Agenda packet — Dublin City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

Agenda Item 5.9
DATE: October 1, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Alameda County Transportation Commission 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan - Resolutions of Local Support for Projects Prepared by: Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving resolutions of local support for grant applications for the Alameda County Transportation Commission 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan funding opportunity. The grant applications will seek funding for the Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard under the Citywide Signal Communications Upgrade Project (CIP No. ST0713), San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements under the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project (CIP No. ST0517), and Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements under the Village Parkway Reconstruction Project (CIP No. ST0323).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Take the following actions: 1) Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard Project and Committing Any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project; 2) Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project and Committing Any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project; and 3) Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project and Committing Any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project.
445

Page 2 of 5 ends

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no cost associated with submitting applications for the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan funding opportunity, except for the cost of staff time needed to prepare the applications. However, the applications do require commitment of local matching funds equal to or greater than 25% of the funding requested. If Alameda CTC grants funds to the City of Dublin, the local matching funds will be provided from project budgets in the adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2024-2029.

DESCRIPTION:

The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) manages the planning, funding, and delivery of transportation projects within Alameda County, including the allocation of various federal, state, regional, and local funds. The Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP) is Alameda CTC's strategic planning document used to allocate funding for transportation infrastructure and programs.

The Alameda CTC 2026 CIP includes a call for projects with approximately $100 million in combined discretionary local funding sources, including Measures B and BB (MB/BB), Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) for eligible projects within Alameda County. Funding is allocated over five fiscal years, from 2025-26 through 2029-30, with the first two years of funding allocated upon Alameda CTC approval. The remaining three years of unallocated funds are programmed but require future Alameda CTC action for allocation.

Each eligible applicant may submit up to three applications for the available funding. For capital projects, grant amounts can range from a minimum of $500,000 to a maximum of $2,000,000 for each application. Staff proposes to submit three grant applications under two categories: the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, which supports projects that enhance safety, connectivity, and active transportation across Alameda County, and the Technology Program, which supports projects using advanced technologies to improve transportation infrastructure, enhance traffic management, and increase the efficiency and safety of the transportation network. Both programs each have approximately $15 million of available grant funds. Dublin’s proposed projects are detailed below.

San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project The San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project will be completed under the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project (ST0517), which provides for the planning, design, and construction of improvements to various pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City.

The Project at the San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection will enhance safety by removing slip lanes (typically right-turn lanes at an intersection that allow drivers to change roads without entering the intersection itself), straightening crosswalks, installing directional curb ramps on all corners, and modifying the traffic signal. Additional improvements may include reducing curb return radii to reduce vehicle turning speeds, thereby enhancing pedestrian safety.

This Project is identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan, and 446

Page 3 of 5 ends

Downtown Streetscape Plan.

The intersection is also part of the City’s and County’s High Injury Network (HIN) and has significant pedestrian and bicycle activity during peak times. The HIN constitutes the lowest performing segment locations based on collision severity and frequency of collisions involving people walking and biking. The improvements will address these safety concerns and support better bike access along the Countywide bikeway network. The Project is an eligible candidate for Alameda CTC’s CIP grant funding under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. Project costs and status are as follows:
 35% Design construction cost estimate - $2,475,000
 Amount of grant funding requested - $1,856,250
 Minimum match required - $618,750
 Current phase – 35% design phase
 Estimated Construction – Summer 2026
Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project The Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project will be completed under the Village Parkway Reconstruction Project (ST0323), which includes the planning, design, and construction to replace the existing pavement and streetscape elements, transforming the segment on Village Parkway from Amador Valley Boulevard to the northern city limits to a pedestrian and bicycle friendly roadway, incorporating complete street elements.

The Project at the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection will enhance safety by removing slip lanes, straightening crosswalks, installing directional curb ramps on all corners, and modifying the traffic signal. Additional improvements may include reducing curb return radii to reduce vehicle turning speeds, thereby enhancing pedestrian safety. These improvements will provide a seamless connection to the Class IV separated bike lanes proposed on Village Parkway as part of the Village Parkway Reconstruction project. This Project is identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Local Roadway Safety Plan, and Downtown Streetscape Plan.

The intersection is also part of the City’s and County’s HIN and has significant pedestrian activity, especially during school peak hours. The Project will improve the pedestrian and bicycle access to Dublin High School. The Project is an eligible candidate for the ACTC’s CIP grant funding under the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. Project costs and status are as follows:
 35% Design construction cost estimate - $2,000,000
 Amount of grant funding requested - $1,500,000
 Minimum match required - $500,000
 Current phase – 35% design phase
 Estimated Construction – Summer 2027
Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard Project The Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard Project will be completed under the Citywide Signal Communications Upgrade Project (ST0713), which provides for the continued 447

Page 4 of 5 ends

upgrades of the traffic signal communications system, installation of new conduits, and new fiber optic cables on Dublin Boulevard.

The Project along Dublin Boulevard will replace existing traffic signal copper interconnect cables with a fiber optic cable between San Ramon Road and Civic Center and between Civic Center and Tassajara Road. Fiber optic cable provides higher bandwidth communication and a more reliable network connection. The Project is an eligible candidate for the Alameda CTC’s CIP grant funding under the Technology Program. Project costs and status are as follows:
 75% Design construction cost estimate - $2,473,000
 Amount of grant funding requested - $1,854,750
 Minimum match required - $618,250
 Current phase – 75% design phase
 Estimated construction – Spring/Summer 2026
The Alameda CTC 2026 CIP call for projects and program guidelines require that each funding application include a resolution of local support that conforms to Alameda CTC’s resolution template. The resolution of local support affirms the City Council’s approval to submit grant applications, commits to the provision of local matching funds, and commits the City to complete the project as proposed in the application. Resolutions that conform to the Alameda CTC’s template are included as Attachments 1 through 3 of this report.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 5: Long-Term Infrastructure and Sustainability Investments Objective 5A: Continue to explore funding mechanisms for capital and ongoing maintenance needs.

Objective 5B: Focus on major street improvements to assist in improving safety and traffic movement, including Village Parkway, Tassajara Road, and the Dublin Boulevard extension.

Objective 5C: Continue to make progress on the Climate Action Plan and sustainable operations.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.
448

Page 5 of 5 ends

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard Project and Committing any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project
2) Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project and Committing any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project
3) Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Alameda County Transportation Commission Administered Funding for the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project and Committing any Necessary Matching Funds and Stating Assurances to Complete the Project
4) 2024-2029 CIP Nos. ST0713, ST0517, and ST0323
449
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTERED FUNDING FOR THE FIBER OPTIC

CABLE INSTALLATION ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT AND COMMITTING ANY

NECESSARY MATCHING FUNDS AND STATING ASSURANCES TO COMPLETE THE

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“ALAMEDA CTC”) administers funding programs for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee (“VRF”), 2014 Measure BB, Congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement Program (CMA-TIP), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs, and such funding is collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”; and WHEREAS, the ALAMEDA CTC adopted 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan (“CIP”) Guidelines at its Commission meeting on May 23, 2024, which includes procedures governing the 2026 CIP application process, programming guidelines, and eligible uses of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (“APPLICANT”) is the project sponsor for the Fiber Optic Cable Installation on Dublin Boulevard Project (“PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, the PROJECT will replace existing traffic signal copper interconnect cables with fiber optic cable on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Civic Center and between Civic Center and Tassajara Road for higher bandwidth and a more reliable network connection; and
WHEREAS, as the Project Sponsor, APPLICANT has the legal authority to apply for funding for PROJECT and plans to submit a 2026 CIP application (“APPLICATION”) TO ALAMEDA CTC for $1,854,750; and
WHEREAS, there are no legal impediments to APPLICANT applying for funding and there is no active, pending or threatened litigation that may adversely affect the proposed PROJECT or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its City Manager, or designee, to execute and file an application with ALAMEDA CTC for discretionary ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS for the PROJECT as referenced in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, as part of the requirements to apply and receive ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, ALAMEDA CTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

1. APPLICANT will implement the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and 450
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 2 of 4

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the time period identified in the APPLICATION; and

3. APPLICANT understands it will enter into a Project Funding Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) with ALAMEDA CTC, and will comply with the AGREEMENT ’s requirements, including adherence to the agreed upon project scope, project delivery milestones, funding deadlines, project reporting and deliverable deadlines; and

4. APPLICANT is committed to deliver the PROJECT consistently with the Commission approved CIP Programming Guidelines and CIP policies, as they may change, for the funds awarded by the Commission to the PROJECT; and

