2-1-1 Releases Data Dashboards

Comments Off on 2-1-1 Releases Data Dashboards

In late August, 2-1-1 San Diego released a data dashboard tool designed to combine and analyze data from the agency and its many partner service organizations and transform it into easily accessible and actionable information on community assets and resources, needs, and trends used in planning.

Currently, the dashboard includes information on the activities carried out by 2-1-1 San Diego between August 2017 and July 2018, as well as information on demographics, resources, housing, nutrition, health, the social determinants of health, and utility and technology. The housing dashboard provides data on clients’ housing stability, current living situation, and the immediacy of their need for support or assistance.

Some of the housing data available through the dashboard will also be used to inform the City of San Diego FY 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. This data should eventually be able to inform best practices in homelessness systems and public policy.

Screenshot of 2-1-1 Data Dashboard

Councilmember Ward Calls for Recuperative Care Facilities

Comments Off on Councilmember Ward Calls for Recuperative Care Facilities

Image of underutilized County Property at 3rd Street, Hillcrest, San DiegoOn Aug. 30, San Diego Councilmember Chris Ward stood in front of a vacant county-owned building in Hillcrest and called for a thorough review of vacant and underutilized city and county property that could be used for recuperative care and medical respite beds for people experiencing homelessness. Ward underscored the shortage of such facilities in a region where nearly 10,000 people are experiencing homelessness, many of them ages 55 or older with chronic health conditions. Currently, only 73 recuperative care beds, many of them designated specifically for veterans, are available countywide. Other community leaders who joined Ward at the press conference included Greg Anglea, CEO of Interfaith Community Services; Benjamin Nicholls of the Hillcrest Business Association; and Nathan Fletcher, former assemblymember turned candidate for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

LA County Commission Advances Tejon Ranch Proposal

Comments Off on LA County Commission Advances Tejon Ranch Proposal

The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission voted on Aug. 29 to advance a proposal to develop a significant portion of Tejon Ranch, approximately 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles. Originally proposed by the Tejon Ranch Co. in 1999, the Centennial project would provide 19,000 homes, jobs, and infrastructure to the area. Opponents have raised concerns about the environmental impact of the project, as well as the risks associated with developing in a wildfire hazard area.

Cities Can’t Prosecute Homeless People for Sleeping Outside

Comments Off on Cities Can’t Prosecute Homeless People for Sleeping Outside

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, September 4, in Martin v. Boise to prohibit cities from prosecuting people for sleeping on public property or sidewalks when shelters are unavailable. The case was originally filed after six residents of the City of Boise were issued citations for violating the City’s Camping and Disorderly Conduct ordinances, which prohibited residents from sleeping in public places.

In an opinion written by Judge Marsha S. Berzon, the court found that the City’s rules constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court also took issue with rules limiting the length of shelter stays and requiring people staying in shelters to participate in religious programs.

The ruling is of particular interest in California, where high housing costs have contributed to housing instability and homelessness. For more information on the topic, read the following news articles:

  1. SF Court: Cities can’t prosecute people for sleeping on streets
  2. Homelessness: It’s not a crime to sleep on the street — absent other options, court says
  3. Homeless People Cannot Be Prosecuted by Cities for Sleeping Outside If There’s No Access to Shelter, Appeals Court Rules
  4. Cities may not prosecute homeless people for sleeping outside if they have no access to shelter, appeals court

HUD Proposes Revising Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule

Comments Off on HUD Proposes Revising Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule

On Aug. 13, HUD announced that it is seeking public comment on potential amendments to its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulations. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the Federal Register, affirms that the regulations aim to help communities fulfill their fair housing obligations, but that the approach outlined in the regulations “proved ineffective, highly prescriptive, and effectively discouraged the production of affordable housing.” HUD also asserted that the AFFH Data and Mapping Tool contained errors and that local governments had difficulty using it, which resulted in the need for “an unsustainable level of technical assistance.”

“It’s ironic that the current AFFH rule, which was designed to expand affordable housing choices, is actually suffocating investment in some of our most distressed neighborhoods that need our investment the most,” said Carson. “We do not have to abandon communities in need. Instead we believe we can craft a new, fairer rule that creates choices for quality housing across all communities.”

HUD seeks to amend the proposed rule to create a process focused on accomplishing positive results and encouraging actions to increase housing choice while providing greater local control, minimizing regulatory burdens on communities, and making more efficient use of HUD resources.

