HomeMy WebLinkAbout08. Legislative update Page 1 of 42
Item 8.
CENTRAL SAN BOARD OF DIRECTORS
POSITION PAPER
MEETING DATE: MAY 16, 2019
SUBJECT: RECEIVE UPDATE ON PENDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERSAND PROVIDE
DIRECTION ON PRIORITY LEGISLATION
SUBMITTED BY: INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
EMILY BARNETT, COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION-COMM SVCS AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS INTERGOV REL
MANAGER
REVIEWED BY: PHILIP R. LEIBER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
ANN SASAKI, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
Roger S. Bailey Kenton L. Alm
General Manager District Counsel
ISSUE
In accordance with Board Policy No. BP 026 — Legislative Advocacy, the Board may provide direction to
staff on positions related to priority legislation.
BACKGROUND
Under BP 026 — Legislative Advocacy, when legislation has direct impact on Central San or special
significance to the Board, the General Manager will present information to the Board on priority legislation.
The Board may then provide direction as to Central San's position on the legislation.
Staff has reviewed pending legislation and worked with member associations to identify possible direct
impacts on Central San. The process to create and pass legislation is constantly in flux; the priority
legislation presented in this Position Paper represents the most confident analysis and due diligence
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 171 of 549
Page 2 of 42
research at this time. As new information becomes available, it will be presented at future Board
meetings.
Attached is an updated Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet and other attachments of interest. At this
meeting, staff is recommending that the Board take action or provide direction on the priority legislation
listed on the Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet based on staff recommendations listed in the Board
Legislative Summary Table.
ALTERNATIVES/CONSIDERATIONS
The Board may choose from the following positions on each piece of legislation:
• Support
• Support if Amended
• Neutral
• Oppose Unless Amended
• Oppose
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
None.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
This matter was not reviewed by a Board Committee.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION
If applicable, take one of the following actions on Priority Legislative Tracking Sheet or another legislative
matter:
1. Adopt staff recommended position(s) on the priority legislation; or
2. Adopt a different position on one or more pieces of the priority legislation; or
3. Take no action
Strategic Plan Tie-In
GOAL ONE: Provide Exceptional Customer Service
Strategy 1 - Build external customer relationships and awareness
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Central San Priority Legislation Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19
2. Central San Letter Opposing AB 749
3. AB 1672 - Wipes Impact to Central San's Collection System
4. Bay Area Building Industry Association Presentation on Housing Shortage 5/8/19
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 172 of 549
Central San 2019 PriefitVoLegislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of- Board
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Or anization s PriorityRecommended b Board Notes
State List/Position Staff Direction Decision
1 State Ting AB 68 Land Use: This bill reintroduces language from 2018 Oppose Unless Watch 03/07/19 Watch 4/24/19 On Suspense File in Assembly
D-San Francisco Accessory AB 2890 (Ting) regarding accessory dwelling Amended: ACWA, Appropriations. 4/10/19 Passed from Assembly
Dwelling Units units with prohibitions on local ordinances CSDA, CMUA, CASA Local Government Committee to Appropriations
from imposing some limitations on size and Committee. 3/27/19 Amended and referred to
location. This bill maintains a wastewater Committee on Housing and Community
utility's ability to collect a proportional Development.
connection fee, but prohibits capacity and
connection fees on ADUs or junior ADUs
that are "substantially" within the existing
space of a single-family dwelling or
accessory structure, including reconstruction
of an existing space with substantially the
same physical dimensions as the existing
accessory structure.
2 State Ting AB 69 Land Use: This bill introduces language related to Watch: ACWA Watch 03/07/19 Watch 4/24/19 On Suspense File in Assembly
D-San Francisco Accessory oversight by the state on local ordinances on Appropriations. 4/4/19 Referred to Appropriations
Dwelling Units size and location that would impact Committee. 3/27/19 Amended and referred to
construction of accessory dwelling units. Committee on Housing and Community
This bill does not address utility connection Development.
fees at this time.
3 State Wiekowski SB 13 Accessory This bill is a spot bill regarding accessory CSDA: Oppose Watch 03/07/19 Watch 5/6/19 In Senate Appropriations Committee in
D-Fremont Dwelling Units dwelling units. In 2018 this author did Suspense File. 4/23/19 Re-referred to Senate
introduce language that would eliminate the Appropriations Committee. 4/10/19 Hearing set in
utility connection fee for new construction of Local Gov't Committee. 4/1/19 Need clarification
an accessory dwelling unit. from author on whether"impact fees" are
inclusive of"connection fees".
4 State Friedman AB 1180 Water: recycled This bill requires Title 22 for non-potable Sponsored by Support 03/07/19 Support 4/24/19 In Suspense File in Assembly
D-Glendale water uses to be updated by the Water Board by WateReuse California, Appropriations Committee. 4/1/19 Sent back to
2023. It also requires that a change over Support: CASA, CSDA Appropriations Committee. 3/27/19 Passed out to
device (such as swivel ell) be incorporated Appropriations Committee. Support letter sent to
into the Title 17 update currently underway. Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic
A draft for the Title 17 changes will be Materials on 3/19/19.
released in late summer 2019. WRCA (a
member of the Title 17 handbook
committee) has requested that a change
over device or swivel ell be included as part
of this update.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 173 of 549
Central San 2019 PriefitVoLegislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of- Board
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Or anization s PriorityRecommended b Board Notes
State List/Position Staff Direction Decis : a
ion
5 State Bloom AB 1672 Nonwoven This bill shall not allow an entity to label a Sponsored by CASA, Support 03/07/19 Support 5/8/19 Assembly Appropriations Committee put in
D-Santa Monica disposable covered product as safe to flush, safe for Support: CSDA Suspense File. 4/23/19 Testified Central San's
products sewer systems, or safe for septic systems, support at Assembly Judiciary Committee and
unless the product is a flushable wipe. The passed on 9-2 vote. 4/8/19 Testified Central San's
entity must certify if their product is flushable support at Assembly Environmental Safety and
under compliance with the performance Toxic Materials Committee. 4/3/19 Letter of
standards. Noncompliant products will be support sent. 3/28/19 Bill will be heard in the
issued a notice of violation by the enforcing Asm. Environmental Safety and Toxics Materials
agency, providing 30 days for the products Committee on April 9th, and again in the
to be recalled and may be penalized for Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 23rd. In
every day thereafter. print on 3/18/19. Will likely be triple referred to
committees.
