Title
Review and Comment on the City of Alameda 2017 Housing Element Annual Report and Implementation Priorities. (Community Development 481001)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Acting City Manager
Re: Review and Comment on the City of Alameda 2017 Housing Element Annual Report and Implementation Priorities
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Government Code § 65300 et seq., every city and county in California is required to adopt and maintain a General Plan and that each city and county address issues that are of statewide importance in the General Plan. The State has determined that:
• The provision of housing for all segments of California society is a matter of state-wide importance, because the availability of an adequate supply of housing affordable to all segments of society is critical to the State's long-term economic competitiveness and quality of life; and
• Local zoning provisions play an important role in the State’s ability to provide housing.
The City of Alameda must ensure that Alameda’s planning and development policies and regulations support the full range and diversity of housing types needed to accommodate California's diverse population, including seniors, families with disabilities, and lower-income households.
In July of 2014, the City Council adopted an updated Housing Element for the period 2015-2023 consistent with the requirements of California Government Code §65580 et seq. Government Code §65400 also requires that the City report annually to the State of California on the City’s annual progress on Housing Element implementation and that the City Council be provided with the report. The required annual report for transmittal to the State is attached as Exhibit 1.
In addition, the Housing Element includes Program 1.1, which requires an annual public hearing by the Planning Board to consider the annual report to the State and
“...consider improvements to the development review process and requirements to ensure that processes and requirements do not create unnecessary costs or delays and increase the cost of housing in Alameda.”
On March 12, 2018, the Planning Board held a publicly noticed hearing to review the 2017 Annual Report and the information in this report. Its recommendations are included in the discussion below.
DISCUSSION
I. Housing Element Status and Building Permit Activity
As of January 2018, the City of Alameda Housing Element remains in compliance with State Housing Law. The current Housing Element includes the City’s policies and programs to facilitate housing production for all socio-economic segments of the community and identifies land in Alameda that has been zoned to accommodate the City’s eight-year Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,723 units for the period 2015 through 2023.
In 2017, the City issued permits for 93 units. The 93 building permits issued in 2017 included:
• Forty-one units at the new Mulberry project on Clement Avenue,
• Twenty-two units at Alameda Landing,
• Twenty units at Everett Commons at the corner of Everett Street and Eagle Avenue,
• Six accessory dwelling units,
• One unit on a vacant parcel at 1926 Park Street as part of a commercial mixed use project,
• Two units on Lincoln Street, and
• One unit on Clinton Street.
Staff anticipates that the City will meet its RHNA obligation of 1,723 units by the end of 2023. During the first three years of the reporting cycle (2015-2017), the City issued building permits for 439 housing units. In the remaining five years of the cycle (2018-2022), building permits are expected to be issued for the following sites throughout the Northern Waterfront and NAS Alameda Priority Development Areas:
• Site A at Alameda Point (first phase includes 600 units).
• Del Monte Building (approximately 350 units)
• Alameda Landing waterfront (approximately 300 units)
• Carmel North Housing (146 units rehabilitated)
• Rosefield Village (approximately 40 new units)
• 1435 Webster Street (9 units)
During the first three years of the cycle, the City added 94 deed-restricted lower-income (very low-income and low-income) housing units. During the remaining five years of the cycle, the projects listed above will add approximately 185 additional lower-income deed- restricted units for a total of 279 lower-income units during the eight year period, which represents 46% of the City’s RHNA for lower-income households. Lower-income households are households with an annual income of up to 80% of the area-wide median income. Area-wide median income for a family of four in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is estimated to be approximately $98,000.
II. Major Residential Land Use Decisions In 2017
In 2017, the City of Alameda made a number of important land use decisions that will facilitate the construction of additional housing during the current and future RHNA reporting cycles:
On March 27, 2017, the City Council approved a zoning text amendment to allow “shared living” facilities in Alameda’s Main Street Districts. The amendment paved the way for a senior shared living facility on Webster Street, which was approved in 2017. A building permit application is expected in 2018.
On July 18, 2017, the City Council approved a Master Plan amendment for the Alameda Landing project that allowed for the future construction of up to 400 new residential units on the waterfront. Staff anticipates approximately 300 will pull building permits during this cycle. Design Review applications for the new homes are expected in 2018. Building permit applications may begin in 2019.
