistent with the goals of Plan
Bay Area. It would spur the development of ‘missing middle’ housing types that are within reach of working families and
blend into existing neighborhoods. This type of housing is common in pre-war neighborhoods of the East Bay and Peninsula
but has largely been zoned out of existence in recent decades.
References and Model Policies: SB 827 (Wiener, 2017). CASA Action Plans 8.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.6
Detailed Proposal:
Minimum Zoning Near Transit: the state should establish minimum zoning for housing in neighborhoods served by
existing high-quality transit as follows:
High quality bus service: Residential uses up to 36’ tall should be allowed within ½ mile of bus stops with at least 15 -
minute headways at peak periods and 30-minute headways on weekends (as defined in SB 827).
Major transit stop: Residential uses up to 55’ tall (75’ tall with density bonus) should be allowed within 1/4 -mile radius
of major transit stops (rail stations and ferry terminals).
Development standards such as setbacks, unit sizes and lot coverage requirements should apply. Neither development
standards nor other zoning and design controls should mandate densities lower than those prescribed above. . Housing
Overlay on Large Low-Density Commercial Sites: the state should establish minimum zoning for housing on low-density
commercial sites above a certain acreage that are located within the transit areas defined above.
Tenant Protections and Preservation: All sites rezoned under this policy should be subject to tenant protections,
demolition controls and no net loss provisions. Sites occupied by a mobile home park, public housing, or Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) built prior to the effective date of the enabling legislation should not be eligible for rezoning.
Affordable Housing Requirements: onsite affordable housing should be required at levels not less than state density
bonus law.
Projects with 10-20 units should have the option to pay an in-lieu fee. This in-lieu fee should be deferred or waived for units
that are sold or rented at or below missing middle income levels. This fee should be imposed at the time of sale. Funds
generated by this fee should be deposited into a local or regional housing fund.
Sensitive Communities: if a major transit stop is located in or adjacent to a sensitive community, up-zoning above 36’
should be automatically deferred for a period of 3 years while the jurisdiction develops a context-sensitive plan for that
community. The opt-out period should be extended beyond 3 years where good faith planning efforts are underway. If the
community so chooses, it may opt into up-zoning to 55’ without a deferral period or community plan. The decision to opt in
should be made by the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors) and must involve consultation with
residents of the sensitive community and at least one public hearing. Sensitive community areas represent the intersection
of disadvantaged and vulnerable communities as defined by the following Bay Area regional agencies: MTC, SF Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. See Figure 5 for the
map of these Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas.
Labor Standards: The residential development shall comply with all applicable labor, construction, emplo yment, and wage
standards otherwise required by law and any other generally applicable requirement regarding the approval of a
development project, including, but not limited to, the local government’s conditional use or other discretionary permit
approval process, the California Environmental Quality Act, or a streamlined approval process that includes labor
protections.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 5: Map of Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
17
Compact Element #6: Good Government Reforms to Housing Approval Process
Brief Summary: Establish ‘good government’ standards for the entitlement and permitting of zoning-compliant residential
projects. Require transparency and consistency i n how residential impact fees are set and enforced. Figure 6 shows how
complicated the approval process for housing can be in California.
Desired Effect: Research by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation demonstrates that local government
impact fees and inclusionary requirements, when combined with regulatory uncertainty and record -high construction costs,
have made it economically infeasible to build a standard mid-rise housing project in many parts of the Bay Area. The
American Planning Association recommends that local governments should restore direct reliance on adopted plans and
create transparency, predictability, reliability and timeliness to the housing approvals process.
References and Model Policies: CASA Action Plan 12.1; Terner Center Report on Fee Costs; Berkeley Law Land Use Study;
Roseville fee transparency
Detailed Proposal:
Standards for Processing Zoning-Compliant Residential Applications with Fewer than 500 Units: local jurisdictions
should be required to process zoning-compliant residential development applications in accordance with the following
standards:
Each jurisdiction should create and maintain an up-to-date listing of all rules, codes and standards that apply to
residential development applications, including how an application is deemed complete. This information should be
made available online and in print.
Rules, fees and historic status should be locked at the date of application completeness.