The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) stated that the AFFH changes would be “a significant setback for the millions of Americans that depend on our government to protect and enforce their civil rights.” NFHA also argued that the original AFFH rule provided a framework for jurisdictions to use federal funds to invest in affordable housing, transportation infrastructure, and other community amenities in neighborhoods that had previously experienced redlining and other discriminatory practices.[1]

[1] Statement from the National Fair Housing Alliance, et al. Concerning the Recent AFFH Ruling (August 17, 2018).

What Should Every Homelessness Plan Include? Housing

Comments Off on What Should Every Homelessness Plan Include? Housing

Image of Colorado Court _Affordable HousingEnding homelessness is simple: Provide people with a home.  While it is a straightforward solution, developing new housing takes time, is costly, and often faces community opposition. Within the existing rental market vacancy rates are low and housing is unaffordable to most, especially those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Recent data make a strong case that homelessness at its core is a housing issue, regardless of other complexities within the population. The June 2018 UCLA Anderson Forecast found strong correlations between high rent and home prices and the number of people experiencing homelessness. In addition, a 2017 Zillow report indicated that a 5% increase in rent in Los Angeles County would result in 2,000 additional people losing housing.

Recently, LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) worked with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) to assist 17 cities in creating city-specific plans to address homelessness.  The San Gabriel Valley, although just one Service Planning Area (SPA) in Los Angeles County, has nearly 4,300 people experiencing homelessness on any given night.[1] While small in comparison to the City of Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley’s homeless population is larger than those of 31 states nationwide.

In January 2018, LDC set out on a path to engage each community and their stakeholders to draft a plan for adoption by their city councils at the end of June.  The cities varied in size and demographic composition, as well as in their understanding of homelessness.  Some cities have been working proactively on the issue for years and already had solid strategies on which to build, while other cities were taking their first steps to tackle the issue. As with any project that involves people from diverse backgrounds, our team heard differing opinions on challenges, solutions, and best practices.

Throughout the process, LDC stayed focused on the vision that housing is the best remedy for homelessness and that cities play a crucial role in encouraging development across the socioeconomic spectrum.  Specifically, cities have a lot of control when it comes to land use, zoning, and siting affordable housing, supportive housing, and shelter. Our work in the San Gabriel Valley underscored the need for all three, both locally and countywide. In fact, in February 2018 the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) released a report that identified a gap of more than 21,000 supportive housing units, 10,446 Rapid Re-Housing spots, and just over 3,000 emergency shelter beds to meet the needs of single adults across Los Angeles County. While creating more affordable and supportive housing are no-brainers, I sometimes hesitate to encourage the creation of new shelter beds. Los Angeles County, however, is an anomaly compared to the rest of the country given the sheer number of people living outdoors. Currently, the San Gabriel Valley has only 1,200 temporary housing beds. Three-quarters of the homeless population lives unsheltered on the streets and in riverbeds and canyons.

It was exciting for our team to celebrate the adoption of the plans by each city council during the SGVCOG City Homeless Plan Summit on August 1st in San Dimas. At the summit, the SGVCOG highlighted the many cities that included strategies to address housing:

  • 16 cities included strategies for affordable housing.
  • 11 cities included strategies for supportive housing.
  • 13 included Rapid Re-Housing.
  • 8 plans included interim housing.

Obviously, plans are only effective if they are implemented, and cities will need assistance identifying and tapping into available resources to achieve the goals outlined in their plans. However, the planning process generated regional momentum to prevent and address homelessness, and I am optimistic that SPA 3 will see declines in homelessness across the area over the next several years. Remember, ending homelessness is quite simple in concept but hard to achieve.  And it’s a reminder to always ask yourself, “Without housing, where do people ultimately go?”

Headshot of LDC Principal Kris KuntzKris Kuntz, Principal, is passionate about creating innovative solutions to address homelessness. Prior to joining LDC, he performed agency-wide evaluation activities for San Diego’s largest homeless services agency, that included a drop day center, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, and a federally qualified health center.  He was an integral part of Project 25, San Diego’s successful homeless high utilizer project and worked with Managed Care Organizations to sustain the project after the United Way’s initial investment. To learn more about LDC’s work with homeless assistance systems, contact him at kris@lesardevelopment.com.