5. APPLICANT is committed to secure matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION required for awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, by phase; and

6. APPLICANT is committed to provide any additional funding that may be required beyond the original proposed APPLICATION match amount to deliver the phase of the PROJECT that is awarded with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and

7. APPLICANT understands that ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS awarded to the PROJECT is limited to the Commission approved programmed amount by phase, and therefore any cost increases or unexpected funding shortfalls cannot be expected to be funded by shifting funds between phases, or by requesting additional ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

9. APPLICANT is committed to comply with the applicable requirements set forth in ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Program and related exhibits, as applicable, for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B, Measure BB, and/or VRF funds, such as including LBCE Program goal(s) and provisions in applicable solicitations and resulting contracts, providing timely notification to ALAMEDA CTC of applicable solicitations prior to advertisement, and adhering to reporting requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize Staff to file an APPLICATION to ALAMEDA CTC for funding for the PROJECT.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT hereby confirms that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect APPLICANT’s ability to implement and deliver the proposed PROJECT.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute the funding AGREEMENT with ALAMEDA CTC.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with a fully- executed copy of this Resolution concurrently with submittal of the APPLICATION.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin, by adopting this Resolution, hereby confirms that:
451
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 3 of 4

1. APPLICANT will commit to implementing the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the time period identified in the application; and

3. APPLICANT understands it will enter into an AGREEMENT with ALAMEDA CTC, and will comply with the AGREEMENT’s requirements, including adherence to the completion of the agreed upon project scope, project delivery milestones, funding deadlines, project reporting and deliverable deadlines; and

4. APPLICANT commits to delivering the PROJECT consistently with the Commission approved CIP Programming Guidelines and CIP policies, as they may change, for the funds awarded by the Commission to the PROJECT; and

5. APPLICANT will commit matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION against the awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS by phase in the amount(s) of $618,250, anticipated to be from the City’s General Fund, State Gas Tax, Measure B, Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee, and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account fund sources; and

6. APPLICANT will provide any additional funding that may be required beyond the original proposed APPLICATION match amount to deliver the phase of the PROJECT that is awarded with ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and

7. APPLICANT understands that ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS awarded to the PROJECT are limited to the Commission approved programmed amount by phase, and therefore any cost increases or unexpected funding shortfalls cannot be expected to be funded by shifting funds between phases, or by requesting additional ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

9. APPLICANT will comply with the applicable requirements set forth in ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Program and related exhibits, as applicable, for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B, Measure BB, and/or VRF funds, such as including LBCE Program goal(s) and provisions in applicable solicitations and resulting contracts, providing timely notification to ALAMEDA CTC of applicable solicitations prior to advertisement, and adhering to reporting requirements.
{Signatures on following page}
452
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
453
Attachment 2
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTERED FUNDING FOR THE SAN RAMON

ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

AND COMMITTING ANY NECESSARY MATCHING FUNDS AND STATING ASSURANCES

TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“ALAMEDA CTC”) administers funding programs for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee (“VRF”), 2014 Measure BB, Congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement Program (CMA-TIP), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs, and such funding is collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”; and WHEREAS, the ALAMEDA CTC adopted 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan (“CIP”) Guidelines at its Commission meeting on May 23, 2024, which includes procedures governing the 2026 CIP application process, programming guidelines, and eligible uses of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (“APPLICANT”) is the project sponsor for the San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project (“PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, the PROJECT aims to enhance safety by removing slip lanes, straightening crosswalks, installing directional curb ramps on all corners, and modifying the traffic signal at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, as the Project Sponsor, APPLICANT has the legal authority to apply for funding for PROJECT and plans to submit a 2026 CIP application (“APPLICATION”) TO ALAMEDA CTC for $1,856,250; and
WHEREAS, there are no legal impediments to APPLICANT applying for funding and there is no active, pending or threatened litigation that may adversely affect the proposed PROJECT or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its City Manager, or designee, to execute and file an application with ALAMEDA CTC for discretionary ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS for the PROJECT as referenced in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, as part of the requirements to apply and receive ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, ALAMEDA CTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

1. APPLICANT will implement the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the 454
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 2 of 4 PROJECT within the time period identified in the APPLICATION; and

5. APPLICANT is committed to secure matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION required for awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, by phase; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize Staff to file an APPLICATION to ALAMEDA CTC for funding for the PROJECT.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute the funding AGREEMENT with ALAMEDA CTC.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with a fully- executed copy of this Resolution concurrently with submittal of the APPLICATION.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin, by adopting this Resolution, hereby confirms that:
455
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 3 of 4

1. APPLICANT will commit to implementing the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the time period identified in the application; and

5. APPLICANT will commit matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION against the awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS by phase in the amount(s) of $618,750, anticipated to be from the City’s General Fund, Measure B, Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee, and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account fund sources; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

9. APPLICANT will comply with the applicable requirements set forth in ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Program and related exhibits, as applicable, for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B, Measure BB, and/or VRF funds, such as including LBCE Program goal(s) and provisions in applicable solicitations and resulting contracts, providing timely notification to ALAMEDA CTC of applicable solicitations prior to advertisement, and adhering to reporting requirements.
{Signatures on the following page}
456
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
457
Attachment 3
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADMINISTERED FUNDING FOR THE VILLAGE

PARKWAY AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

PROJECT AND COMMITTING ANY NECESSARY MATCHING FUNDS AND STATING

ASSURANCES TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (“ALAMEDA CTC”) administers funding programs for projects and programs that benefit the Alameda County transportation system, consisting of 2000 Measure B, 2010 Vehicle Registration Fee (“VRF”), 2014 Measure BB, Congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement Program (CMA-TIP), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air Programs, and such funding is collectively defined as and shall be referenced herein as the “ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS”; and WHEREAS, the ALAMEDA CTC adopted 2026 Comprehensive Investment Plan (“CIP”) Guidelines at its Commission meeting on May 23, 2024, which includes procedures governing the 2026 CIP application process, programming guidelines, and eligible uses of ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (“APPLICANT”) is the project sponsor for the Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project (“PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, the PROJECT aims to enhance safety by removing slip lanes, straightening crosswalks, installing directional curb ramps on all corners, and modifying the traffic signal at the intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, as the Project Sponsor, APPLICANT has the legal authority to apply for funding for PROJECT and plans to submit a 2026 CIP application (“APPLICATION”) TO ALAMEDA CTC for $1,500,000; and
WHEREAS, there are no legal impediments to APPLICANT applying for funding and there is no active, pending or threatened litigation that may adversely affect the proposed PROJECT or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes its City Manager, or designee, to execute and file an application with ALAMEDA CTC for discretionary ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS for the PROJECT as referenced in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, as part of the requirements to apply and receive ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, ALAMEDA CTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:

1. APPLICANT will implement the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the 458
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 2 of 4 PROJECT within the time period identified in the APPLICATION; and

5. APPLICANT is committed to secure matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION required for awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS, by phase; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize Staff to file an APPLICATION to ALAMEDA CTC for funding for the PROJECT.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to execute the funding AGREEMENT with ALAMEDA CTC.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that APPLICANT shall provide ALAMEDA CTC with a fully- executed copy of this Resolution concurrently with submittal of the APPLICATION.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin, by adopting this Resolution, hereby confirms that:
459
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 3 of 4

1. APPLICANT will commit to implementing the PROJECT as described in the APPLICATION; and

2. APPLICANT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the time period identified in the application; and

5. APPLICANT will commit matching funds as proposed in the APPLICATION against the awarded ALAMEDA CTC ADMINISTERED FUNDS by phase in the amount(s) of $500,000, anticipated to be from the City’s General Fund, State Gas Tax, and Measure BB fund sources; and

8. APPLICANT understands that any cost savings in the ALAMEDA CTC-funded phase(s) will be shared proportionally between APPLICANT and ALAMEDA CTC; and

9. APPLICANT will comply with the applicable requirements set forth in ALAMEDA CTC’s Local Business Contract Equity (“LBCE”) Program and related exhibits, as applicable, for professional services and construction contracts funded with Measure B, Measure BB, and/or VRF funds, such as including LBCE Program goal(s) and provisions in applicable solicitations and resulting contracts, providing timely notification to ALAMEDA CTC of applicable solicitations prior to advertisement, and adhering to reporting requirements.
{Signatures on the following page}
460
Reso. No. XX-24, Item X.X, Adopted 10/01/2024 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
461
Streets Five-Year Capital Improvemen
t Program 2024-2029 72
Number – ST0713 CITYWIDE SIGNAL COMMUNICATIONS UPGRADE Program – STREETS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the continued upgrades of the traffic signal communications system and includes the replacement of signal controllers, conflict monitors, and battery backup units, as well as managing ongoing signal operations of coordinated corridors. In Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21, the project further expanded the traffic communications network, connecting traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Fallon Road and Tassajara R oad. The project will provide for the installation of new conduits, removal of the existing co pper communication cables, and installation of new fiber optic cables on Dublin Boulevard. The project will also expand the adaptive traffic signal system al ong key corridors and will connect existing and new public safety infrastructure, such as situational awareness cameras and automated license plate recognition cameras, to the high-speed fiber optic communications system. The fir st phase of one of the sub- projects to install a conduit pathway between Civic Center and San Ramon Road to accommodate the future fiber optic upgrade to city infrastructure is complete.

