A LEGISLATIVE UPDATE/CASA COMPACT
April 17, 2019
As a part of a continuing series of my City Council responsibilities outside of the City Council meetings, this article covers my work as a member of the Legislative Committee of C/CAG (County and City Association of Governments). This committee’s work entails keeping updated on legislation that would affect transportation and housing in San Mateo County and making recommendations to C/CAG as to whether to support or oppose a bill. As a committee, we receive monthly written reports and oral briefings from the C/CAG’s State legislative advocates.
Some of you may have already heard about some of Governor Newsom’s proposals regarding housing. His proposed budget states:
“Going forward, the state will strongly encourage jurisdictions to contribute to their fair share of the state’s housing supply by linking housing production to certain transportation funds and other applicable sources, if any. The Administration will convene discussions with stakeholders, including local governments, to assess the most equitable path forward in linking transportation funding and other potential local government economic development tools to make progress toward required production goals.”
In March, the Governor released budget trailer bill language that supports his statements in his proposed budget. This includes setting higher housing goals for cities and counties, updating the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA), and withholding local streets and roads funds from SB 1 if a jurisdiction does not have a compliant Housing Element. Along these lines, here are a few bills of interest that we are watching:
SB 50 is getting a lot of attention lately. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and minimum controls on automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1/2-mile or 1/4-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions.
The Density Bonus Law requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents.
AB 847 would redirect transportation revenues to be apportioned to cities and counties if they have been certified to have met their very low- or low-income housing goals.
AB 1568 would require the withholding of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funding for any jurisdiction that has not met their applicable minimum housing production goal for a certain reporting period. When the non-compliant jurisdiction becomes compliant, the funds would be returned to that jurisdiction.
AB 738 would allow funds that are set aside for construction of affordable housing to be allocated across San Mateo County jurisdictions, allowing cities to pool resources and share credit on their housing production reports based on their proportionate share of funds contributed to fund the proposed affordable project.
MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) is tracking several of these bills as implementing elements of the CASA Compact, which is an initiative to confront the housing crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area through key components of production, preservation, and protection (the 3-Ps). ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments) and the MTC conceived this plan that establishes a ten-element strategy supported by the 3-Ps.
The CASA Compact was developed over 18 months by a steering committee whose members were primarily MTC appointees representing major employers housing and policy experts, non-profit housing providers, real estate developers, and local government officials from major Bay Area cities. Most of the San Mateo County cities were not represented during the planning phase; and, therefore, the CASA Compact is moving forward with little to no input from the local communities that will be impacted.
The CASA Compact is organized into four categories: Tenant Protection, Housing Inclusion and Capacity, Approval Process and Timeline, and Funding and Coordination. Each category contains specific elements to be fleshed out, such as just cause eviction policy and rent cap under the Tenant Protection category. Under the Housing Inclusion and Capacity Category, the elements include minimum zoning near transit hubs and good government reforms to the housing approval process. The Approval Process and Timeline category elements include expedited approvals and financial incentives for select housing and unlocking public land for affordable housing. Funding and financing the CASA Compact is estimated to be $2.5 billion per year over the next 15 years, with the funding coming from multiple sources, including $100 million from cities and counties by requiring cities and counties to share 20% of our future property tax incremental revenue growth. Another $200 million will come from requiring municipalities to create a “redevelopment revenue set aside” that takes away another 25% of that incremental revenue growth “for affordable housing.”
The CASA Compact does not address the impacts on the already overcrowded schools, the impacts to our cities’ infrastructures, the impacts to our ability to provide fire and police services, and the unique qualities of all of our cities. So, as you can see, the pressure is on all of the San Mateo County cities to build affordable housing, and this pressure is bound to affect all of us in one way or another.
As always, if you would like to start a conversation, you can reach me at cmahanpour@fostercity.org. I look forward to hearing from you.