[1] 2018 Point-In-Time Count data includes the Pasadena Continuum of Care.

Legislature Extends Legacy of 2017 Housing Package

Comments Off on Legislature Extends Legacy of 2017 Housing Package

California lawmakers continued to build on the achievements of the 2017 housing package by passing a number of bills to address the ongoing housing crisis during the final days of the 2018 legislative session, which ended on Aug. 31. While issues related to land use planning, affordable housing development, fair housing efforts, and homelessness continued to figure prominently in the debate, the Legislature also passed a number of bills to mitigate risks associated with a second crisis: wildfire disasters.  Governor Brown has until Sept. 30, 2018, to sign or veto the bills.

Land Use Planning

Both AB 1771 and SB 828, which are awaiting Governor Brown’s signature, would address ongoing concerns that the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) distribution process is more often influenced by politics rather than data on housing needs.

AB 1771, authored by Assm. Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), would substantively change the allocation process by requiring Councils of Government (COGs) to develop their RHNA allocation methodology in consultation with the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) rather than waiting to consult with HCD until they are in the process of developing their allocation plans. The plans would need to integrate statutory objectives related to promoting infill development, advancing socioeconomic equity, achieving greenhouse gas targets, increasing the availability of affordable housing units relative to the number of low-wage jobs, and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

AB 1771 also calls for COGs to employ a more transparent approach to developing and implementing the allocation process. For example, COGs would also need to electronically publish the results of its survey of members on the proposed methodology and information on how the proposed methodology achieves statutory objectives. The methodology would need to address factors such as housing need, housing burden, overcrowding, and the availability of housing to align with employment and wages. HCD would have 60 days following the public comment period to determine whether the methodology meets RHNA allocation statutory objectives. Another change contained within the bill would prohibit local governments from proposing the redistribution of housing allocations among themselves as part of an appeal process.

SB 828, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), seeks to establish a more transparent, equitable process for determining each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). While each jurisdiction is required to plan for its fair share of the regional housing need, the current process does not adequately account for unmet needs due to historically low housing production. Further, the process has been criticized for favoring cities that can apply political pressure to reduce their allocations. SB 828 would allow HCD to include existing households in the number of total projected households when determining RHNA methodology. It would also prohibit COGs from using factors, such as the prior underproduction of housing or stable population numbers from the previous RHNA, in determining the jurisdiction’s future share of housing needs.

SB 828 would further require the final regional housing need allocation plan to demonstrate government efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities throughout a region. Specifically, COGs would be required to compare local overcrowding and vacancy rates, as well as the percentage of cost-burdened households, with those of a healthy housing market. Before passing the bill, the Assembly cut language that would have required a city or county to identify an inventory of available land equal to 125 percent of its RHNA requirements for each income category or identify zoning and other strategies to address needs.

The Legislature also passed AB 829, which was authored by Assm. David Chiu (D-San Francisco) and designed to discourage local legislative bodies from requiring developers to obtain a letter of acknowledgement or other documentation prior to seeking state funding for a project in their district. Senate amendments refocused the bill’s language to prohibit the use of state funding in any project that requires documentation from a local legislative body or one of its members. The bill was introduced following a Los Angeles Times article on Los Angeles city councilmembers power to block housing developments in their district by requiring, but not providing, such documentation.

In addition, AB 2923, authored by Assms. David Chiu (D-San Francisco) and Timothy Grayson (D-Concord), would streamline the approval process for transit-oriented development (TOD) on infill sites owned by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and located within a half-mile of a BART station. The bill would also require the BART Board of Directors to establish TOD zoning standards by July 1, 2020. Cities and counties within the BART service area would have two years or until July 1, 2022, to adopt an ordinance conforming to the BART TOD zoning standards. If signed into law, the bill would enable BART to fulfill its goal of building 20,000 new units of housing, including 7,000 units of affordable housing, on the 250 acres of developable land it owns by 2040.

Governor Brown has already signed, AB 3194, which updates the Housing Accountability Act to prohibit jurisdictions from rejecting a development of very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income housing or an emergency shelter without evidence to demonstrate that it would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.”  Authored by Assemb. Tom Daly (D-Santa Ana), the law prohibits jurisdictions from requiring rezoning for projects that meet objective general plan standards when local zoning is inconsistent with the general plan.