The project also updated the City of Dublin Travel Demand Forecasting Model to provide traffic flow projections on the arterial and collector roadways as well as analyzed future land use development proposals and transportation network changes in the City. In April 2021, the project resulted in the City Council adopting a resolution establishing the California Environmental Quality Act transportation thresholds of significance for Vehicle Miles Traveled.

PROJECT TIMELINE: This project is being completed over multiple years and phases. The installation of fiber optic cables on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Sierra Court and between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road is currently in design, with construction anticipated to begin in 2025.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: $10,000
2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 – Salaries & Benefits $132,442 $55,040 $187,482
9200 – Contract Services $1,220,200 $225,000 $1,445,200 9400 – Improvements $2,897,725 $540,000 $3,437,725
9500 – Miscellaneous $4,900 $5,000 $9,900
9600 – Equipment $5,120 $5,120
TOTAL $4,260,387 $825,040 $5,085,427
Attachment 4
462

Streets Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2024-2029 73

FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
1001 – General Fund $79,851 $79,851
1101 – General Fund Designated
Reserves $1,420,149 $1,420,149
2201 – State Gas Tax $104,000 $104,000
2204 – Measure B Sales Tax - Local
Streets Fund (ACTC) $248,640 $248,640
2207 – TFCA/Transportation for Clean
Air $79,771 $79,771
2212 – Vehicle Registration Fee (ACTC) $752,356 $35,040 $787,396 2214 – Measure BB Sales Tax – Local
Streets Fund (ACTC) $400,000 $750,000 $1,150,000
2220 – Road Maint. & Rehab. Account
(RMRA) $654,320 $40,000 $694,320
4301 – Eastern Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee $200,000 $200,000
4304 – Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee $199,000 $199,000
6305 – Internal Service Fund -
Equipment $122,300 $122,300
TOTAL $4,260,387 $825,040 $5,085,427
463
Streets
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2024-2029 70 Number – ST0517 CITYWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Program – STREETS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project includes planning, design, and construction of improvements to various pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the City, including pedestrian/bicycle bridges and annual sidewalk repair. This project includes design and construction of improvements recommended in the updated Bi cycle and Pedestrian Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on January 10, 2023, as well as the Safe Routes to School improvements.

The project also includes an update to the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan and implementation of Public Right-of-way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). The plan update will include a review of City buildings, parks, and rights-of-way.

PROJECT TIMELINE: The Downtown pedestrian crossing improvements on Regional Street is the first project to be constructed. The design is 95% comp lete, and construction will begin in summer/fall 2024. The Safe Routes to School improvements at the intersections of Central Parkway at Aspen Street and Hibernia Drive, Grafton Street at Antone Way, and Amador Valley Boulevard at Burton Street are anticipated to begin construction in 2024. The ADA Transition Plan update, funded by the General Fund, is anticipated to be completed in 2025.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: $12,000
2024-2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 – Salaries & Benefits $127,372 $50,728 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $258,100 9200 – Contract Services $1,314,668 $555,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $2,669,668 9400 – Improvements $3,173,298 $1,175,000 $525,000 $525,000 $525,000 $525,000 $6,448,298 9500 – Miscellaneous $40,034 $7,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $67,534 TOTAL $4,655,372 $1,788,228 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $9,443,600 464

Streets Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2024-2029 71

PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
1001 – General Fund $858,000 $105,000 $963,000
2203 – Transportation Development Act $210,000 $210,000 2204 – Measure B Sales Tax - Local
Streets Fund (ACTC) $510,000 $510,000
2205 – Measure B Sales Tax - Bike &
Pedestrian Fund (ACTC) $142,900 $142,900
2214 – Measure BB Sales Tax - Local
Streets Fund (ACTC) $1,471,600 $630,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $3,101,600 2215 – Measure BB Sales Tax - Bike &
Pedestrian Fund (ACTC) $601,872 $698, 228 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,300,100 2212 – Vehicle Registration Fee $726,000 $726,000 2217 – Measure BB Grants $135,000 $135,000
2220 – Road Maint. & Rehab. Account
(RMRA) $355,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,355,000 TOTAL $4,655,372 $1,788,228 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $9,443,600

465
Streets Five-Year Capital Improvemen
t Program 2024-2029 92
Number – ST0323 VILLAGE PARKWAY RECONSTRUCTION Program – STREETS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project provides for the planning, design, and construction of the replacement of the existing streetscape elements on Vil lage Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northern city limit (approximately 6,000 linear feet). The project will transform the segment of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Kimball Avenue to a pedestrian and bicy cle friendly roadway, which will incorporate complete streets elements such as median islands, bulbouts, decorative or high visibility crosswalks, and street lighting. The work may include the reconstruction of the median island; reconstruction of the roadway base immediately adjacent to the median island; reconstruction necessary for sidewalks impr ovements, ADA upgrades to curb ramps, curb, and gutter; necess ary utility work; landscaping; stormwater improvements; and new pavement for the roadway.

The City Council approved the Concept Plan on February 20, 2024 and approved the recommendation to add replacement of the neighborhood concrete walls to the project. Staff will continue to seek grant funding opportunities to close the current funding shortfall. The project will receive grants funds in the amount of $9,150,000 from the State Transportation Improvement Program, which will be allocated in Fiscal Year 2027-28.

PROJECT TIMELINE: The project is currently in design. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2027.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: $100,000
2020-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 – Salaries & Benefits $45,032 $49,920 $64,480 $89,440 $100,000 $348,872 9200 – Contract Services $504,968 $1,000,080 $1,000,000 $510,560 $1,000,000 $4,015,608 9400 – Improvements $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,900,000 $19,900,000 9500 – Miscellaneous $85,520 $85,520
TOTAL $550,000 $1,050,000 $11,150,000 $5,600,000 $6,000,000 $24,350,000 466
Streets Five-Year Capital Improvemen
t Program 2024-2029 93

FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
1101 – General Fund Designated
Reserves $550,000 $1,000,000 $8,450,000 $10,000,000
2201 – State Gas Tax $50,000 $250,000 $100,000 $400,000 2214 – Measure BB Sales Tax – Local
Streets Fund $250,000 $200,000 $450,000
9998 – Unidentified $2,200,000 $5,300,000 $6,000,000 $13,500,000 TOTAL $550,000 $1,050,000 $11,150,000 $5,600,000 $6,000,000 $24,350,000 467

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item 6.1
DATE: October 1, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Dublin Commons (PLPA-2024-00047) - Postponement Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Dublin Commons project is the redevelopment of the Dublin Place Shopping Center as part of implementing the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision. Dublin Commons is a mixed-use project of up to 275,000 SF of retail (consisting of 155,000 SF of new retail and 120,000 SF of existing retail), 535,000 SF of Research and Development (Life Science), 1,510 multifamily residential units and a new Town Square. The project entitlements include a Vesting Tentative Map, a Development and Community Benefit Program Agreement and public infrastructure agreements. The Applicant has requested that the City Council postpone consideration of the project. The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this item at a future meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Continue the item to a date uncertain.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All costs associated with processing this application are borne by the applicant.

DESCRIPTION:

The Applicant, Hines, and the property owner, American Realty Advisors (ARA), submitted an application for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development and Community Benefit Program Agreement for the Dublin Commons project. The Dublin Commons project is the redevelopment of the Dublin Place shopping center as part of implementing the Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision.

The Dublin Place shopping center is 34 acres located on the west side of Amador Plaza Road between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard and includes businesses such as Target, PetSmart, and Panera.

