The Ashbury Apartments
TEFRA Hearing
SOPHIA HUCKABAY, HOUSING MANAGER
MAY 28, 2024
1
Purpose
• City Council to consider approving the issuance of taxexempt municipal bonds for The Ashbury Project, and 183- unit affordable housing project located at 1650 Ashbury Drive
•A TEFRA hearing informs and provides opportunities for public comment on the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for
affordable housing
2
Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution pursuant to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 approving the issuance of the California Municipal Finance Authority (The CMFA) multifamily housing revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$90,000,000 for the purpose of the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of The Ashbury, an entitled 183- unit affordable multifamily rental housing project with a site location of 1650 Ashbury Drive, Concord, California and certain other matters relating thereto, and make the CEQA
determinations as provided in the staff report
3
Background
▪The California Municipal Finance Authority (the “CMFA”) is the issuer of 501(c)(3) tax exempt financing to finance The Ashbury project
▪The debt to be issued by the CMFA will be the sole
responsibility of the Borrower and the City of Concord will have no financial or legal obligations or responsibilities regarding the repayment of the debt
4
Pacific West
Communities
• Pacific West Communities, Inc. (“PWC”):
Developer and General Partner
•Listed as developer on the California Tax
Credit Allocation Committee Joint
Application for 4% Federal Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits with Tax-Exempt
Bonds
•Specializes in construction of affordable
housing throughout the western United
States
•Currently owns and operates
approximately 110 developments with
over 6,000 units of affordable housing
5
ConAm
Management
Corporation
• ConAm Management Corporation:
property management group
• Over 45 years of property management
experience
• Affordable housing compliance, on-going
employee education and development in
affordable housing compliance,
accounting/financial reporting, and
capital asset management
• Manage over 33,000 affordable housing
units across over 300 communities in
California (over 50,000 total residential
units across 12 States)
6
Central Valley
Coalition for
Affordable
Housing
(CVCAH)
• Central Valley Coalition for Affordable
Housing (CVCAH): Resident services
provider
•Providing social services since 1999 to
low-income families and seniors living
in affordable housing apartments
•Health & wellness programs, and skill
building classes
7
The Ashbury
8
The Project
9 ▪ The Ashbury: 183-unit multifamily project located at 1650 Ashbury Drive
▪ Within .5 mile of BART, grocery stores, restaurants, and shops
▪ On-site amenities: children’s play area, large clubhouse, 2 courtyards and picnic area
The Project
10
Community Benefits
11 ▪ Creates additional affordable housing for the community ▪Targets workforce housing community
▪ Provides housing in proximity to employment and
transportation amenities
Financing
12 $90 Million for:
▪ Land Costs
▪ Construction Costs
▪ Construction Contingency Reserve
▪ Financing Costs
▪ Architecture & Engineering Costs
▪ Developer Fees
▪ Soft Costs & Contingency Reserve
▪ Post Construction Interest & Reserves
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
▪ All 183 units of The Ashbury project will count towards City’s RHNA goals
13
Financial Impact
▪ No financial impact to the City
▪ Financed and monitored by the CMFA
▪ Tax exempt as affordable housing project and approval of TEFRA bonds does not affect tax-exemption status
▪ The CMFA shares portion of issuance fees it receives with its member Communities: $22,000 issuance fee to the City 14
Questions?
15
May 14, 2024
The Honorable Timothy S Grayson
Member, California State Assembly
1021 O St., Ste. Room 5510
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1886 (Alvarez) Housing Element Law: Substantial Compliance Notice of Opposition (As of April 1, 2024)
Dear Assemblymember Grayson,
The City of Concord regretfully must oppose measure AB 1886 (Alvarez), because it turns its back to a fundamental provision of housing element law: A city may disagree with HCD; explain why its housing element is in substantial compliance with the law; and then adopt that housing element which is thereafter considered “in substantial compliance with housing element law.” For decades, cities have worked with HCD to draft housing plans that accommodate their fair share of housing at all income levels. These extensive and complex plans can take years to develop, include public involvement and engagement, and environmental review. Cities go to great lengths to ensure that their housing element substantially complies with the law, even if HCD disagrees.
Current law acknowledges this fact by allowing cities to “self-certify” their housing element or take the issue to court and have a judge make the final determination of substantial compliance.