6 State Hertzberg D SB 332 Ocean Discharge This bill proposes a 50% reduction in ocean Opposed: CASA, CSDA, Oppose 03/07/19 Oppose 5/13/19 Set for Senate Appropriations Committee
Van Nuys & Wiener discharges by 2030, and a 95% reduction in ACWA. Oppose Unless Unless hearing. 4/23/19 Passed from Senate Judiciary
D-San Francisco ocean discharges by 2040. Amended: WateReuse. Amended Committee on 7-2 vote, now headed to
Support: Clean Water Appropriations Committee. 4/8/19 Staff is
Action, Heal the Bay, currently assessing costs to Central San as per
Sierra Club, Friends of Board Member Pilecki's request. 4/8/19 Hearing
the River, City of Los video sent to Board. 4/5/19 CASA requests no
Angeles side meetings or deals with author. Coalition
formed with WateReuse, ACWA, and others.
4/3/19 At hearing - CASA testified. Many
concerns from the committee, but passed to
Judiciary Committee. Coalition formed to oppose
bill. CASA developing opposition letter, and will
issue Call-to-Action within two weeks. Main issues
with the bill: unfunded mandate, does not take
into consideration wet weather flows and storage
constraints, current permit restrictions on
discharges to streams, etc, potential State growth
that could increase discharge flows.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 174 of 549
Central San 2019 PriefitVoLegislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of- Board
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Or anization s PriorityRecommended b Board Notes
State List/Position Staff Direction Decision
7 State Cooley AB 510 Local Existing law authorizes the head of a Sponsored by CSDA Support 03/07/19 Support 4/1/19 This bill is dead. Consumers Attorneys
D-Rancho Cordova Government department of a county or city, or the head of asked author to pull the bill. Author complied.
Records: a special district to destroy recordings of Letter of support sent 3/19/19.
destruction of routine video monitoring maintained by that
records county, city, or special district after one year
if that person receives approval from the
legislative body and the written consent of
the agency attorney and to destroy
recordings of telephone and radio
communications maintained by that county,
city, or special district after 100 days if that
person receives approval from the legislative
body and the written consent of the agency
attorney. This bill would exempt the head of
a department of a county or city, or the head
of a special district from these recording
retention requirements if the county, city, or
special district adopts a records retention
policy governing recordings of routine video
monitoring and recordings of telephone and
radio communications.
8 State Rubio AB 405 Sales and use Would exempt from Sales and Use Tax the CASA: Support, CSDA: Support 03/07/19 Watch 5/6/19 passed out of Assembly Revenue and
D-Baldwin Park taxes: exemption: gross receipts from the sale in this state of, Watch Taxation Committee on 9-0 vote. 4/25/19 Re-
water treatment and the storage, use, or other consumption referred to Assembly Committee on Revenue and
in this state of, chemicals used to treat Taxation. Fact sheet provided to Board on 3/21.
water, recycled water, or wastewater
regardless of whether those chemicals or
other agents become a component part
thereof and regardless of whether the
treatment takes place before or after the
delivery to consumers.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 175 of 549
Central San 2019 Priarityoftislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of- Board
Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Or anization s PriorityRecommended b Board Notes
State List/Position Staff Direction Decision
9 State Wiener SB 69 Ocean Resiliency This bill prescribes nutrient removal by Sponsored by Coast Oppose 03/21/19 Oppose ; 13/19 Set for hearing in Senate AppropriationE
D-San Francisco Act of 2019 denitrification without scientific basis and Keepers, 4/29/19 Re-referred to Senate Appropriations
without regard to ongoing collaborative Oppose: CASA Unless Committee. 4/11/19 Read second time in Senate,
nutrients research efforts currently underway Amend to remove amended and re-referred to Environmental
in the Bay Area. It also disregards the denitrification section Quality Committee. 4/9/19 Hearing set in Senate
current regulation of nutrients by the SF Bay and address marine Natural Resources and Water Committee. 4/1/19
Regional Water Board through the Nutrients managed area section Author provided amendments which did not
Watershed Permit (approved by EPA). This address any of the impacts to the wastewater
is an unfunded mandate that could cost up industry. Set for April 9 hearing in Senate Natural
to $12.41B in costs to Bay Area dischargers. Resources and Water.
This bill does apply to both ocean and bay
dischargers.
10 State Allen D SB 54 (paired California Circular SB 54/AB 1080 establish a comprehensive Support: California Support 03/21/19 Support 5/13/19 Set for hearing in Senate Appropriation
Santa Monica bill is AB 1080) Economy and framework to address the pollution and Product Stewardship 5/7/19 amended in Senate Appropriations 3/25/19
Skinner Plastic Pollution waste crisis. Specifically, single-use plastic Council Read second time in Appropriations Committee.
D-Berkeley Reduction Act packaging and products sold or distributed in Attached fact sheet for March 21 st Board
Stern D California by must be reduced, recycled or meeting.
Canoga Park composted by 75 percent by 2030. All single
Wiener D use packaging and products must be
San Francisco recyclable or compostable on and after
2030. As part of a shift towards a more
circular economy, the bills also instructs
CalRecycle to develop incentives and
policies to encourage in-state manufacturing
using recycled material generated in
California. CalRecycle will be given authority
to adopt regulations to meet these goals,
including developing criteria to determine
which packaging material qualifies as
recyclable or compostable.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 176 of 549
Central San 2019 PriefitVoLegislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of
Federal/ Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Or anization s Priorit Recommended b Board Board M
StateMa— List/Position Staff Direction Decision
11 State Ting AB 1486 Local agencies: This bill has been amended. It would only Oppose: CASA, Oppose 5/2/19 Watch, 5/2/19, 5/2/19 5/2/19 Central San Board changed to Watch
D-San Francisco surplus land allow for first right of refusal for housing Unless Amend: CSDA 3/21/19 Oppose 3/21/19 Watch, position. CSDA continues to work with author.
entities for land not used for an agency's 3/21/19 4/25/19 In Assembly Coauthors revised. 4/11/19
governmental operations. Some issues with Oppose Amended in Assembly and back to Committee.
bill still exist. Working with author. Thisboll4/10/19 Passed heavily amended out of Asm
would re ' i .a! dis+rin++hat would Housing and Community Development
sale, lease, er ether GGRyeyaRGe Committee. 4/10/19 Hearing date set in Asm
+hair Fool pFepeFty to first se-Rd- i.yritteR r,,AGG Local Gov't Committee.