The Dublin Commons project is a mixed-use project of up to 275,000 square feet of retail 468

Page 2 of 2 ends

(consisting of 155,000 square feet of new retail and 120,000 square feet of existing retail), 535,000 square feet of Research and Development (Life Science), 1,510 multifamily residential units and a new Town Square. The Applicant has requested that the City Council postpone consideration of the project to allow additional time to review the public infrastructure improvement agreements. A Staff Report, with a complete description of the project, will be provided when a future public hearing date is set to review the project.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 1: Economic Development, Small Business Support, and Downtown Dublin Objective B: Work with ARA and Hines on the development of the Dublin Commons project, including associated public improvements, relocation of tenants, development agreement and appropriate incentives to effectuate physical changes to the area, as well as support for small businesses.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted
ATTACHMENTS:

None.
469

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Page 1 of 14 ends

Agenda Item 8.1
DATE: October 1, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities Policy
Prepared by: Crystal De Castro, Senior Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive an overview of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. The TOC Policy is designed to support the region’s transit investment by encouraging jurisdictions to adopt transit-supportive land use policies for areas within a half-mile radius of existing or planned transit stops or stations, and to adopt additional policies they intend to further equitable transit-oriented communities. The TOC Policy lays out a menu of policy options for local jurisdictions to choose from. Compliance with the TOC Policy is required to qualify for future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) transportation funding.

Additionally, funding for Valley Link is tied to compliance by the local jurisdictions served by them. This item was originally scheduled for the City Council meeting on September 17, 2024.

However, due to time constraints, the City Council postponed this item to a future meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Staff presentation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Implementation of the TOC Policy will require the allocation of resources including staff time and consultant services. Staff will return to the City Council in the future to further discuss the additional policy considerations outlined in the TOC Policy, which may include a budget adjustment as needed for technical analysis and consultant services. 470

Page 2 of 14 ends

DESCRIPTION:

Background
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the agency responsible for planning, financing, and coordinating transportation for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050) in 2021, as a 30-year regional plan to improve housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment. In 2022, MTC adopted the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy. The TOC Policy is an implementation policy of PBA 2050. The TOC policy replaces the TOD Policy to emphasize the importance of broader transit-oriented communities vs. individual development projects at transit stations and along transit corridors.

The TOC policy seeks to leverage the regional investments in transit by encouraging the adoption of transit friendly land use policies that facilitate intensification of uses around transit and to adopt additional policies MTC believes will further equitable transit-oriented communities. The TOC Policy was further revised in 2023 to clarify the application of the TOC Policy to transit extension projects, such as Valley Link.

The stated goals of the TOC Policy are to:

1. Increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing the density for new residential projects. Prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas;

2. In areas near regional transit hubs, increase density for businesses and commercial development;

3. Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility (such as bike share and car share) within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than one half mile from transit stops or stations; and

4. Support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Grant Funding
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides MTC with funding for investments in roads, highways, public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. MTC distributes the region’s share of FHWA funding through the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). While compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary, it is necessary to qualify for future OBAG transportation funding. There is also the possibility that other regional sources of transportation funding, such as the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), may include a TOC compliance requirement in the future.

The City has received approximately $1.13 million from the last three rounds of OBAG funding, which have been used for pavement repairs and maintenance on Positano Parkway, corridor improvements on Doughtery Road, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Dublin Boulevard. To qualify for the upcoming OBAG 4 funding in 2026, the City must demonstrate compliance with the TOC Policy by January 2026. Potential future OBAG-funded projects may include pavement repairs and maintenance, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, streetscape enhancements, and Safe Routes to School improvements.
471

Page 3 of 14 ends

Alameda CTC is responsible for the planning, programming, and allocating local, regional, State, and federal funds for transportation improvements throughout Alameda County. Alameda CTC administers these funds through the Alameda CTC Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP). From 2015-2024, Dublin has been allocated a total of approximately $56 million in Alameda CTC CIP transportation funds. Per recent discussions with Alameda CTC staff, future CIP call for projects could emphasize elements of the TOC Policy to qualify for funding. For context, Attachment 1 provides a list of Alameda CTC Transportation CIP funds Dublin has received over the last five years including funds to be allocated within two years.

Valley Link Funding
Valley Link is currently in the process of applying for two rounds of funding from MTC. This includes an application in September – October 2024 for approximately $3M in supplemental grant funds to complete their environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Valley Link anticipates submitting another application to MTC for a $135M grant in the December 2024 – February 2025 timeframe. The TOC Policy ties MTC funding for Valley Link to compliance by the jurisdictions they serve, including Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. While local jurisdictions have until 2026 to achieve TOC Policy compliance, MTC is seeking input from these local jurisdictions with each grant application. MTC is requesting a letter from the three cities acknowledging the TOC Policy for the initial grant application. For the subsequent grant application, MTC is seeking a letter in support of the TOC Policy along with a commitment that the City is taking meaningful steps toward TOC compliance.

TOC Policy Overview
The TOC Policy identifies Station Areas, which are areas within a half-mile radius of a fixed or planned transit station. Station Areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tiers according to the level of transit service. As shown in Figure 1, the City of Dublin is served by two Station Areas along a single Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) line. The West Dublin BART station is within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) area and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is within the Transit Center which is in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. These Station Areas are categorized under the Tier 3 TOC Policy requirements.
472

Page 4 of 14 ends

Figure 1. TOC Sites within the City of Dublin
The TOC Policy is divided into four elements: 1) Density and Intensity Standards, 2) Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization, 3) Parking Management, and 4) Access and Circulation.

Some elements have required policies while others offer a menu of policy options (both Station- based and citywide) for local jurisdictions to choose from. More information about the TOC Policy is available at the MTC website: https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/land-use/transit-oriented- communities-toc-policy.

To implement these policies, Staff would need to further analyze the impact of required and optional policies and present the information to the City Council. There is a cost associated with this analysis, including staff time, consultant services and related budget adjustments to prepare any related General Plan/Specific Plan amendments, zoning amendments, policy language, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The TOC Policy, as currently written, requires each local jurisdiction to achieve 85 percent compliance with adopted policies to qualify for OBAG funding; however, MTC has not yet defined how compliance will be measured. Compliance determinations will be addressed as part of the OBAG 4 program development starting in 2025. Staff will continue to engage with MTC on compliance determinations, and MTC plans to provide technical assistance to jurisdictions later this year, including funding, to help develop policies that align with the TOC Policy.

The following is a summary of the four elements of the TOC Policy. Attachment 2 provides the final version of MTC’sAdministrative Guidance for the TOC Policy which was released after publication of the September 17, 2024 City Council Staff Report (The September 17, 2024 Staff Report included a draft version). The final document includes minor changes intended to clarify implementation of the TOC Policy.
473

Page 5 of 14 ends

MTC TOC Policy Elements in Detail
1) Density and Intensity Standards (Station Areas Only) The TOC Policy requires minimum development standards near Station Areas to promote high intensity uses. It outlines the process for a city to calculate the required minimum densities and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). These minimum standards can be averaged across the relevant land around the station for areas where residential or office uses are permitted by right. Existing residential neighborhoods can be excluded from this density calculation. The TOC Policy includes minimum and maximum development standards to ensure high intensity uses as shown in Table

1. Table 1 - TOC Density and Intensity Standards
TOC Standards
Tier 3
TOC
Standard
West Dublin BART Station Area
(DDSP)
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station Area
(Transit Station)
Minimum
Residential
Density
(units/acre)
50 TOD 30 25.1
Retail 22
Village None
Maximum
Residential
Density
(units/acre)
75 TOD 85 None
Retail None
Village 15
Minimum Office
Intensity (FAR)
2 TOD None .25
Retail None
Village None
Maximum Office
Intensity (FAR)
4 TOD 2.5 .80
Retail 2 (Retail District)

2.5 (Retail Core)
Village 0.35
The proposed Standards may be extremely impactful to certain areas within defined Station Areas.

For example, a 2 FAR minimum would mean a two-story building covering an entire lot, a four- story building covering half of a lot, or an eight-story building covering a quarter of a lot. The first two examples would require some level of structured parking to meet market demands and that could impact the feasibility of development or redevelopment of the area. On the matter of minimum/maximum residential density, issues could arise around the periphery of the DDSP area where that type of density could not be supported economically or financially.