AB 1886 encourages “builder’s remedy” projects by eliminating self-certification for the purpose of what it means to have a housing element “in substantial compliance with the law.” The “builder’s remedy” allows a developer to choose any site other than a site that is identified for very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing, and construct a project that is inconsistent with both the city’s general plan and zoning. AB 1886 facilitates such projects for those cities that have a good faith disagreement based in substantial evidence.
The following outlines our experience working with HCD in getting our housing element approved:
• The high number of jurisdictions that were out of compliance past the deadline in all regions of the state indicates a major flaw within the process. A number of factors contributed to jurisdictions missing the deadline, many out of their control, such as:
o The final RHNA numbers were adopted by ABAG on December 16, 2021, providing only a little over one year to meet the state’s deadline of January 31, 2023. The attached timeline provided by ABAG indicates jurisdictions were supposed to start identifying the scale of rezoning in May through November in 2021; however, the RHNA numbers weren’t finalized until December 2021.
The City of Concord’s process took over two years to complete, and we didn’t receive confirmation on the RHNA numbers until we were a year into the process. This is an unreasonable timeframe given the amount of community engagement that is required and any CEQA work that may need to be completed.
7.a
o Contra Costa’s Regional Collaborative, due to a lack of bids, did not have a consultant onboard and actively engaged until October 2021, missing the majority of the first year to support jurisdictions in their Housing Element efforts. This left a large gap in support services and guidance when it was needed by many jurisdictions. To address this issue, REAP funding should have been in place much sooner to facilitate ABAG’s process of getting consultants onboard to assist with this effort.
o Differences and subjectivity between HCD reviewers; what worked in one community would not be sufficient in another.
o The lack of transparency and direction from the state regarding a menu of programs that would suffice to address a particular issue within the community.
For example, if a jurisdiction did not have an adequate number of low-income sites in high resource areas to address the AFFH requirements, then it must comply with X to address that issue. If the state expects jurisdictions to use objective standards on housing projects, they should have the same standard for Housing Element compliance.
o Southern California jurisdictions were treated differently than jurisdictions later in the process for meeting AFFH requirements, due to further evolution of HCD’s AFFH guidance after the earlier Southern California deadlines. This is unequal application of the law. Also, the AFFH statute, while it addresses important policy issues, is inherently vague and leaves HCD with too much discretion to determine compliance, leaving jurisdictions to guess at what will be required. Further, it seems HCD’s policy, if asked what would be sufficient to meet the AFFH and other requirements, staff will not provide a direct answer, which again leaves jurisdictions guessing as to what is deemed sufficient by HCD. Essentially, the legislature has delegated the work of determining specific, concrete fair housing requirements to HCD; and detailed, specific guidance has not been provided to jurisdictions to address these requirements.
o Lack of acknowledgement or credit for programs a jurisdiction has already implemented above and beyond state law. Concord has implemented several programs around tenant protections and has a number of programs to address placed-based investments, but HCD gives little if any weight to existing programs when determining what new programs should be established. • The legislature changed the timing for review during the process, thereby further delaying jurisdictions. Most significantly, a new public review period was added after Housing Element adoption and prior to HCD review. Such changes when a process is significantly underway need to be more carefully considered by lawmakers prior to enacting legislation, especially given the significant consequences of missing the HCD certification deadline, such as Builder’s Remedy projects or shortening of the deadline for rezoning to one year, rather than the three normally allowed. • Directing future grant funding for the development and implementation of Housing Elements to local jurisdictions (as with the LEAP program) would better assist jurisdictions more than directing such funding to the COGs (as with the REAP program). Housing Elements require significant staff and consultant resources, and in our experience, the direct funding we received through the LEAP program supported our Housing Element far more than the assistance we received through ABAG. While,
the City did find both sources of funding helpful, if there are limited funds, direct assistance to jurisdictions should be a priority over regional funding. • While we appreciated the funding we received through the LEAP program, HCD was extremely slow in processing our reimbursement requests. For example, our first two reimbursement requests each took approximately nine months to be processed, and only after numerous e-mails to HCD staff asking for status updates.
Lastly, it seemed jurisdictions were treated very differently, depending upon who their reviewer was at HCD. Certain cities were required to do significantly more than other cities without their being clear justification why. In addition, tremendous weight was given to community voices, so in communities with community members active with HCD the path to certification was harder than in communities where the community was not engaged with HCD, regardless of the facts of the situation.