The governor also signed AB 1406, which was authored by Assm. Todd Gloria (D-San Diego). The new law amends the Education Code to extend the allowable term of specific types of lease agreements entered into by a school district to 99 years and aligns the law with Civil Code. The Education Code had previously prevented school districts from entering a lease-leaseback agreement or lease-to-own agreement of more than 40 years with the entity that constructed the school facility. The maximum term under which school districts can co-locate with another entity through a joint-occupancy agreement has also been extended from 66 to 99 years.

Affordable Housing Development

Introduced by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) and co-authored by Assms. Jesse Gabriel (D-Van Nuys) and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego), SB 961 would streamline the process for developing affordable housing near transit in enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs) in certain situations. EIFDs are government entities established by cities or counties for the specific purpose of financing public and private infrastructure and facilities, including low- and moderate-income housing. This bill would enable EIFDs to enact and form a Second Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvement Act (NIFTI-2), which allows for the issuance of bond financing to support affordable housing near transit without voter approval.

SB 961 also sets forth procedures public financing authorities must follow to develop and adopt an infrastructure financing plan to expend NIIFTI-2 funds. Cities or counties would be allowed to allocate tax revenues to a NIFTI-2 by adopting a resolution, under certain conditions. Specifically, the district would be required to use at least 40 percent of the total funds it receives for rental or owner-occupied housing affordable to households earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). Rental housing funded through the EIFD would need to remain affordable for 55 years, and owner-occupied housing would have affordability restrictions for 45 years. Half of the total housing funds would be used to develop permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness or households earning less than 30 percent AMI.

The bill was amended in the Assembly to require an EIFD to set aside at least 10 percent of its total funds to cover capital costs for greening efforts or active transportation capital projects. Other amendments established requirements for public hearings and guidelines to address potential landowner and resident protests of the financing plan.

Two other bills, intended to make it easier to build accessory dwelling units, did not make it through the Legislature. AB 2890, authored by Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), would have further revised Accessory Dwelling Unit laws to prohibit local ordinances from imposing certain standards that constrain ADU development and required HCD to establish small home building standards. SB 831, introduced by Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) and coauthored by Sens. Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), and Scott Wiener, would have significantly rewritten ADU statutes. The bills did not pass at least in part because local governments have only updated local ADU ordinances to comply with recent laws, which went into effect less than two years ago.

Fair Housing

The Legislature also took a proactive stance to ensure that all housing and community development programs combat patterns of discrimination and segregation by actively addressing disparities, promoting inclusive communities, and upholding civil rights and fair housing law regardless of whether they receive HUD funding.

Authored by Assm. Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), AB 686 would require public agencies to be consistent with the final rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Obama Administration. This would require Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, to include an assessment of fair housing with an analysis of fair housing issues and trends contributing to disparate access to housing; goals, strategies, and actions to address factors that contribute to limited housing choice and access to opportunity; metrics to track progress toward goals; and the identification of land suitable for residential development.

On August 28, Governor Brown signed AB 2219, authored by Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco). This bill requires landlords to accept security deposits and rent from a third party in a form other than cash or electronic funds transfer. The third party must provide a signed acknowledgement that they are not the tenant. The new law seeks to prevent homelessness by requiring landlords to accept funds from individuals and/or organizations other than the tenant. The third-party payments do not constitute a contract between the landlord and third party, and the law does not prevent landlords from terminating a tenant rental agreement.

Homelessness

As part of ongoing efforts to address the public health impact and costs of homelessness, the Legislature passed bills to facilitate supportive housing development, support efforts to reduce youth homelessness, provide matching funds to support employment programs for people experiencing homelessness, and create the Orange County Housing Trust.

Jointly authored by Assms. David Chiu and Tom Daly, AB 2162 expedites supportive housing development by making it a by-right use in multifamily and mixed use zones under certain conditions. The bill would allow ministerial approval of projects that are 100 percent affordable for low-income households earning up to 80 percent of AMI if 25 percent or 15 of the units, whichever is greater, are set aside for supportive housing. Projects would be required to have a 55-year affordability restrictions, no minimum parking requirements for supportive housing units located within a half-mile of transit, and a plan for on-site supportive services with named partners, proposed funding sources, and staffing commitments. Senate amendments would cap by-right development requirements at 50 units or less in cities or unincorporated areas of a county with a population of less than 200,000 and an annual Point-In-Time count of less than 1,500, although a city or county could approve by-right development for projects of over 50 units. If signed by Governor Brown, the bill would apply to all areas even where local governments are meeting RHNA.