On September 11, 2017, the Planning Board approved a Development Plan application from the Alameda Housing Authority to redevelop a 46-unit property known as “Rosefield Village” with up to 80 new affordable housing units. Design Review applications for the new homes are expected in 2018. Building permit applications may begin in 2019.
On September 19, 2017, the City Council held a public workshop to consider a 2016 City Council referral directing staff and the Planning Board to consider revisions of Alameda’s Inclusionary Housing requirements. The Council decided to retain the existing Inclusionary Housing Element requirements and re-visit the issue with this Annual Report.
On September 25, 2017, the Planning Board approved a Development Plan for the development of 267 affordable housing units by the Alameda Point Collaborative within the Main Street Specific Plan area of Alameda Point. The 267 units replace 200 deteriorating units left behind by the US Navy and currently occupied by Collaborative residents.
On October 17, 2017, the City Council approved the first-ever Alameda Universal Design Ordinance that will ensure that 100% of Alameda’s new homes are “visit-able” by any visitor with mobility issues or a physical disability and that 30% of the new homes in all large-scale developments (over 10 units) are designed to be “live-able” by a person with mobility issues or a physical disability.
On December 19, 2017, the City Council considered a Public Lands Exchange and Development Agreement and Master Plan to build 589 residential units on the Encinal Terminals property, identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element as a Housing Opportunity Site necessary to meet the City’s RHNA. The application was received in 2016. As a result of the City Council’s denial of the application for a Public Lands Exchange and Development Agreement, the applicant is revising its plan to eliminate the need for a Public Lands Exchange and Development Agreement. Staff anticipates receiving the revised application in 2018.
On January 3, 2018, the City Council removed the Government Combining District (“G Overlay”) designation from the 30+ acre North Housing property, identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element as a Housing Opportunity Site necessary to meet the City’s RHNA. The application was received in 2017. The City Council’s action facilitates the rehabilitation of 146 existing vacant townhomes on 15 acres by Carmel Partners, a private development company, and the construction of new affordable housing units by the City of Alameda’s Housing Authority and Habitat for Humanity on the adjacent 15 acres. The Council’s action allows for development of the land with a residential density of up to 30 units to the acre.
III. California’s 2017 Housing Bills Package
In 2017, the State Legislature passed a package of fifteen (15) bills designed to increase the amount of housing constructed annually in California. According to HCD, the State of California averaged less than 80,000 new homes annually over the last 10 years, which is less than half of the projected need and less than half of what California was building during most of the 20th century. As a result of the supply shortage, there are an estimated 1.5 million lower-income California households who pay more than half of their income for housing costs, and California has the largest homeless population in the country, which research suggests, is a direct outgrowth of our State’s housing costs.
The City Attorney’s analysis of the new State housing legislation and its impact on the housing approval process in Alameda is provided in Exhibit 2. In summary, these new laws reinforce the following long-standing State housing objectives and principles:
• Alameda must provide adequate land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate its allocation of the State’s housing need. (This was accomplished with the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element.)
• Alameda must approve any proposed housing development applications on land that Alameda has zoned for residential purposes if the proposals are consistent with the site zoning and applicable objective development standards without reducing the proposed density, unless the City makes specific findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would result in a specific adverse impact to public health or safety, and that the impact cannot be mitigated in any other way. Under state law, the City cannot deny or reduce the density of a residential project based on non-objective standards, such as “neighborhood compatibility,” or non-public health and safety impacts, including community concerns about traffic delays, parking, or neighborhood character. Concerns over citywide or regional traffic congestion or parking are not valid reasons to deny or reduce the density of a project that is proposed on a residentially zoned site and meets all “objective” standards. “Objective” standards are measurable standards that have clear criteria determined in advance, such a height limits or setback standards.
• Once a housing development application is complete, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires the City to review the application based on the standards in place at that time. The City cannot downzone a property or amend the zoning to reduce the number of units on a property after it receives a complete application to develop housing on that property; it can only reduce the density if the project does not comply with the City’s objective standards in place at the time the application was deemed complete or if the City makes the health and safety findings specified in the HAA.
• More specifically, any proposal to remove the Multifamily Overlay or reduce the density permitted under the Multifamily Overlay zoning from the sites that were zoned for multifamily in 2012 to bring the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance into conformance with State Law would have the following consequences: 1) the City’s Housing Element and General Plan would immediately be out of compliance with State Law, 2) the zoning changes would have no effect on the three major projects that have active applications (Alameda Marina, Encinal Terminals, and Shipways), and 3) the only remaining properties with the MF Overlay that would be impacted by any such change would be Housing Authority’s property at North Housing and the Toyota site on Park Street.