#e6siRg.
12 Federal Congressmember H.R. 1764 Permit term This bill would amend the Federal Water Support: CASA Support 03/21/19 Support 5/2/19 Letter of Support sent from Western
Garamendi D extension Pollution Control Act to extend National Recycled Water Coalition to Congressmember
California 3rd District Pollutant Discharge Elimination System =A Garamendi supporting bill. Central San listed as
Permit (NPDES) for up to 10 years. supporter. 3/28/19 Interagency Letter of Support
led by Central San sent to DeSaulnier's office with
cc to CASA. Attached letter for 4/4/19 Board
meeting.
13 State Stone AB 749 Settlement Prohibits a settlement agreement in an Oppose: CSDA Oppose 04/04/19 Opp 5/8/19 Letter Opposing bill sent to Senators
D-Monterey Bay agreements: employment dispute from containing a Glazer and Dodd.5/2/19 Bauer-Kahan supported
restraints in trade provision prohibiting, preventing, or the bill to pass out of Assembly. Grayson did not
otherwise restricting a settling party that is vote on bill. 4/10/19 In Assembly for third reading.
an aggrieved person from working for the 4/9/19 Hearing set in Assembly Judiciary
employer against which the aggrieved Committee. 4/1/19 HR and Legal reviewed and
person has filed a claim. The result will be requested this be placed as priority legislation,
that all serious discipline matters and position: Oppose.
terminations will have to be tried to a verdict,
increasing attorney's fees.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 177 of 549
Central San 2019 Priarityoftislative Tracking Sheet as of 5/8/19 Attachment 1
Industry Position Date of
Federal/ Author Legislation Also Known As Summary Organization(s) PriorityRecommended b Board Board NotdM
State List/Position Staff Direction Decision
14 State Cooley ACR 89 Declaring Special Assembly Resolution that would declare Sponsor: CSDA Support 05/16/19 5/3/19 In print and number assigned. Request
D-Rancho Cordova Districts Week September 22-28, 2019 as Special Districts from CSDA to support resolution.
Sept 22-28, 2019 Week.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 178 of 549
ATTACRMENT22
Aft Centra! Contra Costa sanitary District
Protecting public health and the eii virol7nient 5019 linhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392
PHONE: (925)228-9500
F4X.• (925)335-7744
May 7, 2019 www.centralsan.org
ROGER S.BAILEY
The Honorable Senator Steve Glazer Generalblanager
California State Senate KENTONL.AW
State Capitol, Room 5108 Cannselforthe District
Sacramento, CA 95814 (510)375-4571
"TIE YOUNG
Secretary of die District
The Honorable Senator Bill Dodd
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento. CA 95814
SUBJECT: ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 749 (STONE, GONZALEZ, REYES)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: RESTRAINTS IN TRADE
OPPOSE —AS INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Dear Senators Glazer and Dodd:
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) respectfully opposes AB 749
(Stone, Gonzalez, Reyes) as it would preclude an employer from prohibiting an
employee that has engaged in unlawful or egregious conduct, from seeking future
employment with the same employer.
AB 749 While Well Intentioned Has Unintended Consequences
AB 749 states that an employer, as a part of a settlement agreement, shall not prohibit.
prevent, or restrict an "aggrieved employee" from working for the employer thereafter.
"Aggrieved employee" is broadly defined as a person who has filed a claim against the
employer in court, before an administrative agency, an alternative dispute forum, or an
employer's internal complaint process. This language fails to consider, however, that
many employees who have engaged in unlawful or egregious behavior often file
complaints against their employers. Furthermore, this bill could incentivize an employee
who has engaged in unlawful or egregious behavior to file a_ complaint_ as a protection
against their unlawful behavior.
There are several examples in sexual harassment cases and discrimination cases
where this could protect unlawful or egregious behavior. For example, in discrimination
cases, the underlying issue is generally whether the employee was terminated for a
lawful reason (harassment, insubordination, theft, etc.) versus a protected classification.
To the extent the employer has valid evidence that supports the lawful basis for the
termination, the employer should be able to prevent the re-hire of the same employee
that the employer already determined was unsuitable for the job. AB 749, however,
would limit the employer's ability to do so.
tRegded Paper
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 179 of 549
Page 10 of 42
Assembly Bill 749 (Stone, Gonzalez, Reyes)
Opposed [As Introduced February 19, 2019]
May 7, 2019
Page 2
Completely banning the use of no re-hire provisions in settlement agreements for any
"aggrieved employee," no matter how narrowly tailored, as proposed by AB 749,
imposes unnecessary administrative burdens on an employer, potential litigation, and
could incentivize an employee who has engaged in unlawful behavior to file a complaint.