A second bill, SB 1152, authored by Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-Montebello), would require hospital discharge policies and procedures to include specific processes for discharging people experiencing homelessness to ensure that they are not discharged without having a safe place to go. The law would require hospitals to inquire about an individual’s housing status; notify patients about options for housing, shelter, and supportive services based on their best interest and preferences; and identify a post-discharge destination. Assembly amendments eliminate requirements related to coordinating referrals and providing transportation in excess of 30 minutes or 30 miles, and delay implementation until July 1, 2019. In addition, hospitals would be required to maintain a discharge log of patients experiencing homelessness rather than report to the Office of State Health Planning and Development.

The Legislature also passed SB 918, known as the Homeless Youth Act of 2018 and co-authored by Sen. Scott Wiener and Assm. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which would establish additional requirements for the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council focused on the specific needs of youth experiencing homelessness. As of the January 2017 Point-In-Time Count, California was home to more than 15,000 homeless youth, 38 percent of the total homeless youth population nationwide. The requirements include setting goals and outcomes measures; enhancing systems integration and coordination; guiding the coordination of policy, practice, and funding in coordination with stakeholders; identifying best practices; and, providing program development and technical assistance, as funding is available. Assembly amendments eliminated a grant program focused on youth homelessness.

If signed into law, AB 3085, authored by Assm. Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), would establish the New Beginnings California Program within the Department of Community Services and Development. The program would provide up to $50,000 in matching funding for up to 50 cities or Continuum of Care (CoC) programs to pursue a homeless employment program of their own or expand on an existing one. Cities and CoCs would be able to contract with a qualifying local service provider to operate the program. To qualify, programs would need to connect individuals experiencing homelessness and living in supportive housing with employment through the city, a contracted service provider, or a private entity or prepare people for employment by providing relevant services and resources. Hourly wages must meet or exceed minimum wage. The city or CoC would be required to provide matching funds from charitable contributions or other grant funding.

AB 448, authored by Assms. Tom Daly and Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton), would allow Orange County and any city in the county to create the Orange County Housing Trust, a joint powers authority (JPA) that can receive public and private funding and authorize debt instruments to streamline shelter and permanent supportive housing development. The JPA would fund the development of housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or those with extremely low- to low incomes within Orange County. The legislation was propelled forward by an Orange County Grand Jury report on the benefits of supportive housing and a UC Irvine study that showed the County could save an estimated $42 million on healthcare, law enforcement, and other local and county expenditures by funding supportive housing. The County would also be able to better leverage available funding to attract increased funding from the state.

One of the bills that stalled in the Legislature was SB 792, which would have required the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council to develop and implement a statewide strategic plan to assist CoC lead agencies better implement HUD-recommended activities and better meet HUD requirements.  SB 1010, which would have created a pilot program to provide supportive housing to parolees with mental health conditions experiencing homelessness, also did not pass the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, in part because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has already established a similar program with one county and because it would require CDCR to pay for mental health treatment for which counties already receive funding.

Wildfire and Disaster Mitigation

Governor Brown has already signed AB 1797, the first of several bills to result from the state’s most disastrous wildfire season on record. Authored by Assm. Marc Levine (D-San Rafael), the law will require insurers to conduct a replacement cost estimate that conforms to the State Department of Insurance’s methodology and rules when they sell or renew a residential insurance policy. This bill originated following recent wildfires, after which numerous consumers learned that their insurance coverage was based on outdated replacement costs and therefore inadequate to fully cover the cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes.

SB 824, authored by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would further protect consumers by preventing insurers from cancelling or not renewing residential insurance policies in fire-prone regions unless such actions were related to nonpayment, conviction of a crime related to increasing a property hazard, or fraud. Amendments specify that the regulations would not apply if the policy renewal threatened the insurer’s financial solvency.

SB 894, authored by Sens. Bill Dodd (D-Napa) and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and co-authored by Assemb. Levine, would allow disaster victims with insufficient insurance coverage on their primary dwelling to combine payments under other policy limits up to the total cost of rebuilding or replacing the home. Insurers would also be required to renew policies for at least two renewals or 24 months, with a 12-month extension, following a total loss.