Rules, fees and historic status should be locked at the date of application completeness which shall be defined
as providing only the elements on the agencies written application material.
The jurisdiction should require no more than three de novo public hearings on a zoning-compliant residential
application.
Building permits should expire if not used in 24 months, with flexibility to adapt to changing economic conditions and
other extenuating circumstances.
Jurisdictions should apply the Housing Accountability Act’s standards for project consistency and remedies
Standards for Impact Fees: state law should create a set of uniform standards and requirements for Bay Area jurisdictions
to follow when imposing impact fees on new residential development, as recommended by the UC Berkeley Terner Center:
Every jurisdiction should conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of their fees to better understand the
aggregate costs imposed.
When determining the amount of fees to charge to new residential projects, jurisdictions should adhere to a
standardized methodology and set of objective standards, rather than the current “reasonableness” test whic h is overly
broad.
Every jurisdiction should create and maintain an up-to-date fee schedule in a publicly accessible format.
Adopt fee deferral programs which allow builders to pay some fees later in the development process.
Standards for Inclusionary Zoning: state law should establish that programs which require inclusion, such as density
bonus, local inclusionary requirements, housing impact fees and in-lieu fees, should not be additive. Require that in-lieu fees
should be an option for fulfilling inclusionary requirements imposed without the density bonus. Existing local policies
should be grandfathered in.
Standards for Downzoning and Moratoria: the State should create standards that govern the circumstances in which
local governments downzone or impose building moratoria in existing or planned residential neighborhoods. Such actions
run counter to state housing law and should only be undertaken to address an immediate crisis, such as a health and safety
hazard or protection of low-income families at risk of displacement.
Report Impositions That May Suppress Housing above the Hard Cost of Housing Construction: jurisdictions should
annually document all local agency impositions that increase the hard cost (excluding labor and materials) of housing
construction, including fees and inclusionary zoning requirements. This information should be included in the jurisdiction’s
annual Housing Element report.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 6: Typical Local Housing Approval Processes and Timeframes
Source: the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley, 2018,
How does housing get approved?
Midrise Project
Larger project (35-50 units), public
review and appeals process
(discretionary)
Checked for conformity & CEQA
Staff work required (i.e. analysis, staff
reports, etc)–CEQA documents prepared
Plans submitted (including
pre-submittal meeting)
Public notification, public hearing
Hearing Officer or Planning Commission
Determination
Appeals to
Planning
CommissionApproved,
then appealed
Project
Approved!
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
19
Compact Element #7: Expedited Approvals and Financial Incentives for Select Housing
Brief Summary: ensure timely approval of zoning-compliant housing projects and create financial incentives for enabling
on-site affordability and prevailing wages. This streamlining policy will provide another option for projects that may not
benefit from SB 35. This policy does not amend or replace SB 35. Allow Sensitive Communities to defer implementation
while they develop a context-sensitive plan.
Desired Effect: This policy would make it possible to build more housing projects while addressing the critical shortage of
housing labor, curbing unsafe labor practices, and providing on-site affordability for missing-middle income ranges that
aren’t eligible for other sources of subsidy. By harnessing future tax increment from the proposed housing development
itself, local jurisdictions can get more affordable units built with less public subsidy. All taxing agencies will benefit from the
multiplier effect of new construction beyond the project site. By providing expedited approvals, these projects will be
approved and built more quickly.
Models and References: SB 35 (Wiener,2017); New York tax abatement; Action Plans Referenced: 12.2, 12.3, 17.1, 17.2
Detailed Proposal:
Streamlined Review Process: state law should create a new, expedited review process for residential projects that meet
thresholds outlined below. These projects should be granted a statutory CEQA exemption and should be subject to a limited
discretionary review process. Projects should be approved within one year and should be subject to no more than three de
novo public hearings.
Qualifying Projects: to qualify for streamlined review, projects should meet all of the following criteria:
Complies with existing zoning standards;
Located in an existing urbanized area;
Eligible sites as defined in SB 35;
Restricts at least twenty percent (20%) of onsite housing units to middle-income households (approximately 80% -
150% AMI depending on local market conditions), with an average affordability of 110% AMI;
Provides prevailing wages and safe working conditions for all workers;
Utilizes apprentice labor to grow the construction workforce.