IV. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program
Housing Element Program 4.1 establishes the need to support secondary units for small households and seniors. Sometimes referred to as “accessory dwelling units”, "in-law units" or "granny flats", these small one-bedroom or studio units built on properties that are already occupied by a single-family home in an existing neighborhood provide an excellent way for a community to add small, affordable units that are attractive to young residents, seniors, and/or residents with a disability.
New state laws came into effect on January 1, 2017, that require cities to streamline permitting of ADUs. The new laws also mandated cities bring local ordinances into compliance with the state standards for ADUs. This state mandate has had statewide impacts on ADU construction, as reported in a December 2017 UC Berkeley Terner Center Report (Exhibit 3).
On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted a series of amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to bring the City’s ordinance into conformance with state law. Under the former ordinance, the City approved only two ADUs in the last seven years. Below is an update about the ADU construction in Alameda under the new ordinance:
• In 2017, Alameda received 25 ADU applications and issued zoning clearances for 21 ADUs. Of the 21 ADUs with zoning clearance, six have building permits issued.
• The ADUs are predominantly located in existing basements or garages in the backyard. Due to construction costs, most homeowners are seeking to maximize the use of existing space on their property. The ADU applications are evenly divided, with a near 50-50 split, between backyard cottages and units within the walls of existing homes.
• The ADUs are quite small. The average size of the ADUs is 527 square feet. Of the 25 ADU applications, only four are larger than 600 square feet in size, with the largest being 1,048 square feet. The 1,048 square foot unit was constructed inside an existing basement. The smallest backyard cottage ADU is 230 square feet and the largest backyard ADU is 736 square feet. The concern that the state law will result in a proliferation of 1,200-square-foot backyard houses in Alameda has yet to materialize.
• The ADUs are evenly distributed across Alameda. There is not a concentration of ADUs in any particular neighborhood. Exhibit 4 includes a map of 2017 applications.
• The requirement that an ADU applicant must be the current owner-occupant has been useful in deterring speculative investors from adding ADUs to vacant for-sale properties.
The California Legislature continued its push for ADU construction in California by further amending ADU laws effective January 1, 2018 (SB 229 and AB 494). These amendments clarify provisions of the 2017 law to promote the development of ADUs, including opening areas where ADUs can be built to include all zoning districts that allow single-family uses, modifying fees from special districts, and reducing parking requirements. These changes brought greater parity in the implementation of ADU permitting across the state. Alameda’s ADU Ordinance is largely dictated by State law and the City is not able to fundamentally change the basic requirements. Furthermore, staff believes the ADU ordinance is working as intended by the City Council and does not recommend any changes at this time.
V. Inclusionary Housing Program
Housing Element Program 2.1 establishes the need to continue to implement the City of Alameda inclusionary housing program. Although not required by State law, the City of Alameda adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2003, which requires that 15% of all units in projects of 10 or more units must be deed-restricted for very low- (4%), low- (4%) and moderate-(7%) income households. Projects with between five and nine units can pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing affordable units. Projects with less than five units are exempt from the Ordinance.
On September 19, 2017, the City Council held a public workshop to consider a 2016 City Council referral directing staff and the Planning Board to consider revisions of Alameda’s Inclusionary Housing requirements to “increase the overall percentage of required affordable units as defined by the current Housing Element of Alameda’s General Plan and State housing laws within residential developments”.
At the September 2017 hearing, the City Council decided not to amend the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, but asked for a follow-up review in six (6) months. This report serves as that six-month review. Staff continues to find that:
• Increasing the inclusionary requirement is not needed to remain in compliance with Housing Element Law. In fact, the State of California considers inclusionary housing ordinances to be a constraint on the production of housing in California. For that reason, the State mandates that the City annually evaluate its inclusionary housing ordinance to determine if it is constraining housing development.
• The City’s current 15% inclusionary requirement is comprised of requirements for 4% very low-, 4% low- and 7% moderate-income units, which ensures that each project does not automatically qualify for an affordable housing density bonus. Under state law a project must provide either 5% very low, 10% low, or 10% moderate to trigger a density bonus. When a project triggers a density bonus, the result is that the number of units in the project increases and the actual percentage of affordable units in the project goes down, not up. For example, with 5% very low income units, 4% low income, and 7% moderate income units, a 100 unit project triggers a 20% density bonus for a total project size of 120 units, which includes 16 affordable units. Overall, the percentage of inclusionary units is 13% of the total number of units.