Two companion bills, AB 1772 and AB 1800, each address different aspects of the Senate bill. AB 1772, authored by Assms. Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa) and Cecilia Aguilar-Curry (D-Winters), would give wildfire victims 36 months to rebuild their homes and businesses following a catastrophic wildfire and extend the time policyholders can collect the full amount of the insurance payment. AB 1800, authored by Assemb. Marc Levine, would permit policyholders to collect the full replacement cost of their home after a total loss, even if they opted not to rebuild, decided to replace the home at another location, or purchased a home elsewhere.

Diana ElrodDiana Elrod, Principal, brings more than 30 years of consulting and public sector experience to her work co-leading LDC’s housing policy and real estate finance team. Before joining LDC, she provided strategic counsel and conducted research on Housing and Community Development for the Cities of Lafayette, Belmont, Palo Alto, San Jose, San Mateo, and the County of Santa Clara. She also has completed seven Housing Elements and eight Consolidated Plans for jurisdictions throughout California. She can be reached at diana@lesardevelopment.com.

Kris Kuntz, Principal, is passionate about creating innovative solutions to address homelessness. Prior to joining LDC, he performed agency-wide evaluation activities for San Diego’s largest homeless services agency, that included a drop day center, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, and a federally qualified health center.  He was an integral part of Project 25, San Diego’s successful homeless high utilizer project and worked with Managed Care Organizations to sustain the project after the United Way’s initial investment. To learn more about LDC’s work with homeless assistance systems, contact him at kris@lesardevelopment.com.

 

 

 

 

 

State Funding Opportunities to Address Homelessness

Comments Off on State Funding Opportunities to Address Homelessness

Image of a Homelessness Encampment in Oakland

California is making three new funding opportunities available to help communities statewide to address homelessness. Two of the grant opportunities—the Homeless Emergency Aid Program and the California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program—are both part of a 2018 amendment to SB 850 totaling more than $550 million.

Homeless Emergency Aid Program

The Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP), managed by the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council (HCFC), represents $500 million in one-time, flexible block grants available to communities. The program provides $250 million for Continuums of Care (CoCs) based on 2017 Point-in-Time Count numbers, $150 million in direct allocation to cities of less than 330,000 people, and $100 million to CoCs based on their percentage of the total statewide homeless population.

Eligible activities include emergency housing vouchers, rapid re-housing, emergency shelter construction, the use of armories to provide temporary shelter, and other activities. To be eligible for funding, a city, county, or joint power of authority must officially declare an emergency shelter crisis (although waivers may be available for smaller cities). The grants are intentionally flexible and meant to provide a one-time injection of funding while communities wait for supportive housing to be built. The program also aims to provide a flexible complement to other funding.

The notice of funding availability (NOFA) will be released on Sept. 5 and closes Dec. 31, 2018. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis, and HCFC encourages early applications. Additional information, including workshops, FAQs, maps, guidance, and other details, is available on the HCFC website.

California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program

The California Emergency Solutions and Housing program (CESH), managed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), provides $53 million in five-year emergency solutions grants. Eligible applicants must be administrative entities—local governments, nonprofit organizations, and unified funding agencies—designated by the CoC.

CESH funds may be used for five eligible activities: housing relocation and stabilization, operating subsidies provided as reserves for new and existing supportive housing, flexible housing subsidy funds, operating support for emergency housing interventions, and systems support. CESH funds may also be used to develop or update Coordinated Entry Systems (CES), Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS), or homelessness plans where needed.

Entities requesting an award by early November 2018 must apply on or before Sept. 27, 2018. The last day to apply is Oct. 15, 2018.

Workshops are scheduled for Sept. 7 and 10, 2018. Information about the workshops, as well as the NOFA, application, FAQs, formula allocation, and details about eligible activities are available on the HCD website.

No Place Like Home Program (NPLH)

Counties may also apply to HCD for No Place Like Home (NPLH) funding contingent on voter approval in November 2018. Counties may use these funds to acquire, design, construct, rehabilitate, or preserve permanent supportive housing for persons who are experiencing or at risk of chronic homelessness and who need mental health services. The funds must be used for supportive housing that uses low-barrier tenant selection practices and provides voluntary, individualized supportive services. Counties must also commit to providing mental health services and coordinating other supportive services as a condition of funding.

Counties may apply for the funds, which are categorized as loans repayable to the state, on either a non-competitive or competitive basis.