Financial Incentives to Offset Costs: qualifying projects should receive financial incentives to offset the costs associated
with providing income-restricted housing units and higher wages. Incentives could include some combination of the
following:
Fifteen years of property tax increment abatement, modeled on the New York City program. Abatement should be
structured so that units rented or sold at missing middle prices (ie 150% AMI or less) receive full abatement, and units
rented or sold above this shall receive a lesser abatement (ie 50% -75% abatement)
Cap impact fees at a reasonable level that allows project feasibility targeted to regional median
Density bonus of 35%
Parking reduced to 50% of local requirement (at the discretion of the developer)
Relief from strict liability standards for ownership housing
Sensitive Communities: implementation of this policy in sensitive communities should be automatically deferred for a
period of up to 3 years. During this time, the local jurisdiction should develop a context-sensitive plan for that community.
The opt-out period should be extended beyond 3 years where good faith planning efforts are underway. If a Sensitive
Community so choses, it may opt to implement this policy effective immediately. The decision to opt in should be made by
the local legislative body (city council or board of supervisors) and must involve consultation with residents of the sensiti ve
community, and at least one public hearing. Sensitive community areas represent the intersection of disadvantaged and
vulnerable communities as defined by the following Bay Area regional agencies: MTC, SF Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. See Figure 5 for the map of these
Transit Access and Sensitive Community Areas.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 7: Regional Housing Production is Worst for the “Missing Middle”
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
21
Compact Element #8: Unlock Public Land for Affordable Housing
Brief Summary: Promote increased utilization of public land (surplus and underutilized) for affordable housing through a
variety of legislative and regulatory changes, as well as the creation of new regional coordination and planning functions.
Desired Effect: Encourage the reuse of public land for creation of mixed-income/affordable housing by reducing barriers to
development on public land. See Figure 8 for the largest public agency landowners near public transit.
References and Models: Action Plans 16.1; 16.2; Puget Sound region including Seattle; Enterprise; MTC/ABAG Study.
Detailed Proposal:
Support reforms introduced in AB 2065 (Ting, 2017)
Respond to the issue of charter cities and the requirement that all cities comply with State surplus lands law
Create clear definition of “surplus” and “underutilized”
Require cities, counties, State agencies, and all public agencies to create a full inventory of their publicly-owned sites
and report them to HCD.
Direct HCD to develop a statewide public lands database that will include all publicly -owned sites in the State of
California, starting with a pilot in the Bay Area. The database will also include information on present uses. HCD would
enforce a revised State Surplus Land Act with referral power to the Attorney General’s Office for infractions.
Amend State Housing Element Law to:
Allow residential uses on all developable public land, regardless of zoning, by establishing a presumption in Housing
Element Law that homes may be built on public land meeting certain criteria (eg not parkland).
Require that Housing Elements include a discussion of the jurisdiction’s policies and plans to encourage the
development of affordable housing on these sites.
Require jurisdictions to report annually through housing element progress reports how they disposed of public and
surplus sites.
State and regional agencies should give preference in screening and scoring projects for discretionary funds to public
agency project sponsors that dispose of surplus lands for affordable housing.
Regulatory and Process Changes
Require State agencies to comply with the State Surplus Land Act and make surplus and underutilized property
available for affordable housing, including deploying 10% of underutilized/surplus property for affordable housing on
an annual basis.
Amend State law time frames for surplus land disposition to expedite the process to no more than 24 months.
Competitive funding programs for affordable housing, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) programs, should reward additional points to project s that
propose affordable development on public land.
The State of California should review its spatial guidelines for public facilities (i.e., schools) to evaluate potential for
changes that could open up land for housing without compromising the quality of on-site public services.
Labor Standards: public lands released for housing should include policies that help expand the trained labor pool
available for housing construction including requirements for trained apprentices and prevailing wages. Exceptions to these
requirements on should be made for temporary housing built to address an emergency, and for housing built with volunteer
labor (see Labor Code § 1720.4). Temporary housing shall be defined as follows:
Designed and constructed to be relocatable and transportable over public streets.