• In 2017 and 2018, housing construction costs are a major financial burden for housing production in Alameda and the Bay Area. In Alameda, recently approved residential projects, including major planned residential projects such as the Site A and Del Monte projects, are struggling to absorb rapidly increasing construction costs.
Given California’s land and construction costs, the 15% deed-restricted units in each residential project must be financially subsidized by the 85% of the units that are not deed-restricted. (This financial relationship between market-rate housing and deed-restricted affordable housing is the foundation of the State Density Bonus legislation, which grants market-rate bonus units in return for deed-restricted affordable units.) The deed-restricted unit subsidies must be covered by either the cost to the buyer or renter of the 85% market-rate units, the developer’s return on investment, or the price received by the seller of the land. If the subsidies grow to the point where the costs cannot be passed onto the buyer or renter, cannot be absorbed by the developer, or cannot be taken out of the land price, the housing project will become financially infeasible. If the projects become infeasible, then the inclusionary requirement becomes a constraint on housing construction.
If increasing the inclusionary requirement results in residential projects becoming financially infeasible, then the decision to increase the inclusionary requirement will not increase the construction of affordable housing; it will decrease the production of affordable housing.
If increasing the inclusionary requirement can be absorbed by increasing the cost of the market- rate units, then the change to the inclusionary ordinance will increase the cost of the market rate units and decrease the ability of each project to provide lower cost, market-rate “middle income” units, because the market-rate units may need to be designed as larger, more expensive units to help off-set the financial subsidies required to cover the additional deed-restricted units.
Alameda’s requirement for 15% inclusionary units that includes very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing exceeds the requirements of most neighboring cities and the few neighboring cities that require more than 15% either do not require low- and very low-income units or allow developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of providing the units.
Alameda’s inclusionary requirement applies equally to ownership and rental projects. Most other cities surveyed have different requirements based on whether or not the housing being built is ownership or rental. Staff believes these differences were the result of changes those cities made to address the court case Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (Palmer), which prevented cities from imposing deed restrictions on rental units. Because Alameda historically, since 1972 and the passage of Measure A, has had very few rental projects, staff never revised the Inclusionary Ordinance to address rental housing. In 2017, the State Legislature passed AB 1505, which effectively overrode the limitations imposed by the Palmer case.
Alameda is the most restrictive city regarding the option to pay in-lieu fees. In Alameda, only projects with nine or fewer units may pay in-lieu fees. Most other cities allow residential projects to pay fees in lieu of building the units regardless of the number of total units. Oakland only collects fees. It also appears that in cities where in-lieu fees are allowed: 1) many developers choose to pay the fee rather than build the units, and 2) those cities tend to receive less density bonus applications, because paying a fee does not qualify a project for a density bonus.
Staff Recommendations Regarding Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: Staff’s recommendations regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance remain largely unchanged from September 2017 and may be summarized as follows:
• The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is producing much needed deed-restricted housing. Although deed-restricted housing requirements do pose additional financial obligations on housing projects in Alameda, staff believes that the 15-year record of housing projects being constructed with the 15% requirement proves that the requirement is not posing a constraint on housing development. It is true that two major projects (Del Monte and Alameda Point Site A) have not moved forward to building permits despite being approved by the City in 2014. However, these two projects are unique in that they both included major infrastructure, open space and transportation costs that are unlike any other Alameda housing projects approved since 2003, under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. It should also be noted that both of these projects were approved in a post-Redevelopment environment that has severely limited access to public funding for affordable housing construction and Alameda Point Site A is providing a 25% inclusionary commitment.
• In 2018, construction and land costs remain extremely high in Alameda. Any further regulations that increase project costs could negatively impact financial feasibility and further exacerbate the housing crisis. Any changes in local programs and policies that increase development costs for housing at this time could be counter-productive and result in a constraint on affordable housing development as opposed to an increase in affordable housing.
• The 2017 Housing Package passed by the State Legislature imposes new requirements on any City that wishes to amend an existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Pursuant to AB 1505 any ordinance amended or adopted after September 2017 is subject to a higher level of review by the State of California to ensure that the ordinance is not imposing an undue financial constraint on housing production.