The City of Concord believes that AB 1886 is counterproductive. What is really needed is for HCD to partner with cities to provide meaningful direction that helps them finalize their housing elements and put those plans to work so that much needed housing construction can occur. For these reasons, the City of Concord must oppose AB 1886 (Alvarez). If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (925) 671-3158.
Sincerely,
Edi Birsan
City of Concord
Mayor
Cc: The Honorable David A. Alvarez
Concord City Council
Concord City Clerk
League of California Cities, [email protected]
May 14, 2024
The Honorable Steven. M. Glazer
Member, California State Senate
1021 O St., Ste. Suite 7520
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1037 (Wiener) Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement Notice of Opposition (As of April 25, 2024)
Dear Senator Glazer,
The City of Concord regretfully must oppose measure SB 1037 (Wiener), which would allow the Attorney General to take legal action against a city and seek fines up to $50K a month for failure to adopt a compliant housing element or if the city does not follow state laws that require ministerial approval of certain housing projects.
Under existing law cities can be subject to significant fines and penalties for violating certain housing laws. However, before fines are imposed, a city has the ability to correct the action.
Additionally, enhanced fines are not imposed unless the city fails to follow a court’s order or acts in bad faith.
Unfortunately, as currently drafted, SB 1037 does not provide an opportunity for cities to correct an honest mistake or address a genuine difference in interpreting the law. Even those jurisdictions acting in good faith could be subject to significant fines and be required to pay the Attorney General for all costs investigating and prosecuting the action, including expert witness fees and attorney’s fees.
The City of Concord Instead of creating new fines and penalties, lawmakers and the Department of Housing and Community Development should provide cities with clear guidance and technical assistance to help them finalize their housing elements and put those plans to work so much-needed housing construction can occur.
For these reasons, the City of Concord must oppose SB 1037. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (925) 671-3158.
Sincerely,
Edi Birsan
City of Concord
Mayor
Cc: The Honorable Scott Wiener
Concord City Council
Concord City Clerk
7.b
May 17, 2024
The Honorable Scott Wiener The Honorable Jesse Gabriel
Chair, Senate Budget Committee Chair, Assembly Budget Committee California State Capitol California State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Stephen Padilla The Honorable Sharon Quirk-Silva Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #4 Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 California State Capitol California State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Proposed 50% Budget Cut to Small Business Technical Assistance Program (TAP) and Capital Infusion Program (CIP) at GO-Biz- OPPOSE
Dear Budget Chairs and Budget Subcommittee Chairs:
The City of Concord respectfully OPPOSES the Governor’s proposed 50% budget cut to the core business support services of the Small Business Technical Assistance Program (TAP) and Capital Infusion Program (CIP) at GO-Biz. While we appreciate the fiscal challenge the Governor currently faces, the budget should not be balanced by reducing these core services that support our small, minority, women-owned, and rural businesses.
Small businesses are the backbone of California’s recovering economy. This $13 million cut to TAP and CIP will gut the ecosystem that currently supports over 100,000 businesses with training and consulting. These fundamental programs show consistent year-over-year results, are netpositive in sales and income tax revenue-generating, and leverage over $35 million in federal funding that could be lost. Every district will see reduced jobs and revenue growth. The worst part is that the most marginalized businesses in California will be hurt most severely.
We call on the respective California Budget Committees to stand in solidarity with our small businesses and maintain current funding for TAP and CIP.
The East Bay Small Business Development Center (SBDC) has provided free, in-person counseling to small businesses at Concord City Hall since December 2023. In only six months, the East Bay SBDC has provided services to over 100 businesses from a wide range of industries and at every stage of business development.
7.c
Questions regarding this letter and our opposition to the budget cut may be addressed to Edi Birsan, City of Concord Mayor, 1950 Parkside Dr. MS01, Concord, CA 94519, or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Edi Birsan
Mayor
City of Concord
cc: Valerie Barone, City Manager
Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
Guy Bjerke, Economic Development and Base Reuse Director Marie Suvansin, Economic Development Manager
Concord City Council
Concord City Clerk
Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
7.d
7.e
7.f
7.g
7.h
7.i