Floor area of 500 square feet or less when measured at the most exterior walls.
Sited upon a temporary foundation in a manner that is designed to permit easy removal.
Designed to be removed within three (3) years of installation.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 8: Top Ten Landowners for Publicly-Owned Parcels Suitable for Housing Near Transit
Publicly-Owned Land
Source: MTC
Landowner Number of Parcels Total Acres
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District 91 229
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA)26 178
State of California 17 42
City/County of San Francisco 18 26
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans)11 18
Union City Community Redevelopment 6 15
County of Santa Clara 7 15
City of Oakland 19 10
City of San Jose 5 8
Suisun City 17 8
Total 217 548
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
23
Compact Element #9: Funding and Financing the CASA Compact
Brief Summary: Raise $1.5 billion in new revenue annually from a broad range of sources, including property owners,
developers, employers, local governments and the taxpayers, to fund implementation of the CASA Compact. While not all
revenue ideas in Figure 9 will be implemented, no one sector would bear the burden on its own. No more than one revenue
idea should be implemented under each of the five categories.
Desired Effect: The Compact identifies a range of strategies to protect tenants, preserve affordability and produce new
units. Many of the strategies, such as “Access to Legal Counsel,” building 14,000 new subsidized housing units annually, and
preserving 26,000 market-rate units as permanently subsidized units for lower-income households, require an infusion of
new revenue.
References and Models: The entire CASA Compact
Detailed Proposal:
Funding gap: CASA estimates that the funding gap to implement the Compact is $2.5 billion per year over the next 15 years.
CASA proposes to meet $1.5 billion of this deficit with regional and local self-help measures. The remainder would be
funded from additional state and federal sources.
Potential sources: new revenue could be raised through fees or taxes. In principle, new revenue would be raised from a
range of sources to spread the responsibility. These sources may include property owners, developers, employers, local
governments and taxpayers. The Compact identifies a menu of options (for further details see Figure 9):
A. Vacant Homes Tax levied on property owners;
B. Parcel Tax levied on property owners (residential and commercial);
C. Commercial Linkage Fee charged to developers;
D. Gross Receipts Tax levied on employers;
E. Head Tax levied on employers;
F. Revenue Set Asides for Redevelopment Agencies (local governments);
G. Revenue Sharing Contribution into a region-wide housing program for local governments;
H. 1/4-cent Sales Tax; and
I. General Obligation Bonds, reissued every five years.
Allocation formula: new revenues would be allocated by the following shares:
Up to 10 percent for local jurisdiction incentives (including funding for hiring more building inspectors);
Up to 10 percent for tenant protection services;
Up to 20 percent for preservation; and
A minimum of 60 percent for subsidized housing production.
Distribution formula: new revenues would be distributed by the following shares (total expenditures would still meet the
allocation formula (see above), and be subject to objective performance standards and outcomes):
75 percent to county of origin (return to source); and
25 percent to a regional program (revenue-sharing).
Labor Standards: public funding through CASA shall include a requirement for trained apprentices and prevailing wages,
calibrated to ensure affordable housing project feasibility and continued eligibility for state resources . Projects under a
certain size should be required to comply with existing wage and labor laws and standards.
Administration: revenue collection and disbursement would be managed by the Regional Housing Enterprise (see next
Element). New revenue would be authorized based on fund source but may include state enabling legislation, a decisi on of
the RHE board, or a vote of the people in the Bay Area.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 9: Funding Options
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
25
Compact Element #10: Regional Housing Enterprise
Brief Summary: Establish a regional leadership entity to implement the CASA Compact, track and report progress, and
provide incentives and technical assistance. The entity must be governed by an independent board with representation for
key stakeholder groups that helped develop the Compact. The housing entity would not play a regulatory/enforce ment role.