Staff time and consultant services would be required for the associated changes, such as but not limited to, preparing an evaluation of impacts such as traffic and to prepare General Plan/Specific Plan amendments, zoning amendments, and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff will return to the City Council in the future to provide a scope and budget and to request a budget adjustment as necessary to complete this effort. 2) Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policies(Citywide Policies) 474

Page 6 of 14 ends

The MTC TOC Policy identifies numerous elective policies in four categories related to affordable housing and commercial stabilization. A City must adopt at least seven polices across the following four categories to demonstrate TOC Policy compliance:
 Production (minimum of two out of seven policy options)  Preservation (minimum of two out of eight policy options)  Protection (minimum of two out of eleven policy options)  Commercial Stabilization (minimum of one out of four policy options) In recognition of the variation in the Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing needs and funding capacity, the TOC Policy also determines the minimum amount of funding a jurisdiction must provide for specific policy options requiring a minimum funding commitment. This amount is based on the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for very low- and low-income units, placing Dublin under Tier E (See Attachment 2, Appendix B: Table 1- Jurisdictions by Funding Tier).

The Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization policies are summarized below and shown in Table 2, 3, 4, and 5. Certain policies appear in multiple categories but can only be applied once.

Policies not applicable to Dublin are shown in strikethroughs. Additionally, the City already has some required policies in place or has committed to adopting them as part of Housing Element implementation programs. Policies that align with existing City policies or are Housing Element (HE) programs are shown in bold. A summary of each policy is summarized after each table.

Production Policies
Table 2- Production Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Inclusionary Housing Existing Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance qualifies. (HE Program B.4: Inclusionary Zoning Regulations)
2 Affordable Housing Fund Funding commitment of $4 million 3 Affordable Housing Overlay Requires incentives beyond State law 4 Public Land for Affordable
Housing
City is working with Alameda County Surplus
Authority to provide affordable housing at the Transit
Center Site. (HE Program B.16: Publicly Owned Land)
5 Ministerial Approval Maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per unit 6 Public/Community Land Trusts Funding commitment of $4 million 7 Development Certainty and
Streamlined Entitlement Process
Requires staff, consultant time, and resources to
determine effects of vested development rights.

Production Policy 1 Inclusionary Housing:

Requires that 15% of units in new residential development projects above a certain number of units be deed-restricted affordable to low-income households. A lower percentage may be adopted if it can be demonstrated by a satisfactory financial feasibility analysis that a 15% requirement is not feasible.

Note: The City adopted an updated Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in 2024 and complies with this 475

Page 7 of 14 ends

policy.

Production Policy 2 Affordable Housing Fund:

Dedicated local funding for production of deed-restricted affordable housing.

Production Policy 3 Affordable Housing Overlay:

Area-specific incentives, such as density bonuses and streamlined environmental review, for development projects that include at least 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing; exceeds any jurisdiction-wide inclusionary requirements or benefits from state density bonus.

Production Policy 4 Public Land for Affordable Housing:

Policies to prioritize the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable and mixed-income housing that go beyond existing state law, typically accompanied by prioritization of available funding for projects on these sites.

Note: The City is currently working with The Alameda Surplus Authority to provide affordable housing in the Transit Center Site and would comply with this policy.

Production Policy 5 Ministerial Approval:

Grant ministerial approval of residential developments that include, at a minimum, 15% affordable units if projects have 11 or more units, or that exceed inclusionary or density bonus affordability requirements and do not exceed 0.5 parking spaces per unit.

Production Policy 6 Public / Community Land Trusts:

Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent affordability protections.

This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

Production Policy 7 Development Uncertainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process:

Include the vested rights and five hearing limit provisions currently outlined in SB330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date.
476

Page 8 of 14 ends

Preservation Policies
Table 3- Preservation Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
Funding Commitment of $1M
2 Tenant/ Community
Opportunity to Purchase
Requires further studies to determine staff,
consultant time, and resources
3 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) No SROs in Dublin
4 CondominiumConversion
Restrictions
Existing CondominiumOrdinance (DMC 8.54) to be
updated to include 1:1 replacement of converted
units, no funding requirement and requires staff
time.
5 Public/ Community Land Trusts Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.

Cannot be applied simultaneously with Production
Policy 4.
6 Funding to Support
Preservation Capacity
Funding commitment for a dedicated staff for four
years
7 Mobile Home Preservation No Mobile Home Parks in Dublin 8 Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and
Associated Enforcement
Activities
Minimum funding commitment. Amnesty program
to waive fines/fees or a low- or no interest loan
grant program ($10K minimum per loan/ grant).

City currently provides a grant up to $5K a year in
coordination with the County
Preservation Policy 1 Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing:

Public investments to preserve unsubsidized housing affordable to lower- or moderate-income residents (sometimes referred to as "naturally occurring affordable housing”) as permanently affordable.

Preservation Policy 2 Tenant/ Community Opportunity to Purchase:

Policies or programs that provide tenants or mission-driven nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at the market price when it is offered for sale, retaining existing residents and ensuring long-term affordability of the units by requiring resale restrictions to maintain affordability.

Preservation Policy 3 Single Room Occupancy:

Limits the conversion of occupied SRO rental units to condominiums or other uses that could result in displacement of existing residents.
477

Page 9 of 14 ends

Preservation Policy 4 Condominium Conversion Restrictions:

Require that units converted to condominiums be replaced 1:1 with comparable rental units, unless purchased by current long-term tenants or converted to permanently affordable housing with protections for existing tenants.

Note: The City currently has a Condominium Conversion Ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) 8.54) that permits the subdivision of existing apartment buildings into condominiums before they are sold. To align with MTC TOC Preservation Policy 4, the Ordinance would need to be revised to mandate a 1:1 replacement of comparable units unless the units are purchased by existing long-term tenants or converted into permanent affordable housing. This policy would not apply to new condominium developments.

Preservation Policy 5 Public / Community Land Trusts:

Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent affordability protections.

This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

Preservation Policy 6 Funding to Support Preservation Capacity:

Dedicated local funding for capacity building or other material support for community land trusts (CLTs) or other community-based organizations (CBOs) engaged in affordable housing preservation.

Preservation Policy 7 Mobile Home Preservation:

Policy or program to preserve mobile homes from conversion to other uses that may result in displacement of existing residents.

Preservation Policy 8 Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Enforcement Activities:

Policies, programs, or procedures designed to minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions including through local code enforcement activities. This may include proactive rental inspection programs and assistance to landlords for property improvements in exchange for anti-displacement commitments. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Note: Currently, the City funds a Minor Home Improvement Grant Program through Alameda County, providing up to $5,000 a year per eligible household. To align with Preservation Policy 8, the City would need to increase this funding to $10,000 per household each year. 478

Page 10 of 14 ends

Protection Policies
Table 4- Protection Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Just Cause Eviction Protection Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.
2 No Net Loss and Right to Return to
Demolished Homes
Requires staff, consultant time, and
resources.
3 Legal Assistance for Tenants Funding Commitment of $300,000 4 Foreclosure Assistance Funding Commitment of $300,000 5 Rental Assistance Program Funding Commitment of $300,000 6 Rent Stabilization Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.
7 Preventing Displacement from
Substandard Conditions and Associated
Code Enforcement Activities
Requires staff, consultant time, and
resources. Cannot be used if using
Preservation Policy 8.
8 Tenant Relocation Assistance Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.
9 Mobile Home Rent Stabilization No Mobile Homes in Dublin 10 Fair Housing Enforcement Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.
11 Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections Requires staff, consultant time, and resources.

Protection Policy 1 Just Cause Eviction Protection: Defines the circumstances for evictions, such as nonpayment of rent, violation of lease terms, or permanent removal of a dwelling from the rental market, with provisions that are more protective of tenants than those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).

Protection Policy 2 No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes: Include the no net loss provisions currently outlined in SB 330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date. Require one-to-one replacement of units that apply the same or a deeper level of affordability, the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units demolished. Provide displaced tenants with the right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units.

Protection Policy 3 Legal Assistance for Tenants: Investments or programs that expand access to legal assistance for tenants threatened with displacement. This could range from a “right to counsel” to dedicated public funding for tenant legal assistance.

Note: Currently, the City provides financial assistance with the allocation of annual grants funded by the CDBG program and the General Fund to non-profits that provide legal assistance. However, the City would be required to provide secured funding in the amount of $300,000 to be TOC compliant.
479

Page 11 of 14 ends

Protection Policy 4 Foreclosure Assistance: Provide a dedicated funding source to support owner- occupied homeowners (up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI)) at-risk of foreclosure, including direct financial assistance (e.g., mortgage assistance, property tax delinquency, HOA dues, etc.), foreclosure prevention counseling, legal assistance, and/or outreach.

Protection Policy 5 Rental Assistance Program: Provide a dedicated funding source and program for rental assistance to low-income households.