For these reasons, Central San is opposed to AB 749.
c ely,
Roger S. Bailey
General Manager
cc: The Honorable Mark Stone, California State Assembly
The Honorable Lorena Gonzalez, California State Assembly
The Honorable Eloise Gomez Reyes, California State Assembly
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 180 of 549
f 42
Wipes are Costly to Sewer Agencies in California a e o
A Northern California Case Study ATTACHMENT 3
Benicia
Shore Acres
At Central San, • s%n
wipes were found as Bay Point Pittsburg
the primary issue 223 Martinez�y
times during routine sewer a N''
maintenance between
Concord
January 1, 2017 and
May 1, 2019. •
• Cowell
a )II
d� Briones o
Hills Py. Wipes caused
P 0 Walnut Creek 12 sewage overflows
�y �9 • or major sewer
Q ` e stoppages between
L af-a y e tte4o January 1, 2017 and
May 1, 2019
Berkeley Rh
•
Pejh
OIL-, g U)
Danville B
w Canyo �d
Oakland tl
4f,oSkkl, ____ Blackhawk
C,
9„r6
4r FWil
O \�
o
Alameda dc9�f �Ra 0 San' Ramon
� d •
Wipes Concentration Found During Routine
Sewer Maintenance 1/1/2017 to 5/1/2019 3 a
o t
Light a nd ro
Medium
F�
Heavy Castro Valley n Fran ' co
-u Detail Area
J
• Overflow or Stoppage Caused by Gia
Wipes 1/1/2017 to 5/1/2019 Hayward �Ps�o
L)Angele
Central San Sewer Service Area ? on
G
� S
0 1 2 4
Miles N °
Data source:Central San's Computerized Maintenance Management CA
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of SANITATION AGENCIES
S Stem CMMS 1 •Sacramento,CA 95814•TEL:(918)446-0388•www.CASAweb.oro
ATTACHMENT 4
EAST BAY: THE RIPPLE EFFECTS OF
THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
Lisa Vorderbrueggen
East Bay Executive Director for Governmental Affairs, BIA I Bay Area
lvorderbrue genCbiabayarea.pov 925-348-1956
May 8, 2019
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 182 of 549
First, the good news ...
Housing
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA HOUSING UNITS: 1967-2018
Permit iQ mn 67 000
Numbers 61,000
Went Up 60.000
2018
48,5D0 49,000
Bay Area 59 oa 46000 47500
cities and
0
counties 25,500 35616
issued 31,892 N 33.500
housing z 28.652
31,892
28,169
15.000 27,980-�
permits in 22.573 24.308
2018, a 14 21254
percent
increase over
2018 and the
fourth year of
gains in a
row. como .. �, < v+ ,cr mmo m o my ��a . . . . . . . m o .. r, mev, ,unm
m .�. .�. � �. .. .. r, m m m m 'm m m m m m m - - - - -- 0 o o $ $
O^1 O, O O n
CHART PREPARED BY BIAlBAY AREA ON MAY 2, 2019, USING DATA PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
RESEARCH BOARD(CIRB.)FOR MORE INFORMATION,VISIT WWW.MYCHF.ORG/CIRB/HTML.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 183 of 549
Unfortunately, it isn't nearly enough ...
March 2019
8919119iolimEo
Jobs- Housing Experts say a healthy balance is about 1.5 jobs per housing unit -
Im balance Is Since 2011,
local governments
Entrenched have approved
176,248 new housing
units while the
Despite the uptick, it is region has created
too little, too late. The 676,300 new jobs.
That adds up to 3.8
nine-county San jobs per housing
unit,worsening an
Francisco Bay Area has already critical
not built enough homes imbalance in the
to accommodate its nine-county San
Francisco Bay Area.
workers in decades and
the deficit is staggering.
Here is a look at the
jobs-housing numbers
just for the past eight
years. _
SOURCES.BIAVBay Area updated thh handwrpr May 4 7019,uvng data hwn the Mebopolitan I ranlportatrorr C-1-5 Plan Boy Area 1010.
Cali!a Cm k 4edopm t Dept.and the Co is tro Industry Research Boom(CIRRI,o ser.+mpr d by the L ak/a Hw burklag
ndmlasmwww.my hI�b.html ,
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 184 of 549
Every county except Napa and Sonoma are under-producing housing ...
Housing Permits: Actual Units Vs. Projected Need in 2011-March 2019
California Construction Industry Research Board and MTC Plan Bay Area 2040
80,000
70,565
70,000
56,014-
60,000
52,003
50,000
C
1
38, 93
� _ 37,923
?� 40,000
E
a
32,234-
27,500
30,000 j
17,890
16,545
20,000 ,
I
11,363 9,970
1. 6,586 7,590 9,158
10,000
1,384 2'310 2,614 1,595
Alameda Co- Contra Costa Co. Marin Co. Napa Co San Francisco San Mateo Co. Santa Clara Co. Solano Co. Sonoma Co, 4
■Actual Units Permitted ■Number of Units That Should Have Been Permitted to Meet Projections
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 185 of 549
Put another way...
More than eight years into its 30-year
regional plan for how to provide adequate
jobs and homes, the Bay Area is 93 percent
ahead on jobs but 22 percent in the hole on
housing !
This doesn ' t even take into account the 1 ,
million housing unit generational deficit .
California Construction Industry Research Board, California Economic Development Department,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Plan Bay Area 2040, Bay Area Council Economic Institute
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 186 of 549
When it comes to building adequate housing,
SAN RN�IS�
D BAY �R�� IGS
�R 01 IV U, WIN P
Other U.S.
0,442
Metros units
units
Are Doing 149.966 units
Much Morepop. 102,907 units
The Austin, TX,
metropolitan < Charlotte, "' I' 118.078 unih
area with a
a Dallas, ' 330,999 units
population of o
2.1 million 2 Denver, 118.919 units
people built
more houses Seattle,WA „r ,' 157.908 units
than the entire
Bay Area with aReno, NV P09 464,593 16.888 units 2010-2017:New Permitted '
population of
7.8 million. +7 units Housing Units As Percentage
of 2010 Population
181.603 units
arw�r
SF Bay Area
pop 7.8 mil. 2% 148,984 units
Sources:Forbes magazine,?he Cities Doing the Most to Address the U.S.Housing Shortage.'by Joel Kotkin&Wendell Cox,December 17,201 S--and U.S.Census Bureau
Metropolitan Statistical Area and Building Permit Survey data 'The San Francisco Bay Area consists of combined data from Its five metropolitan statistical areas.
Graphic updated on May 1,2019.by BIAJBay Area East Say Government Affairs Director Lisa Vorderbrueggen-Ivo rderbrueggenfAbiabayarea.org.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 187 of 549
Why Should You Care?
As the Bay Area News Group wrote Consider o family earning the equivalent of
recently after examining earnings $100,000 today:
and home price data in Bay Area • In 2012, that family could afford the
zip codes ... median rent in 70 percent of Bay Area zip
codes. By 2018, the family could afford the
median rent in only 28 percent of zip
codes.