In conclusion, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is producing much needed deed-restricted affordable housing in all housing projects with 10 or more units. Staff does not recommend any changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance at this time.
VI. Workforce “Middle Income” Housing
Recent Alameda residential development projects are addressing the need for “middle income housing” through inclusion of deed-restricted “moderate-income” housing units and smaller, less expensive market rate rental units.
The City of Alameda Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that all projects of ten or more units deed restrict at least 7% of the units for “moderate income” households defined as households that earn between 80% and 120% of the area wide median income. In 2018, the area wide median income for a family of four in Alameda and Contra Costa counties is approximately $97,400. Therefore, the City of Alameda is requiring that 7% of the units in each project be deed-restricted to accommodate “middle income” families of four with household incomes between approximately $78,000 and $116,880 per year.
In addition, the changing rental market, rising housing construction costs, and adoption of new local development regulations described in this report are creating a development environment that facilitates construction of smaller, somewhat more affordable, market rate rental units. In the 1990s and 2000s, a typical housing project in Alameda included for-sale market rate single family homes, with at least three or four bedrooms. In 2018, the projects are providing smaller, market rate rental units, which are easier for a “middle income” family to afford. For example, the recent application for the “Shipways” project includes 142 one-bedroom rental units; 138 two-bedroom rental units; and only 12 three-bedroom rental units. The plan for the 200 rental units at Block 9 at Alameda Point includes 69 studios, 91 one-bedroom units, 40 two- bedroom units and no three-bedroom units.
Although market forces are generating smaller units in Alameda, these same market forces continue to result in high housing costs and difficulties for middle income households in search of housing in Alameda. For these reasons, staff and the Planning Board recommend that the issue of middle income housing remain a work priority for 2018. Options to continue to consider include, but are not limited to:
• Increasing the current inclusionary requirement for 7% of the units to be deed- restricted for moderate-income households (80% - 120% of AMI) to 10 or 12%. It should be noted that a 10% requirement or higher will automatically trigger a 5% or greater market rate density bonus for every project.
• Adding a new inclusionary requirement for 5% or 7% of the units to be deed- restricted for households with incomes between 120% and 180% of AMI. This “above moderate income” requirement would not trigger a density bonus.
• Limiting any new “above moderate income” inclusionary requirement to rental units because above moderate income households may not wish to purchase a property with a deed-restriction on resale value.
• Establishing a citywide unit size requirement that ensures that every project with 10 or more units include a percentage of studios and one-bedroom units to ensure a range of market rate price points in each project.
At this time, staff is not prepared to recommend a preferred approach to the problem of middle income housing affordability. Staff believes the issue deserves more community discussion and research and should be a priority for 2018. .
VII. Density Bonus Ordinance
In 1979, the State legislature enacted the Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sections 65915-65918) to address the shortage of affordable housing in California. The statute imposes a mandatory density bonus program that requires cities to permit the construction of additional residential units and, if requested by applicants, provide reduced parking standards, regulatory incentives/concessions and waivers to developers who construct a certain percentage of affordable housing that meets the statutory criteria. Specifically, a developer who includes specified amounts of low-, very low-, or in some cases, moderate-income housing, is entitled to:
• A density bonus to help cover the costs of the affordable units. State law specifies exactly what percentage of additional units (up to a 35 percent increase) must be provided.
• Reduced parking requirements.
• Up to three regulatory incentives and/or concessions from city development standards or regulations that result in “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to provide affordable housing.
• An unlimited number of waivers from city development standards, such as in Alameda’s case, the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-53 Prohibition on Multifamily Housing, that would “physically preclude” the project from developing at the density allowed under the Density Bonus Law.
In 2010, in compliance with State law, the City adopted AMC Section 30-17, Density Bonus Ordinance. Since its adoption in 2010, every major housing development in Alameda has taken advantage of the Density Bonus Ordinance to increase the number of deed-restricted units in the project, increase the number of market rate units in the project, and waive any zoning standards that physically preclude the project from realizing the total number of units provided by the zoning district and the State Density Bonus Law.
The provisions of the City's Density Bonus Ordinance are largely dictated by State law; therefore, the City is not able to fundamentally change any of the basic requirements. Therefore, staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance at this time.
VIII. Universal Design Ordinance
Housing Element Program 4.2 establishes the need for a Universal Design Ordinance to better serve the City’s senior population, residents that wish to "age in place", and the 16% of Alameda families that report living with a family member with a disability.