Protection Policy 6 Rent Stabilization: Restricts annual rent increases based upon a measure of inflation or other metric, with provisions exceeding those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).

Protection Policy 7 Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement: Policies, programs, or procedures designed to minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions including through local code enforcement activities. This may include proactive rental inspection programs and assistance to landlords for property improvements in exchange for anti-displacement commitments. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Protection Policy 8 Tenant Relocation Assistance: Policy or program that provides relocation assistance (financial and/or other services) to tenants displaced through no fault of their own, with assistance exceeding that required under state law.

Protection Policy 9 Mobile Home Rent Stabilization: Restricts annual rent increases on mobile home residents based upon a measure of inflation or another metric.

Protection Policy 10 Fair Housing Enforcement: Policy, program, or investments that support fair housing testing, compliance monitoring, and enforcement.

Protection Policy 11 Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections: Policy or program that grants tenants legal protection from unreasonable, abusive, or coercive landlord behavior.

Commercial Stabilization Policies
Table 5- Commercial Stabilization Policies
Policy TOC Policy Notes
1 Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay Requires one of the following: operating subsidy, eviction protections, or relocation
requirements
2 Small Business and Non-Profit
Preference Policy
Requires new commercial space
preferences
3 Small Business and Non-Profit Financial
Assistance Program
Funding commitment
4 Small Business Advocate Office City currently provides this service Commercial Stabilization Policy 1 Small Business and Non-Profit Overlay:
480

Page 12 of 14 ends

Establish boundaries designated for an overlay, triggering a set of protections and benefits should development impact small businesses (including public markets) or community-serving non- profits.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 2 Small Business and Non-Profit Preference Policy:

Give priority and a right of first offer to local small businesses and/or community-serving non- profits when selecting a tenant for new market-rate commercial space.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 3 Small Business and Non-Profit Financial Assistance Program:

Dedicated funding program for any impacted small business and community-serving non-profits.

Commercial Stabilization Policy 4 Small Business Advocate Office:

Provide a single point of contact for small business owners and/or a small business alliance.

Note: Commercial Stabilization Policy 4 aligns with and builds upon the work the City has already undertaken and remains committed to doing through the City’s Economic Development Department.
3) Parking Management (Station Areas)
State law (AB 2097) prohibits the City from imposing parking minimums near the Station Areas.

Consequently, parking provided by an owner or developer in new projects near transit is optional.

The TOC Policy further requires the City to establish parking maximums, which would prevent developers from exceeding the specified limit, even if they wanted to provide more parking. Table 6 provides a comparison of the Station areas and TOC standards:

Table 6 - Parking Management
TOC Policy –
Tier 3 Policy
Parking
Requirement
Existing Parking
Requirement -
West Dublin BART
Station Area (i.e.,
DDSP)
Existing Parking
Requirement -
Dublin/Pleasanton Bart
Station Area (i.e., Transit
Center)
Minimum
Residential and
Commercial
Parking
No Minimum No Minimum No Minimum (Per
requirements of AB 2097)
Maximum
Residential
Parking
1 Space per
unit
No Maximum No Maximum
Maximum
Commercial Office
Parking

2.5 Spaces per
1,000 SF
None None
The City must also allow shared parking for different land uses and set minimum bicycle parking standards in the Station Areas.
481

Page 13 of 14 ends

4) Station Access and Circulation (Citywide Policies)
The final policy category for compliance with the TOC Policy pertains to transportation access and circulation. The City is required to meet all the requirements, and the City has existing policies in place that would need to be reviewed by Staff to ensure compliance as provided in Table 7.

Table 7 - Station Access and Circulation
TOC Requirement Notes
Adopt a Complete Streets Policy Adopted Complete Streets Policy in 2012 (Resolution 199-12)
Prioritize Implementation of Active
Transportation Projects instation Areas
DDSP, PDA: Transit Center Dublin Crossing, PDA:

Town Center
CIP- Downtown: Grid Street network and Golden Gate
Drive
Gap Analysis and Improvement Program
for Station Areas
LAVTA Long Range Transit Plan (March 2024)
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(2023)
Identify Mobility Hub Opportunities in
Station Areas
LAVTA Tri-Valley Hub Network Integration Study
(2021)
City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(2023)
Climate Action Plan
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Conclusion
Staff anticipates proceeding with the preparation of policies that have already been committed to through the Housing Element. Staff will return to the City Council in the future to further discuss the additional policy considerations outlined in the TOC Policy and to request budget adjustments as needed for technical analysis and consultant services.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This informational report is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is necessary. Environmental review will be performed, as required by CEQA, for any future City adoption of the policies necessary to comply with the MTC TOC Policy.
482

Page 14 of 14 ends

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

Public noticing is not required to seek policy direction. A copy of the Staff Report was also made available on the City’s website.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Alameda CTC CIP Five Year Programming with Two-year Allocation for the City of Dublin 2) MTC’s Transit Oriented Development Final Administrative Guidance, September 2024 483
Prior
Allocations
Two-Year Allocation
Plan
Future Programming
Project Title Fund Source Programmed
Amount
Prior Thru
FY2022-23
FY2023-24 FY2024-
25 FY2025-26 FY2026-
27 FY2027-28
Total
Allocated
(Thru FY2024-25)
City of Dublin Street Rehab OBAG 661,000$ 661,000 $ 661,000$ Dublin Boulevard Preservation OBAG 470,000$ 470,000 $ 470,000$ Dougherty Rd Widening (from 4 to 6 Lns) (Dublin - CCC line) 2014 MBB 11,200,000$ 11,200,000 $ 11,200,000$ Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Implementation 2000 MB 41,000$ 41,000 $ 41,000$ Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Implementation 2010VRF 226,000$ 226,000 $ 226,000$ Dublin Blvd. Widening, WB from 2 to 3 Lns (Sierra Ct-Dougherty Rd) 2014 MBB 3,000,000$ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000$ Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension 2014 MBB 2,374,000$ 2,374,000 $ 2,374,000$ Dublin Boulevard - North Canyons Parkway Extension 2014 MBB 5,374,000$ 5,374,000 $ 5,374,000$ Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard 2014 MBB 166,000$ 166,000 $ 166,000$ Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard 2014 MBB 1,128,000$ 1,128,000 $ 1,128,000$ Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard 2014 MBB 4,751,000$ 4,751,000 $ 4,751,000$ Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard TFCA 856,000$ 856,000 $ 856,000$ Iron Horse Transit Route - Dougherty Road 2000 MB 6,267,000$ 6,267,000 $ 6,267,000$ Regional Street Improvement Project 2000 MB 75,000$ 75,000 $ 75,000$ Safe Routes to School - Crosswalk Improvements 2000 MB 94,000$ 94,000 $ 94,000$
Safe Routes to School Improvements Dublin 2010 VRF 110,000$ 110,000 $ 110,000$ Safe Routes to School Improvements Dublin 2010 VRF 390,000$ 390,000 $ 390,000$ San Ramon Road Arterial Mgmt TFCA 146,000$ 146,000 $ 146,000$ Tassajara Rd Improvements from N. Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School 2014 MBB 872,000$ 872,000$ 872,000$ Tassajara Rd Improvements from N. Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School TFCA 128,000$ 128,000$ 128,000$ Tassajara Road Arterial Management Project TFCA 146,000$ 146,000 $ 146,000$ Village Parkway Complete Streets Improvements STIP 9,150,000$ 9,150,000$ 9,150,000$ 37,475,000$ 47,625,000$ Sub -Total
*City applied on behalf of BART, BART is the implementing authority Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Active Access Improvements* 2014 MBB 7,910,000$ 7,910,000$ 7,910,000$ Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Active Access Improvements* TFCA 495,000$ 495,000$ 495,000$ Sub -Total 8,405,000$
TOTAL 56,030,000$
Programming and Allocations
Attachment 1
484

Page 1 of 40 ends

MTC Administrative Guidance:

Transit-Oriented Communities Policy
Guidance for Public Agency Staff Implementing Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution 4530
September 2024
Table of Contents
I
. Background and Purpose ............................................................................................. 3 II. TOC Policy Requirements ........................................................................................... 3 III. Policy Applicability ...................................................................................................... 4 Types of Transit ......................................................................................................... 4 Existing Transit ..................................................................................................... 4 Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy .................... 5 Transit Extensions ................................................................................................ 5 Interregional Projects ............................................................................................ 6 Transit Tiers ............................................................................................................... 7 Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service ............................... 7 TOC Area Geography ................................................................................................ 7 Overlapping TOC Areas ............................................................................................. 8 Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas ..................................................................................... 8 IV. Documentation Submittal and Review ....................................................................... 8 Submission Deadline ................................................................................................. 8 Documentation Submittal ........................................................................................... 8 Local Jurisdiction Resolution ..................................................................................... 9 MTC Review Process ................................................................................................ 9 V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission ......................................................................... 9 Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development ........... 9 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements ................................................................ 9 Submitting Required Documentation .................................................................. 11 Attachment 2
485