• In 2012, if looking to buy a home, that
family could afford the median mortgage in
41 percent of Bay Area zip codes. By 2018,
the family could afford it in only 18
percent of zip codes.
4hw--�.-gs The Bay Area cannot continue to thrive if
ma ndude of the Bay Areathe upper
Edltonal:Thealannmg 9 only the upper echelon can afford to live
The region can o d continueherethrive if only here. A well-functioning economy requires
echelon can afford Asr BA\'1l\IFS EDITORIAL S o diversity of jobs and income levels. We
By A1F.R\1 R\'EN'S&F. M 7 4O P
+25 p19e17.W,�ppATED AOM Wigal +� need housing for all those workers. And we
pDgLISHED Ap me for Day Area fe5ldrnra
haw unaf(ordablc huuSmB�S lhow mp�,Y need it near their jobs.
AS c knew n was bad Nuw we 4umw hO'bad n'mO'and Kurdym DanleY�u�laown.
In on erz'uMunR nrricic pubbshed Sundae f-"'s Stappennp rMOW of rhe Bay Mn 5 pupa
muhwcrnr:ha. p We must build our way out of this mess —
D"na".fndlwme'p today by building more housing, not more
C�,der a tem'h eynmp rhe Nm`alrnr of Sl Iq�
freeways. Lots more housing.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 188 of 549
What about Contra Costa County...
CONTRA COSTA HOUSING PERMITS: 1990-2018
8,000 CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BOARD(CIRB)
Contra 6,895
7,000
Costa 5,805 6,312
5,639 5,483
Improves 6,000
5,136
in 2018
5,000 4,281 4,249 4,589 4,488
Permits 3,952 3899
increased 4,000 3,869 3,552 3,607
last year by 3,433 3,354 3,514
1 ,123 units 3,000 2,354 2,895 3,127
or 56 1,894 1,814
1,699 2,027 z,oaa
percent 2,000 1,722
1,201 1,073
1,000
0
N°'qo�°'���°'��"°'��N°'��N°'Qh^°'�,ONq�1 Nq NI)
May
0 ADO X00�00�X00�OOQ�O�ti0�yO�L O�LOQ tiO�h ONb,L0N1N%
8
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 189 of 549
2017 2018
JURISDICTION PERMITS PERMITS CHANGE
Antioch 48 121 73
Nine Brentwood 507 326 -181
Contra Clayton 0 2 2
Concord 84 18 -66
Costa Cities Danville 25 25 0
Saw El Cerrito 10 10 0
Reductions Hercules 41 227 186
in 2018 Lafayette 43 26 -17
Martinez 1 303 302
Moraga 32 35 3
Oakley 250 207 -43
Orinda 36 59 23
Pinole 2 0 -2
Pittsburg 156 135 -21
Pleasant Hill 4 41 37
Richmond 160 551 391
San Pablo 6 1 -5
San Ramon 0 163 163
Walnut Creek 118 408 290
Contra Costa County Unincorp. 481 469
Contra Costa County Totals 2,004 3,127 1,123
California Construction Industry Research Board
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 190 of 549
..� DOTED
Fo
■ Homeowners like status quo and to control outcomes PROP y3••
■ Fiscal bias against housing (sales taxes preferred)
■ Infill is hard (process, fees, land assembly, CEQA) "`'
■ Costs rising faster than incomes (25% in 2 years) My
MORE NEw HfIRH80
Rp
■ Fewer people can afford to buy or rent. AS I pp IN PRo p AS M1jeH
PERTY TgXES
■ State/local costs increasing to solve variety public concerns
(green, energy, fees for local services, inclusionary)
The result is a long-term, continued
supply imbalance with no middle � .
income housing over time.
Yes, the Bay Area is Embracing Density...
Multi-Family vs. Single-Family Permits As Percentage: 1996-2018
New 100%
Bay Area
90%
Housing Is 80% 34 37 4 • 40 k 37
34
Getting 4 47 45 45 51
70% 63 64 64 64 64
Denser 68 68 74 71 68
60%
In 1996, 34
percent of 50%
permitted 40%
housing units 30%
were multi-
family. In 2018, 20%
that percentage 10%
grew to 68
percent. o%
X001 0�' 0� Oh 1�Ob 101 .`�(Z§5 X00°'
■Single-Family (Percent) ■Mutt-Family (Percent)
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 192 of 549
i I I • I I 11 /
SFD 5 dwac. Single Family Dwellings(SFD). Feasible without subsidy Lowest cost:wood. no union
2.000++sf du labor, no elevators/ADA; minimum sales price in Central Valley +-$300k
2 story
5FD- Small lot 15 du/ac
• _ 1gj .'Wj 2 000++sf/du Feasible in most markets Cost 1.3X/sf SFD
��H ��n I�h 3 story
• 1 -
• • • Townhome 20 dulac Feasible in most markets Cost 1.52/sf SFD
1,800 sf7du Low density reduces economies of scale
- "" 3 story on small infill sites
_ _• Townhome/Condo 26 du/ac Feasible in more expensive markets Cost 2.OX/sf SFD
• • 1,200 sf/du Price needs to be above+-$600,000 or
• - — • — Ent)niionuli 4story cannot build
• • Midrise 50-100 du/ac, Feasible in only expensive markets
- , - • __ ,; ,_ 350+sf/du Sites need to be+- 1 acre—rare in cities Cost 3.OX to 4.OX/sf SFD
-' 5 story +Garage Price must reach$4++/psf
• """'' '-1" Small units/high rents. Small % of renters who can afford larger units
" Highrise
>100du/ac Feasible in
I"
350+sf/du only EXTREMELY expensive markets Cost 52/SFD
8-50 storyPrice must reach $4.50/5/6++/psf
€
t` Few renters/buyers and few places can afford
Hard to absorb an entire building-HUGE market risk
Here come the NIMBYs
Existing laws provide neighbors and anti-growth
activists outsized voices in the decision-making process
when it comes to approving housing projects. It is a
key driver behind the Bay Area's severe housing deficit:
✓ Very often, all it takes is a handful of
NPppVPLLE�REWSER determined residents to kill or dramatically
Coa nc71 � project b applying
1 reduce in size a housing y
C�� ects
naCCovgx k ,hooves, public pressure on local elected officials.
at
✓ With enough signatures, many housing
16 eaCs proposals can be forced onto the ballot and
veto „n„, subjected to a public vote.