The non-competitive allocation of approximately $190 million, will be distributed on a formula basis to each county based on their 2017 homeless Point-in-Time Count. Each county that applies will receive a minimum allocation of $500,000. Project applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until Feb. 15, 2021.

Up to $1.8 billion will be made available through the competitive application process with an anticipated $200 million available in the first round, which is expected to open in fall 2018. Counties will compete for funding in groups based on population size:

Los Angeles County
Large counties (population greater than 750,000)
Medium counties (population between 200,000 to 750,000)
Small counties (population less than 200,000)

HCD may designate Los Angeles County and other counties with 5 percent or more of the state’s homeless population to self-administer their NPLH fund allocations using an HCD-approved distribution method. Additional information about the program is available on the HCD website.

Image of LDC Association Maureen RicheyMaureen Richey, Associate, specializes in strategies to address criminal justice recidivism among individuals with mental illness and housing instability.  She has also worked for the Council of States Governments Justice Center, the Alliance for Children and Families, and ICF International.  She has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago and a master’s degree in Public Policy from Duke University. She can be reached at maureen@lesardevelopment.com.

Santa Cruz Affordable Housing Bond Ballot

Comments Off on Santa Cruz Affordable Housing Bond Ballot

Farmworker Housing CoastsideThis November, Santa Cruz County residents will vote on a  $140 million affordable housing bond ballot measure that will be funded through annual property taxes at an estimated $16.77 for each $100,000 of assessed property value. If passed, 75 percent of bond proceeds ($105 million) will be used for new construction of approximately 1,041 rental and accessory dwelling units for low- and moderate-income households, such as public servants, teachers, farmworkers, or people working in the tourism industry. Fifteen percent of the funds will provide shelter and supportive housing for individuals and households experiencing homelessness, and 10 percent will fund first-time homebuyer loans. A broad coalition of business and civic organizations, including the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the Monterey Central Labor Council, support the measure.

 

Spotlight on Legislation: Zoning for Supportive Housing

Comments Off on Spotlight on Legislation: Zoning for Supportive Housing

Under current Housing Element law, local jurisdictions are required to plan for a wide variety of housing types, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. As defined in California law, “supportive housing” is a type of housing for homeless individuals and families that is linked to services to assist residents in retaining housing, improving residents’ health status, and maximizing residents’ ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Support services can include a combination of subsidized and permanent housing, intensive case management, medical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, employment services, and benefits advocacy.

In addition to requiring communities to plan for a variety of housing types, current law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)) additionally requires localities to demonstrate that supportive housing is considered a residential use and subject to only those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In other words, supportive housing should be treated like any other type of housing, subject to the same conditions as other types of housing (usually multifamily). State law suggests that as a land use matter, the occupancy of supportive housing is not relevant to land use decision-making.

Despite these requirements, developers of supportive housing often find opposition to projects because of concerns—real or perceived—about the residents who will live in these developments. In addition, the planning approval process in many jurisdictions is time-consuming. A bill introduced by Assemblymembers David Chiu and Tom Daly, AB 2162, addresses the urgent need for more supportive housing. The bill would require that supportive housing be approved by-right—that is, without discretionary action such as a conditional use permit—in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as long as certain criteria are met. Key requirements include:

1. Units must be 100 percent affordable to lower-income households.

2. At least 35 percent of the total units or 15 units must be restricted to residents in supportive housing.

3. The development is subject to a 55-year affordability restriction.

4. Nonresidential floor area must be used for on-site supportive services.

5. Units must have individual bathrooms and kitchens.

The authors of the bill note that because California is facing a homelessness crisis—with 25 percent of the nation’s homeless population living here—more needs to be done to get people off the streets and into housing with services. The sponsors say the bill will expedite the delivery of supportive housing by requiring developments that are 100 percent affordable and include a percentage of supportive housing units to be approved through a ministerial process. Many cities and nonprofits statewide support the bill, which currently resides with the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Diana ElrodDiana Elrod, Principal, brings more than 30 years of consulting and public sector experience to her work co-leading LDC’s housing policy and real estate finance team. Before joining LDC, she provided strategic counsel and conducted research on housing and community development for the cities of Lafayette, Belmont, Palo Alto, San Jose, San Mateo, and the County of Santa Clara. She also has completed housing elements and consolidated plans for jurisdictions throughout California. She can be reached at diana@lesardevelopment.com.