Page 2 of 40 ends

Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies ........................................................ 23 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements .............................................................. 23 Submitting Required Documentation .................................................................. 32 Section 3: Parking Management .............................................................................. 32 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements .............................................................. 32 Submitting Required Documentation .................................................................. 35 Section 4: Station Access and Circulation ............................................................... 38 Summary of TOC Policy Requirements .............................................................. 38 Submitting Required Documentation .................................................................. 39 Appendix A: TOC Policy Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Requirements Appendix B: Jurisdictions by Funding Tier

486

Page 3 of 40 ends

I. Background and Purpose

This document provides guidance to local jurisdictions on how to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy (MTC Resolution 4530), adopted in September 2022 and revised in October 2023. The TOC Policy seeks to support the region’s transit investments by ensuring communities around transit stations and along transit corridors are places that not only support transit ridership, but are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work, and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The TOC Policy is rooted in Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050), the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and addresses all four elements of the Plan—transportation, housing, the economy, and the environment. Compliance with the TOC Policy is voluntary for jurisdictions that want to advance the goals of PBA 2050 or to be eligible and/or competitive for some MTC discretionary funding.

Four goals guide the TOC Policy and advance PBA 2050 implementation:
• Increase the overall housing supply in part by increasing the density for new residential projects. Prioritize affordable housing in transit-rich areas. • In areas near regional transit hubs, increase density for new commercial office development.
• Prioritize bus transit, active transportation, and shared mobility within and to/from transit-rich areas, particularly to Equity Priority Communities located more than ½ mile from transit stops or stations.
• Support and build partnerships to create equitable transit-oriented communities within the San Francisco Bay Area.

Future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding cycles (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) will consider funding revisions that prioritize investments in transit station areas that are subject to and compliant with the TOC Policy. With MTC Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications for additional discretionary funding sources.

II. TOC Policy Requirements

The TOC policy requirements consist of the following four elements:

1. Minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and stabilizing businesses to prevent displacement.

3. Parking management.

4. Transit station access and circulation.
487

Page 4 of 40 ends

The specific requirements for each topic area are described in more detail below.

Jurisdictions will be evaluated for compliance with all requirements in each of the four topic areas for each TOC area1 within the jurisdiction that is subject to the TOC Policy.

For all topic areas, a jurisdiction may use an existing adopted policy or plan to meet the requirements or, as needed, may adopt new policies/standards by the deadline for compliance with the TOC Policy (see section V. Documentation Submittal and Review, below, for more details). Where applicable, a jurisdiction may rely on jurisdiction-wide policies to demonstrate compliance for a TOC area.

III. Policy Applicability

Types of Transit
The TOC Policy applies to areas within ½ mile of the following types of existing and planned fixed-guideway transit2 stops and stations:
• Regional rail (e.g., Bay Area Rapid Transit, Caltrain) • Commuter rail (e.g., Capitol Corridor, Altamont Corridor Express, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Valley Link)
• Light-rail transit (LRT)
• Bus rapid transit (BRT)3
• Ferries
The ½-mile radius around a transit station/stop applies even if the jurisdiction has adopted a Priority Development Area (PDA) whose boundaries are different.

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website.

Existing Transit
The TOC Policy applies to jurisdictions with existing fixed-guideway transit service stops and stations, as defined above. For jurisdictions with an existing stop/station, OBAG (i.e., OBAG 4 and subsequent funding cycles) is currently the only funding source for which MTC will consider TOC compliance in its investment decisions. With Commission approval, MTC may consider compliance with the TOC Policy to evaluate applications

1 A TOC area is the geography surrounding a fixed-guideway transit stop or station that is subject to the TOC Policy requirements. See “TOC Area Geography” in Section III. Policy Applicability for more information on how this specific geography is determined. 2 “Fixed guideway means a public transportation facility that uses and occupies a separate right -of-way or rail line for the exclusive use of public transportation and other high occupancy vehicles, or uses a fixed catenary system and a right of way usable by other forms of transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, automated guideway transit, people movers, ferry boat service, and fixed-guideway facilities for buses (such as bus rapid transit) and other high occupancy vehicles.” (49 CFR § 611.105)
3 The TOC Policy uses the definition of “bus rapid transit” (BRT) from California Public Resources Code section 21060.2.
488

Page 5 of 40 ends

for additional discretionary funding sources for enhancements or improvements to existing stops/stations.

Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Subject to the TOC Policy Fixed-guideway stations that are planned but not currently in service may need to demonstrate compliance with TOC Policy requirements by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle. This applies to planned stations meeting any of the following criteria:
• Project begins construction by January 1, 2025.

AND/OR
• Project allocated regional discretionary funding that requires committing to compliance by the OBAG 4 cycle, as per the requirements of MTC Resolution 4530.

AND/OR
• Project has a Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) Level of 1 or 2.

Additionally, planned stations meeting all of the following criteria are subject to achieving TOC Policy compliance by the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 cycle:
• Sufficiently defined station location as determined by MTC staff (e.g., project has completed environmental review).

AND
• Project is in Bin 1 of the Plan Bay Area 2050+ Transportation Project List, encompassing projects expected to be operational by 2035.

If a planned stop/station has not been confirmed as subject to the TOC Policy using the above criteria by January 1, 2025, it will not have to be in compliance by the OBAG 4 deadline.

Opt-In for Planned Fixed-Guideway Stops/Stations Not Subject to the TOC Policy A planned station that does not meet the criteria above can choose to opt in to achieving compliance for the planned TOC area for the OBAG 4 cycle. To do so, the planned station must have a sufficiently defined station location as determined by MTC staff (e.g., the project has completed environmental review). Density and parking standards for planned TOC areas that opt in would be based on the anticipated level of transit service.

Transit Extensions
“Transit extensions” refer to the creation of a new fixed-guideway transit system (rail, ferry, or bus rapid transit), or extension of an existing fixed-guideway transit system to a new station, stations, or terminals. Transit extensions include new infill stations on a fixed-guideway transit system, and major expansions of existing stations to accommodate a new fixed-guideway transit system or route. 489

Page 6 of 40 ends

The TOC Policy establishes different compliance expectations for transit extension projects seeking awards or allocations of regional discretionary capital funding4 based on the project’s delivery stage, as follows:

1. Project Development/Environmental Review: Project sponsors, and local jurisdictions as applicable, must provide a letter or resolution acknowledging that future allocation requests to MTC will be subject to the TOC Policy pursuant to later phases.

2. Project Design and Early Right-of-Way Acquisition: Jurisdictions must commit in writing to take steps toward achieving compliance by 2026 for the station area(s) seeking funding.

3. Project Construction: Jurisdictions do not need to submit a letter of commitment, but they should work with MTC staff to achieve compliance by 2026.

The transit extension project sponsor/implementing agency must include an acknowledgement or commitment letter or resolution, as applicable, in its request to MTC for regional discretionary funding. Templates for the jurisdiction letters and resolutions are available on the MTC TOC Policy website. See Appendix 1 of MTC Resolution 4530 for more details about the requirements for transit extensions.

Beginning in 2026, these requirements will also apply to transit extension projects seeking MTC endorsement for federal or state discretionary capital funding. 5 Interregional Projects
Interregional projects that trigger MTC's Interregional Project Funding and Coordination Policy (Resolution No. 4399) shall be subject to the TOC Policy as set forth in this paragraph. For any portion of the project within MTC’s jurisdiction, the project sponsor must satisfy the requirements as noted above for Existing Transit and Transit Extensions, as applicable. For portions of the project within the jurisdiction of another Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPO)/Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), the Interagency Agreement referenced in Resolution 4399 must include a provision acknowledging the applicability of the TOC Policy, confirming compliance with the TOC Policy for the Bay Area portion of the project, and a commitment from the other MPO/RTPA to strive towards achievement of TOC Policy requirements for the portions of the project outside of the Bay Area. The other MPO/RTPA’s commitment for non-Bay

4 For the purposes of the TOC Policy, “regional discretionary funding” for transit projects includes the following fund sources: regional bridge tolls and associated programs (e.g., RM2 & RM3), Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and Regional Exchange Program (MTC Exchange). This list is non-exhaustive and could be amended in the future if MTC exercises discretionary control over additional funding sources.
5 In the context of TOC Policy implementation, "endorsement” refers to when the MTC Commission acts to endorse projects seeking funding from other sources or when a project is added to the list of projects and programs included in MTC’s Major Project Advancement Policy (MAP) or a change is made to a project’s MAP Level.
490

Page 7 of 40 ends

Area portions of the project should include, as practicable, an agreement to regularly report on the status of progress to meeting TOC Policy requirements, to explain any challenges with achieving TOC Policy requirements, and any steps that will be taken to overcome those challenges.