1�” "m'"n' y ✓ The California Environmental Quality Act, or
x '
„wn ° v,lawl n` j� .°,�n`" Ww CEQA, offers persistent opponents multiple
iannl M1e IKn x>, nu,u•dx,.nl.
legal bites at a project, subjecting it to
„ W lengthy and costly delays.
✓ State laws intended to promote the production
of adequate housing are generally weak and
the NIMBYs (Not In My Backyarders) know it. ,
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 194 of 549
Local fees add up!
Fremont topped the list in the Terner Center's study, with
A study by the charges of $171,000 per single-family unit. This doesn't include
utilities and impact fees must be paid on top of the price of
Terner center for land, labor, construction materials and other costs.
Housing Innovation L'stimated Development Fees Per Unit
for Prototypical Multifamily and Single Family Projl•srls
at UC Berkeley $15O(,OO
recently concluded
that individual
$100,000
fees charged by
cities add up and
$50,000
substantially
increase the cost
■ ■ ■ ■ $0
of building MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF
I 1 Los Angeles Sacramento Roseville Oakland twine Fremont
housing Note Fir�eStuualm pr—iteh
d eten u
do iA included-elopentlivre(u•tit thlic a ny projwt- jwt,ific(et.
•
"It All Adds Up,"March 2018,Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkely
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 195 of 549
What are development impact fees?
Here are a few examples :
to. Antioch Fire Protection Fee: $591 per unit
► Dublin Public Facilities Impact Fee: $25,755 per single-family unit
pp- Emeryville Affordable Housing Impact Fee: $29,014 per multi-family unit
■ Livermore Park Impact Fee: $16,836 per single-family unit
■ Oakley Traffic Impact Fee: $12,406 per single-family unit
► Lafayette, Petaluma, Richmond, Oakland, Santa Rosa and Walnut Creek
Public Art Fee: 1 percent of total construction cost of project either as an in-
lieu fee or investment in public art onsite
East Contra Costa County Sub-Regional Traffic Impact Fee: $18,006 per
single-family unit in Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood and
unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County
Source: BIA I Bay Area research
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 196 of 549
Business > Real E
When Being No. 1 NewB �e'News ,
Is Re a L L Bad ! Most Bay Area crown:
y ,� n
e WO
9 pensive place i
rld to
Good grief. Hi build
demand, tight labor
The Bay Area is the most lead to record and tariffs
expensive place in the Prices
world to build an
apartment building, office ;--
tower, hospital, warehouse
or school," wrote San Jose
Mercury News reporter
Louis Hansen in April 2019. t
"And it is not even close. -The region is 13 percent
more costly to develop
than second place New
York, according to a new The Ba
report b UK-based expensive Area has a new
p y pensive metro area in distinction the
consultant Turner a according to a new r the world for construction,
Son Jose ePort British consu(tinq
Townsend." Mercury/yews,q by the
Prii 25,2019, by Louis Hansen h
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 197 of 549
Do you know what fees your city charges new residential development?
TOTAL FEI
Sadly, you probably cannot REPORTEDS
JURISD1CT1ON FY 2oio Yi —
even find out 2o16/Y^
BIA I Bay Area analyzed nearly 140 annual development Brentwood (mlllios$6�6.2
impact fee reports filed by 20 San Francisco Bay Area Contra Costa $23.9
County
jurisdictions during the past seven years. Dublin $110.1
Emeryville $6.3
BIA found that much of the critical data that is supposed Fairfield $43
to be made available to the public was late, missing, Fremont $66.7
Gilroy $39.7
inconsistent, incomplete or nearly impossible to Hayward $45.2
comprehend without an engineering degree. Livermore $8c,.8
Milpitas $83.8
Combined, the 19 cities and one county surveyed Morgan Hill $51.7
Mountain View $150.6
reported collecting $1 .14 billion in impact fees, much of Oakley $16.9
it from new housing. Petaluma $25.4
Rohrnert Park $33.1
Multiply these findings across the Bay Area and it is likely San Jose $156.8
San Ramon $4,7*
that tens of millions of dollars in impact fees went Santa Rosa $39.1*
unreported or minimally disclosed. Sunnyvale $78.1
Walnut Creek $11.5
TOTAL $1.14 billion
*
"San Francisco Ba?Area Development Impact Fees: Can You- Can Anybody?- Have not yet f led 2016-17
AI31600 reports
Follow the Money.,May 2018, BIAI'Bay Area
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 198 of 549
Fewer and fewer can afford to buy in the East Bay
In California in 2016, for every $1 ,000 increase in the price
of a house, about 15,328 households were priced out of the
market for a median-priced home. (National Association of Home Builders)
East Bay Median Home Sales: 2007 through March 2019
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$911,000
$800,000
$600,000 $644,000
i
$400,000
Alameda County
$200,000
Contra Costa County
--- California
$0
r" ^ -0 W 00 O" O' O O O - N N M M M ul 111 lf2 �p �2 ^ r pp O
O O O O O O O
C 011 C C > L CL -05 U >, +' � on C C > L 6_6 � V T +-' L on C i
Q � � Z Q vii Up � O � Q Z Q vii U_ p O `L Q - ::E
18
California Association of Realtors
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 199 of 549
Even good paying jobs don't pay enough for the Bay Area!
As Micah . 'he Issue is Not Jobs but Livelihoods
Weinberg with Cost of Living and Median Household Income
the Bay Area Indexed to 2000
Council Economic 150%
Institute recently 140% _ Median Bay�Are� .
illustrated in this income
slide, Bay Area 130% ,
$89 000!
household
Median U.S.
incomes are not 120% .�_-=,� ���;J'
��=- income
keeping up with $59,000
the region's cost 110%
of living - and
100%
the
costs are --
one of the biggest 90%
expenses. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
—Bay Area Cost of Living _U.S.Cost of Living
—— Bay Area Median Household Income r U.S.Median Household Income
J:V
Bay Area Council Economic Institute, Micah Weinberg
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 200 of 549
What happens when people cannot afford to buy or rent in the Bay Area?