Desired Effect: Existing regional agencies either do not have the mandate (for e.g., the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission) or the resources/tools (for e.g., the Association of Bay Area Governments) to directly tackle the region’s
pressing displacement and affordable housing crisis. The CASA Compact will set a bold region -wide agenda for addressing
protection of existing tenants, preservation of existing affordable units and production of both market-rate and subsidized
units. To implement this agenda, a broad coalition of stakeholders, who have helped shape the CASA Compact, must stay
engaged with state legislative advocacy, building support for raising new revenue and financing programs, tracking and
monitoring progress, keeping the public engaged, and taking a regional approach to challenges such as homelessness. A
regional approach can balance inequities and imbalances across multiple jurisdiction that have to contend with varying
market strengths, fiscal challenges and staff expertise.
Models: New York City Housing Development Corporation (housing finance); Twin Cities (revenue-sharing)
References: The entire CASA Compact
Detailed Proposal:
Board Structure and Governance: CASA recommends establishing a Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE) to coordinate and
lead implementation of the CASA Compact. State law should establish an independent board, with broad representation to
MTC, ABAG and key stakeholder groups that helped develop the CASA Compact. See Figure 10 for graphic depiction of RHE.
Authority: the state should form the RHE through an act of legislation and give it authority to collect new revenue (through
fees or taxes); disburse the revenue to programs and projects in the expenditure plans (consistent with the CASA Compact);
purchase, lease and hold land; and provide direct assistance. The RHE will not have regulatory authority.
Roles and Responsibilities
Revenue administration and debt issuance – using the authority to levy fees and seek voter approval to impose taxes for
housing, the RHE may collect and disburse new funding, issue debt based as needed, and allocate funding to protection,
preservation and production programs, as laid out in the CASA Compact.
Land leasing and disposition – the RHE may act on behalf of the related public agency to lease or purchase land for housing
development and assemble parcels, when appropriate. The RHE may hold and bank land, based on market conditions.
Monitoring and reporting – the RHE may coordinate with MTC/ABAG to collect relevant data (inclu ding on local housing
performance), conduct research and analysis, and disseminate information as part of its monitoring and reporting role. The
RHE may also conduct evaluation of its program to improve stated CASA outcomes.
Enhanced technical assistance – the RHE may coordinate with MTC/ABAG to provide extensive support and technical
assistance to local jurisdictions (especially smaller jurisdictions with limited staff capacity), education and awareness for
stakeholders (such as tenants and landlords), and communication materials for the broader public.
Oversight of protections programs – while the RHE will not have an administrative role in implementing tenant protection
policies, the board would provide oversight when allocating funding.
Staffing: the RHE will be supported by the consolidated staff of MTC/ABAG, with additional staff added in specialized areas
such as debt issuance, land leasing and disposition, financing projects, etc.
Administration: this state-enabled policy package in the CASA Compact will be implemented by the RHE. Some capacity
would be needed at the local and county-level to implement the protection strategies.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
Figure 10: Regional Housing Enterprise
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
27
Calls for Action
The CASA Compact sets a bold region-wide agenda for addressing the protection of existing tenants, preservation of existing
affordable units and production of both market-rate and subsidized units. The CASA Compact Elements represent key reforms
that were developed through an intensive 18-month process encompassing multiple stakeholders and constituencies.
Supportive state action on the issues outlined below in concert with the implementation of the CASA Compact will
fundamentally ”turn the tide” on the Bay Area’s housing crisis.
Call for Action: Redevelopment 2.0
Background: The elimination of redevelopment agencies in California severely restricted the production of affordable
housing and market rate housing in the Bay Area. Prior to dissolution, redevelopment agencies in the region provided $200
million in annual funding for affordable housing that was highly leveraged with other funding sources. In addition,
redevelopment agencies provided funding, expertise and infrastructure to advance the production of market rate housing in
mixed-use, infill developments. CASA supports the development of a new redevelopment framework to advance the
production of extremely low, very low, and low-income housing, and to leverage funding for mixed income, infill housing.
CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation enabling the re-establishment of redevelopment agencies in California to provide a
significant source of new funding for affordable and mixed income development. Redevelopment agencies should be focused
on development activities that are audited regularly, with local projects subject to state level reviews. A new redevelopment
framework in California should reinforce a strong link between housing and jobs and transit. Funding should be designed to
leverage other sources, including new regional funding through the implementation of the CASA Compact.