On October 17, 2017, the City Council approved a citywide Universal Design Ordinance that will ensure that 100% of Alameda’s new homes are “visit-able” by any visitor with mobility issues or a physical disability and that 30% of the new homes in all large-scale developments (over 10 units) are designed to be “live-able” by a person with mobility issues or a physical disability.
IX. Assisted Living and Homeless Shelters
Housing Element Policy HE-4 states: “Encourage and support new residential opportunities for senior citizens, including senior housing projects, multifamily housing projects with accessible and small housing units, assisted living projects, and in-law units.” The AMC does not currently include a definition of “assisted living”, which is a type of housing that is identified in the Housing Element as a critical need in Alameda. In 2016, the City Council denied an Assisted Living facility in the Harbor Bay Business Park partially based on the fact that the site zoning did not specifically address whether assisted living is a permitted use on the property. Since assisted living is not clearly defined in the AMC, it is not clearly permitted anywhere in Alameda. Staff recommends that the Planning Board and City Council hold public hearings in 2018, to address this deficiency in the AMC.
In 2017, homelessness became a bigger concern in Alameda and as a result, deficiencies in the City’s regulatory documents became apparent. The AMC definition of “emergency shelter” is in need of updating. Furthermore, the AMC only permits emergency shelters on fewer than five properties in the entire City. The City of Alameda has a single emergency shelter on leased property on Clement Street, which is one of the five properties described above. The current shelter is in need of major improvements, and the shelter is in danger of losing its lease at the current site.
Given the increasing need for homeless services and facilities, staff recommends that the Planning Board and City Council hold public hearings in 2018 to address updating the Zoning Code to reflect current best practices for serving homeless individuals and families.
X. Design Review Ordinance
The Housing Element includes programs and policies (Program 1.3 and 3.1) that emphasize the need to expedite the development review process for projects that include affordable housing and special needs housing. Prioritizing and expediting the design review process for projects with affordable housing and special needs housing should continue.
In 2017, the Planning Board approved the Development Plans for 267 affordable units for the Alameda Point Collaborative and Development Plans for up to 80 units at Rosefield Village for the Alameda Housing Authority. In both cases the Planning Board approved the design review applications within 150 days of the applications being filed.
XI. Funding for Affordable Housing
Funding for affordable, low cost housing is the single biggest challenge facing Alameda, the region, and the State of California. With high land costs, high construction costs, and the elimination of Redevelopment in California in 2011, federal, state and local financial subsides for affordable housing are extremely limited and highly competitive. Recent action by the State Legislature, specifically Senate Bill 2 and Senate Bill 3, will increase funding at the State level to support construction of affordable housing on the local level. However, recent actions by Congress to change the Federal Tax Code have made affordable housing tax credits less valuable, which has made financing of affordable housing on the local level more difficult.
Locally, in 2017, the City of Alameda collected $38,093 in affordable housing impact fees from non-residential development, which can be used to help fund affordable housing.
In 2018, staff recommends that the Planning Board and City Council continue to discuss potential local strategies to create new funding sources for affordable housing in Alameda.
XII. Planning Board Recommendations and Priorities for 2018
On March 12, 2018, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the annual report and the information in this staff report. Based upon the staff recommendations and public comment, the Planning Board endorsed the staff recommended priorities for 2018:
• Continue to review and approve housing proposals on Housing Opportunity Sites, consistent with the 2015-2023 Housing Element and State law;
• Complete zoning amendments to support: 1) homeless services and facilities, 2) assisted living facilities for the elderly, and 3) middle income housing; and
• Continue to explore new funding sources for affordable housing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact on the General Fund from a Housing Element annual report.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
An annual report on the status of the City’s efforts to implement its General Plan Housing Element policies and quantitative RHNA housing objectives is required by California Government Code §65400 and Housing Element Program 1.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it does not constitute a “project” under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and comment on the City of Alameda 2017 Housing Element Annual Report and implementation priorities.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Potter, Community Development Director
By,
Andrew Thomas, Assistant Community Development Director
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Edwin Gato, Acting Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. 2017 Housing Element Annual Progress Report
2. City Attorney’s Analysis of State Housing Legislation
3. UC Berkeley Terner Center Report
4. Alameda 2017 Accessory Dwelling Unit Application Location Map
5. 2017 Inclusionary Housing Staff Report