Bay A, ,,---d i! ivy c-dell..tivuty a ;.5 LA egion
As this slide Lek. S.O.
from Micah l - BayAr
Weinberg at the ' tlDorsAo
Sialay eLIr�a���IJUetANares�den
err
Bay Area Council p1tvave ohotlle
w,datia
Websites-.
IQtvlager J
aEconomic O
Institute r qF/4i'e lggw 1411r 1A1
illustrates, tens
of thousands of
Bay Area lruol� �
workers who 1 (�` wh®hall ofSan F—clScoBayArearesidentsplan
to(cave
cannot afford ,„ _ . y...
homes close to Rall Linea -� M Northern
ACE , AlamedaSan
uin
their jobs look —Caflrarn
Capitol StanfWye�
to the outlying •`
N
Son
regions and OtherRywn S," `
thet ail
spend two or Background —' Mm d _
Major Cities
more hours a T Parks
Water w.. Smut Source:American Community S�
day commuting. Survey,ono year estimates,20,6
Urban Areas Monterey Analysis:Bay Area Council Economic
Institute
Source:Census Transportation Planning Products,2009-2013
Analysis- University of the Pacific 2u
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 201 of 549
We want to change, we really do!
A Poll Released Feb. HOW WE FEEL ABOUT HOUSING IN THE BAY AREA
According to a new poll.the majority of Bay Area residents support building new homes
2018 Showed to alleviate the region's affordable housing shortage. But there are some caveats.
In general,do you favor building significant Yes No No
quantities of new housing in the Bay Area? ' • NV31% 5%
Strong Support for Do you favor building FavorFavor No
more housing even if: ■ strongly somewhat Ir Oppose opinion
More Housing It reduces open space IM 30% 51% 3%
It changes the character of neighborhoods MPO 33 41 7 I
As Long As ...
It changes the character of your neighborhood 33 41 6
It adds more commuters to roads and transit systems 30 52 4
It makes your commute worse MA 21 58 12
As a way to increase housing,
would you support building NJ Support I Support Oppose No
... the new residents don't the following in or near your strongly somewhat opinion
neighborhood: Bingle family housing ' • - 36% 26% 3%
change our neighborhoods, Condominiums&townhomes 36 25 2
occupy former open space, High rise housing near transit . • 26 30 4
drive on our streets or board Apartments 33 28 3
our buses or trains. Homeless housing 36 27 4
Subsidized housing for low-income residents 37 19 3
Source:J.Moore Methods Inc.Public Opinion Research BAY AREA NEWS GROUP
Mercury News/Feb. 11, 2018
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 202 of 549
Case study: Lafayette's Deer Hill
Under Si ege F r u o a ' The 22.2-acre Deer Hill property has had
Both Sides two development proposals in eight
years:
March 2011: Developer filed application ✓ 315 moderate-income apartments
for Terraces of Lafayette, 315 moderate in 14 buildings
income apartments in 14 buildings ✓ 44 single-family homes and a
Late 2013: Faced with community community park
opposition to the multi-family project, the
3233 Deer HIII Road
developer offers an alternative single- _ _ APH 232_15D-q127 'R�,,,�
familysubdivision proposal, the Homes At
P P � _ d �`
, J=
Deer Hill with 44 houses and a large park. ;_ tm
Pd 9GG✓5 9®e ��Ion
2016: YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) groupEM 10
�>
San Francisco Bay Area Renters' 6
Federation sues Lafayette over the switch, q
accusing the city of failing to abide by the ° �'o=°'E° i`
state Housing Accountability Act. The
parties settle in May 2017 but the project �� IR!
is on hold for the duration of the
litigation. p
z�
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 203 of 549
May 2017 through early 2018: An
anti-growth faction opposes even OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN
the smaller, single-family project
and gather sufficient signatures to •`
put the project on the ballot. - yy
► June 4, 2018: Lafayette voters
W�4M1A Mw«
reject the 44-home project by ..sw °� r
w,. �.�.•.r a
almost 9 percentage points.
■ June 2018 through today: The :
O'Brien Company subsequently
resubmits its plans for the original
315-unit project and hearings areww
expected in the spring of 2019.
GATES
+ASSOCIATES Homes at Deer Hill, Lafayette
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 204 of 549
Plenty of other examples
new Multi-
LOST: 'housing,
units
family housing LOST: 43 new multi-
rolecu tact vxk epV
wa{fa�'u"µhtmf
'.,ntM y^rrar� �m onira olnap1� 071bor
keleY family housing units
:Ilwww.brtFt'm
a{sm
Woo
t back approval for 260-�thoushIg Tiburon seeks to join suit against 43-
gerkeley rejects fas -
home plan
project :z
for hue Years e.Wna^ced yet arwt hoPod
!018.7 36ar^PDt
t Nct that hes baa^snder rww Iey,slatan the deve{oper
A gerkelaY apanman Wfor fast vxked aper
obstac{a not 4ua1'�fYr^9 thrs week that {
e Investments m Fnh Street I^'N�tIts
to U.1'.. West gerkal Y _
Alng
gerkeleY-des rrqYtb0a{Oep1 PhdIoYeuvn9 .e
-wng
M2r� .pdpnatedKtY
F:11h S' d ,yn
ne,aYos"
uno The
50 percent afordatMtaie r rr•�.. ya rw ,- '�, _-_-
-k--d'us the law is mt apdKa�e' _ -
rromrheSan COST 4 095 ,. ...n.., W; ..... ,-..w.. ..�..u�.._na.e.._aa
uamaaa iuney. fam new .
"OprrVaan,rano„o ilY ho � mud ea.van.Muad.,xrrro+'tmra/adR.adnaawa,nt• >....,r.: .