References: The entire CASA Compact
Call for Action: Lower the Voter Threshold for Housing Funding Measures
Background: Bay Area voters have demonstrated — through their past approval of major transportation, school, housing,
and water bonds — that they understand the importance of investing in the region’s future. Although Bay Area voters have
passed a significant number of funding measures to expand the supply of affordable housing, on too many occasions an
overwhelming majority of voters have supported new funding but the final tally fell short of the two-thirds majority needed
for approval under current state law. When provided the opportunity, voters supported lowering the voter threshold for
school bonds to a 55 percent vote. The well-being of California’s children was a motivating factor in lowering the voter
threshold for school funding. Ensuring that future generations, our children and grandchildren, have the housing
opportunities they will need to remain in the Bay Area is a central purpose of the CASA Compact.
CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation that will provide voters statewide with the opportunity to apply a 55 percent
threshold for investments in affordable housing and housing production. This legislative priority is critical to the success ful
implementation of the CASA Compact — and to the Bay Area’s prosperity and quality of life.
References: The entire CASA Compact
Call for Action: Proposition 13 Fiscal Reforms Fiscalization of Land Use
Background: Under Proposition 13, local jurisdictions in California are “paid more” for commercial land uses than for
housing. This “fiscalization of land use” is a central factor in the Jobs-Housing Imbalance that exists in the Bay Area resulting
in long commutes, traffic congestion and a diminished quality of life for millions of Bay Area residents. The California Tax
Code in effect punishes cities that build more housing and rewards cities that build commercial space without commensurate
housing for workers and their families. To address the revenue imbalance related to new housing, jurisdictions have raised
impact fees and other development requirements that make housing even more expensive so that cities and counties may
maintain infrastructure and provide for the needs of existing residents.
CASA Call for Action: Pass legislation that will return e-commerce/internet sales tax revenues to the point of sale - not the
point of distribution as currently - to provide cities that have a significant residential base with a commensurate fiscal
stimulus for new housing. Also pass legislation that will change the Proposition 13 property tax allocation formula to provide
jurisdictions building more housing with a higher share of property tax revenue.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
28
References: CASA Elements # 9 and # 10.
Call for Action: Homelessness
Background: The Bay Area has one of the largest and least sheltered homeless populations in North America. The
proliferation of homeless encampments from select urban neighborhoods to locations across the region is the most visible
and arguably disheartening manifestation of the Bay Area’s extreme housing affordability crisis. Although this is one of the
most prosperous regions in the world, every night thousands of people sleep on our streets. The complexity and scale of
homelessness in the Bay Area has increased exponentially as previously housed people including families with children,
veterans, and senior citizens cannot find shelter. In the nation’s most expensive housing market, commonplace life
circumstances (e.g. illness, job loss, and separation/divorce) result in too many of our neighbors being unable to afford
monthly rent and resulting in a downward spiral to homelessness.
CASA Call for Action: California is experiencing an affordability and housing crisis that is negatively impacting thousands of
Californians. The work of CASA has endeavored to put forth a package of policy interventions to house the Bay Area.
Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that deeply impacting the entire Bay Area. CASA recognizes that homelessness is a
regional issue that requires alignment across geographies in order to tackle this problem. CASA’s funding package must
include resources that help produce housing for formerly homeless people, prevent homelessness when possible and make
homelessness rare, brief and non-reoccurring.
References: The following CASA Elements include measures to reduce the region’s unhoused population, provide more
temporary options for homeless housing, and streamline approvals of permanent homeless housing developments which are
often strongly opposed by project neighbors:
CASA Elements 1,2,3 - Tenant Protections: Critical to stabilize households and reduce displacement from housing that has
caused significant rapid rise in unhoused population
CASA Element 4 – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) /Tiny Homes: create more housing options for populations vulnerable to
economic setback by allowing more of the smallest naturally affordable home types in every neighborhood including seniors
or their family members, disabled family members, students, Section 8 recipients.