BART'S
a,t.l/ro mo e.aaten+bn r ung units th amanm a o. sam m•�mrwa n.�v awnad+a spec b.aeaa a`
Meotad h,r. +a]hom.dnekyvar mr w.I.-J..
liEwm iawa,Vrarmy ero aruk fiM.mxviaiwneetlunlW eMw)tvr"Cwrar Srgrrw ."S• ,
S
extension to L! cr.at.iT- �o-.-1f1aa�.m.l.
andofc�ect°rs vote
...zs:rota .1710 st0r ran,.ara.,r.rq.aawno.ml.y.^ ..`r.,
75I-PO re elect$1.6 b Y
i11io �>
ss a T n
b'°"'ro rr Valle
&Ircon Va1te Y" ho
y.
Oubh^7pleasanr�on hub d°I du -'"t Mars ro and from
actors
would ve added 5 erm�e t°•elect a st. roil e.teoIn irancrsoo and
8 bl!
of track qh�"the Inreggta 5 3 melee to the bl +wn from the
vor a rhree houy hr^ed.a ue Ime
rad�S to°to,cattle theeanny a "ar lybat gt'enurefn rhe Dubt„yplea
widask a is aatarropa thr °arenaron r134Ria headquarre;ar a coat of 3?Op samO^hub to a
aadO
earenaronand wasdov« err t'+ea the t aYn ran Ma"Y T.V.
on uD0 board mtembaa mde
err dw.r,to r N°Y reardanh a ^0 e.ptr^9
the wet hued r..Wlad
t
acadea Yhad
24
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 205 of 549
Meet CASA*" Committee to House the Ba Area
Bay Co
MM1r
► Convened in 2017 by MTC and ABAG, 21 -member committee included rhi r F r
F
major employers, for-profit and nonprofit housing developers, labor and eAYgRFovs
environmental leaders q F
, public policy and affordable housing advocates,
transportation experts, charitable foundations and elected officials
The committee produced advisory CASA Compact in 2018, which
contained 10 policy recommendations: (1 ) Just-cause eviction; (2 and
3) emergency rent cap, rent assistance and access to legal counsel; (4)
removal of regulatory barriers to additional dwelling units; (5) minimum
zoning near transit; (6) reforms to housing-approval processes; (7)
expedited approvals and financial incentives for select housing types;
(8) unlock public land for affordable housing; (9) raise $1 .5 billion from a
range of sources to fund implementation of the CASA Compact; and
(10) establish a regional housing enterprise to implement the CASA
Compact. - -
25
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 206 of 549
Hove was CASA received? Welt
More than 200 housing-related bills in the Legislature, many =
inspired by the CASA Compact recommendations.
■ Contra Costa County Mayors Conference issued a policy framework
document intended to serve as a basis for its legislative advocacy
positions. Not surprisingly, Contra Costa cities support leaving housing
decisions in the hands of local governments. .s
PW Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon councils
endorsed what they called a Tri Valley Cities Housing and Policy
Framework that also emphasizes protection of local control.
As a concession to irate local officials who felt left out of the process,
MTC and ABAG formed the 21 -member Joint Housing Legislative
Working Group, which is comprised of local government appointees.
Clayton Vice Mayor Julie Pierce is the chairwoman.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 207 of 549
What about those 200+ housing bills?
ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS,
ALSO KNOWN AS IN-
LAW UNITS' OR - f
`GRANNY FLATS'
Five bills including S.B. 13 by Sen.
Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont,
which relaxes rules for ADU �� •
construction and allows local [ � , . `g
agencies to count the homes for
1
the purposes of identifying sites '
for housing. Some have even
started calling them PIMBYs, or "She'll come round to the idea of
Parents In My Back Yard! a Granny Flat eventually."
27
CartoonStock com
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 208 of 549
I
l
The Most
Talked
About Bill Is
J •oo
► S.B. 50 by Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco -- Communities in Los Angeles, San
Francisco and 13 other counties with populations larger than 600,000 would
have to allow four- to five-story apartment buildings near rail lines, and
smaller apartments and townhomes in wealthy neighborhoods near job
centers. But in a concession to Sen. Scott Maguire, D-Healdsburg, in smaller
counties, including Marin, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, cities would be
required to permit height increases near rail only one story taller than
existing zoning as well as allow four-plexes in many single-family-only areas.
Neighborhoods along the California coastline also would not have to permit
buildings as tall or construction as dense as required further inland.
2�
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 209 of 549
Other Bills Would ...
■ Increase fee transparency
► Establish the Housing Alliance for the Bay Area (HABA), a new regional entity
serving the nine Bay Area counties to fund affordable housing production,
preservation and tenant protection programs
Reduce vote threshold for local bonds or special taxes for affordable housing
production, preservation or public infrastructure
► Expand the state's Low Income Housing Tax Credit program by $500 million
per year, up from $94 million, leveraging an estimated $1 billion in additional
federal funds annually.
Caps annual rent increases by five percent above the percent change in the
cost of living and limits the total rental rate increase within a 12 month
period to 10 percent.
California housing bills in 2019?
lilt -- -
7 -
X1 ' X r 29
X
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 210 of 549
What can you do to help?
► Sign up to receive your city council ► Watch "A California for Everyone,"
agenda via email and show up or a short documentary about how
send letters to support housing the misuse of the California
projects. Environmental Quality Act has led
► Support pro-housing legislation and to the current housing crisis at
legislators. Visit www.CBIA.orgfor https: //vimeo.com/242696428
more information. When your friend or neighbor
► Tell your local elected officials that complains about the new
adding to the housing supply development under construction
matters to you. Many electeds say down the street and how its
they hear only from narrowly residents will clog his streets
focused but very vocal anti-housing with their cars and his kids'
groups. classrooms with their children,
■ Join the YIMBY - Yes In My Backyard remind her that she, too, was
- Movement or at least send money. once the not-yet-arrived
Check them out at yimbyaction.org resident. But someone took
or your community may have its financial risks and secured the
own YIMBY group. approvals to build the home she
lives in today. Her neighbors
made room for her on their
streets and in their schools, -
stores and parks.
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 211 of 549
Thank
Lisa Vorderbrueggen
BIA I Bay Area
East Bay Executive Director for Governmental Affairs
1350 Treat Blvd., Ste. 140
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
lvorderbrue �enC biabayarea.orp
925-348-1956
www.biabayarea.orp
May 16, 2019 Regular Board Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 212 of 549