CASA Elements 5, 6, 7- Up-zone and streamline to increase income restricted and market rate housing options and reduce
displacement and upward rent pressure on existing homes and neighborhoods
CASA Element 8 - Public land: encourage immediate disposal of more public land for affordable housing to create more sites
and reduce the subsidy needed.
CASA Element 9 - Public funding: More funding for the preservation and production of affordable housing, the provision for
new tenant protection measures, and new permanent supportive housing
Call for Action: Grow and Stabilize the Construction Labor Force
Background: Growing the construction labor force and improving labor force productivity is critical to expanding the
supply of housing. By increasing the safety and desirability of construction work, and thereby expanding the pool of
available workers and contractors, we can grow the labor force without which we cannot increase housing production. The
following are recommended by CASA as a starting point. We also recommend ongoing work to implement the CASA
recommendations in a manner which creates an effective and coordinated regional and State response the need for a larger
construction labor force.
CASA Call for Action:
1. Grow the workforce by increasing apprentice training, placement, and payment of prevailing wages when direct public
funding, public land, fee abatement, tax abatement, CEQA exemptions, and other fiscal/economic development incentives
are provided for housing (Compact items 7, 8, 9).
2. Discourage the underground economy and require following of existing wage and workforce laws (Compact items 4, 5).
3. Create a CASA/State labor workgroup charged with coordinating implementation of CASA policies and needed labor force
expansion consistent with CASA principles.
4. Call upon the State to use its workforce development and training programs to improve the construction employment
pipeline and create improved pathways from secondary education into apprentice training programs.
References: Compact Elements 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
29
Local Best Practices
Local governments have a strong role to plan in implementing CASA. This section will summarize a handful of best practices
that could serve as a model for other jurisdictions in the region. The case study presented below is for illustrative purposes
only. Other case studies will be added here by January 2019.
Emergency Response to Fires in Sonoma County and the City of Santa Rosa
Sonoma County/City of Santa Rosa Alignment with CASA Compact
Elements
Targets
Production: 30,000 units in five years (4,000 low-income subsidized) Protection: 300,000 lower-income HHs
Preservation: 2,000 units/year in 15 yrs
Production: 35,000 units/year in 15 years
Tenant Protections
Protection from Price Gouging
State law – 10 percent cap on rent increases till end-2018, incl.
building materials.
City – protections that allow civil lawsuits.
County – tenants of mobile home parks.
Urgency Ordinance for Temporary Housing to Prevent
Homelessness (County)
The ordinance would allow:
Use of recreational vehicles and trailers as homes, with an
emergency temporary permit.
Safe Parking Program for RVs, trailers and campers, to be parked
overnight on county-owned land (basic services such as bathrooms,
showers, and warming stations are provided).
Year-round occupancy in seasonal farmworker housing.
Replacement schools and child care centers in specific zones
without a use permit.
Long-term rental of bed and breakfasts, inns, resorts, etc.
Just Cause Eviction Policy
Emergency Rent Cap
Access to Legal Counsel in Eviction
Proceedings
Housing Inclusion and Capacity
Incentives for ADUs
Impact fee waivers – for capital facilities, housing and parks.
Utility connection fee waiver – for new connection or capacity
change for ADUs 750 sq.ft. or smaller.
Incentives for Multi-Family Projects in Downtown Santa Rosa
Partial reduction in impact fees (capital and park fees).
Additional discounts for affordable/inclusionary housing.
Additional inclusive housing capacity changes:
Make small SRO projects a permitted use/ remove size limits.
Allow transitional & supportive housing in single-family zones.
The County passed code changes to expand opportunities for
housing in urban service areas by:
Simplifying development standards for multi-family housing
Allowing higher densities near jobs and transit, as a new
Workforce Housing Combining Zone.
Removing Barriers to ADUs
Minimum Zoning for Housing Near
Transit
Expedited Approvals and Financial
Incentives
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
30
Allowing “cottage housing” that provides multi-unit housing in
low- and medium-density areas.
Allowing new density unit equivalent concept to encourage smaller
rental units
Approval Process and Timeline
Additional Staff Capacity
Resiliency Permit Center (County) – expedited checks and permitting
w/ contract staff
Resilient City Permit Center (Santa Rosa) – expedited checks and
permitting for fire affected property owners w/ contract staff
CEQA Exemption and Judicial Streamlining
Requested for two specific plans (pending)
Permit and Approval Streamlining
The City of Santa Rosa has streamlined permitting by:
Allowing expansion of damaged nonconforming residential
structures to added living areas, ADUs, and JADUs.
Increasing the allowable residential floor area in mixed-use
projects from 50 to 80 percent.
Delaying collection of fees until near occupancy.
County of Sonoma has created expedited permitting for
housing and ADUs
Good Government Reform for
Approval Process
Removing Regulatory Barriers for
ADUs
Expedited Approvals and Financial
Incentives
Call to Action: Labor Force Expansion
Reduce planning staff workload per
project
Provide CEQA statutory exemption
Expand construction and building
inspection labor force
Improve streamlining for all eligible
projects
Funding and Coordination
New Revenue and Financing Tools
$124 million, 30-year bond measure (failed November 2018 ballot).
Portion of County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
redirected to the RED for an Enhanced Infrastructure Finance
District (EIFD) and affordable housing.
Renewal Enterprise District (RED)
Joint powers authority proposed by County and City (to be decided
in December 2018).
New Revenue and Financing Tools
Public Land and $1.5 billion/year
Portion of BATA funds redirected to a
Regional Infrastructure Bank (RIB).
Regional Housing Enterprise (RHE)
Revenue collection/allocation
Land leasing/purchase
Technical assistance
Monitoring and reporting
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
31
Appendices
A. CASA Leadership Profiles (Co-Chairs and Moderators)
B. Steering Committee Roster
C. Technical Committee Roster
Agenda Item III. Attachment b
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-03 Agenda Date:1/9/2019
Version:1 Item #:2.
Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Properties: 374 Cypress Avenue (Parking Lot #13)
City Negotiators: Mike Futrell and Alex Greenwood
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco and John R. Penna
Under Negotiation: Review of Price and Terms
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/3/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
I SPEAKER CARD
·: obad_ru:ess the Ci�y Council, please complete this card and su mtt tt to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item rou'd l1"ke I • k . o spca • on:ll___Public Comments, or
2)Agenda Item � --=:::........:--=---
'\...,.I.I :a.'-'._ ---
-
-��-SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council , p lease complet e this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you·d like to speak on:
Jl___ Public Comments, or n . ; . -�,,_a,.·{ l rc-r c'l.,""1,. 3"
2)�genda Item ___ L, � w LS {
/_ l c.l,Name : S,1sA('i 1i;;. Date:
Pronounced: _____________ _
Address (opt i onal ), __________ _
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO • SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
1)Public Comments, or
2) A Agenda Item i�"'� \{"�4"" '(\5
Name: .) �(Q.w'.;? f<-\1\��W\ Date: 1-J ---LY
Pronounced: -------------Address (optional). __________ _
•
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To ad_d�ess the City Council, please complete this card and submit 1t to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
�1 ,,_) __ Public Comments, or
2)Agenda Item -if \
Name:�IJ-J,V\ h,.l\ltM'b oate: 1/o�/i1 Pronounced:
Address (optional) c,AA llf\-Ct,.M�
CITY UI' �uu l ll .-:,JU'I ··•'-"n'-'.a"''-' ......
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council. please complete this card and submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please i1 icate which item you'd like to speak on:
�l .L.--1,,__Public Comments, or
2)Agenda Item
Name: e I II Date:f
Pronounced: _____________ _
Address (optional). __________ _
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like lo speak on:
1) Public Comments, or
-"-J-.--_:4' I ,,J .,,�·,,_,,.,, y-
v
(
;
, C r :J
2) , Agenda Item __ _
Name: (D � k e, HwRJoloate: )-i \
Pronounc ed: ---------------i
Addr ess (optional)1 _________ --i
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and submit it to the City Cl erk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
-=-1 ,_) __ Public Comments, or W Agenda Item __ _
Name: di f 1 C\ 1
Address ( option