Transit Tiers
Geographic areas subject to the TOC Policy are categorized by tier according to the level of transit service at fixed-guideway station(s) within ½ mile:
• Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San José)
• Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain • Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
• Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
Some TOC Policy requirements are defined by transit tier, with some requirements consistent across all tiers.

Opt-In for Areas Not Served by Fixed-Guideway Transit Service Jurisdictions with transit stops and stations that are not served by fixed-guideway service (e.g., areas that are only served by regular fixed-route bus transit) may choose to “opt in” and voluntarily meet TOC Policy requirements for these areas.6 Station areas/stops where a jurisdiction has voluntarily complied with the TOC Policy may be eligible for any future funding sources where the MTC Commission chooses to adopt TOC Policy compliance as a prerequisite for funding or a factor in prioritizing funding.

TOC Area Geography
The ½-mile area is measured from a single point at the center of the stop or station.

Where a station/stop includes infrastructure such as platforms, bus transfer facilities, and parking areas, a single centroid is identified rather than computing distance from multiple station entrances or property boundaries. Open water, rivers, canals, and other water bodies are excluded, which may result in the TOC area being an irregular shape rather than a perfect circle.

For more information on how the density and parking requirements apply to TOC areas, see “Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development” and “Section 3: Parking Management” below.

A map and list of the jurisdictions and stations subject to the TOC Policy for the deadline associated with the OBAG 4 Cycle is available on MTC’s website.

6 For locations with no fixed-guideway transit service, the Tier 4 density and parking management requirements will apply in addition to all other TOC Policy requirements. 491

Page 8 of 40 ends

Overlapping TOC Areas
In some cases, the ½-mile area around one stop/station may intersect with the ½-mile area around another stop/station, resulting in overlapping TOC areas. As a jurisdiction must demonstrate compliance for each TOC area separately, a parcel within an overlapping area will be considered in calculating the average zoning density as well as evaluating the parking standards for each of the overlapping TOC areas. If the overlapping TOC areas represent different transit tiers, parcels in the overlapping areas must meet the standards for the higher transit tier (i.e., Tier 1 is higher than Tier 2).

For jurisdictions with overlapping TOC areas, MTC will work with local staff to identify situations where TOC areas can be consolidated (e.g., along BRT or LRT corridors or in downtown areas) for aggregate analysis of TOC compliance.

Multi-Jurisdiction TOC Areas
A TOC area may encompass multiple jurisdictions. A jurisdiction is exempt from complying with any TOC Policy requirements if it contains 20 percent or less of the TOC area, as determined by MTC staff. A jurisdiction that comprises more than 20 percent of a TOC area must comply with all TOC Policy requirements for its portion of the TOC area.

For the TOC Policy density standards, a jurisdiction is not responsible for zoning densities/intensities outside its boundaries, but it must meet the TOC Policy standards for the portion of the TOC area within its jurisdiction. 7 However, joint applications are
encouraged for a TOC area that crosses jurisdictional boundaries; in such instances, compliance with the average density standards should be based on the combined area of the TOC area in both jurisdictions (or in all jurisdictions, if more than two are involved).

IV. Documentation Submittal and Review

Submission Deadline
To ensure eligibility for OBAG 4 funding and any other discretionary funding that may be linked to TOC Policy compliance, jurisdictions should anticipate demonstrating compliance prior to adoption of OBAG 4, expected in 2026. MTC will provide more information about submission deadlines as part of developing the OBAG 4 program.

Documentation Submittal
MTC will accept submissions from jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance with the TOC Policy for each TOC area subject to the policy within the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions must use the TOC Policy Submission Portal developed by MTC. Jurisdictions may submit documentation on a rolling basis until the submission deadline. Questions about documentation submittal should be directed to [email protected].

7 Average zoning density calculation requirements are covered in Section V of this Guidance document. 492

Page 9 of 40 ends

Local Jurisdiction Resolution
The jurisdiction’s final submission must be accompanied by a resolution adopted by the city council or board of supervisors confirming compliance with the TOC Policy. For jurisdictions with multiple TOC areas, the jurisdiction may submit a single resolution that includes reference to all TOC areas for which the jurisdiction is confirming compliance.

MTC Review Process
To complete its review of a jurisdiction’s submission, MTC may request additional clarifying documentation and information from the jurisdiction. Additionally, to assist with its review of the submission, MTC may consult with and gather relevant information from any individual, entity, or public agency. Jurisdictions will receive confirmation of its compliance status after MTC has completed its review of submitted documentation.

V. Guidance for TOC Policy Submission

This section provides the guidance necessary to demonstrate compliance with MTC’s TOC Policy requirements. It is divided into four sections:

1. Zoning density and intensity requirements for residential and commercial office development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation, and protection policies and commercial stabilization policies

3. Parking management policies

4. Station access and circulation requirements

Section 1: Density for New Residential and Commercial Office Development

Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
The TOC Policy seeks to ensure that local planning policies and zoning regulations enable new development within TOC areas to be built at sufficiently high densities to support transit ridership and increase the proportion of trips taken by transit. The mechanism for furthering this goal is the requirement that jurisdictions adopt minimum density and intensity requirements in TOC areas. Additionally, if a jurisdiction chooses to adopt maximum density and intensity requirements, these must be high enough to support robust transit-oriented development.8

8 While the TOC Policy does not specify requirements for building heights, local jurisdictions should not limit building heights such that new residential development at the densities specified by the TOC Policy becomes infeasible.
493

Page 10 of 40 ends

The Policy does not require a jurisdiction to plan or zone specific parcels for a particular land use or density. Rather, a jurisdiction is required to meet zoning density and intensity standards where zoning allows new residential, office, or mixed-use development. The density requirements represent an average taken across the TOC area, and the required average densities are based on the area’s Transit Tier (see Tables 1 and 5).

The minimum density/intensity in a given zoning district where housing and/or commercial office uses are permitted may be below the TOC Policy thresholds (Tables 1 and 5), provided the average across the TOC area meets the requirement.9 Cities that have adopted Form Based Codes without density standards are required to adopt minimum densities, minimum Floor Area Ratios (FARs), or minimum heights for future residential, commercial office, and mixed-use projects.

A jurisdiction without minimum residential or commercial office zoning standards may use the minimums identified in an adopted General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan to the extent the Plan requires that new development must occur at or above a minimum threshold. In the absence of such a requirement or zoning standard, a zone without a minimum density will be assigned a “zero” for the purposes of calculating the average for the TOC area. A minimum density value of zero for any zone in a TOC area will make it more difficult to achieve the required areawide averages. This is further explained in the methodology below.

A jurisdiction is not required to adopt maximum allowable density/intensity standards.

However, if a jurisdiction has adopted these standards, then the average of the maximum density/intensity allowed for residential or commercial office uses must meet or exceed the TOC Policy’s thresholds (Tables 3 and 7).

Areas Eligible for Exclusion from Density/Intensity Requirements For the residential calculations, only zoning districts that allow residential as a permitted use (i.e., with no use permit requirement) are included. However, zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture, even where residential is listed as a permitted use, may be excluded.

For the commercial office calculations, only zoning districts that allow commercial office as a permitted use are included. Subject to approval by MTC staff, zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses but are ancillary to industrial activities (such as manufacturing, warehousing, production, distribution, repair, etc.) may be excluded.

The Policy allows parcels with existing dwelling units to be excluded from the residential and commercial office calculations to minimize the risk of displacement. However, a

9 “Permitted” means the use is listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations, with no use permit requirement.
494

Page 11 of 40 ends

parcel may not be excluded if it was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing.

For the TOC Policy, “existing dwelling units” are residential units that received a building permit prior to January 1, 2024. However, if a project has not received a certificate of occupancy by the beginning of the OBAG 5 cycle (anticipated in 2030), the parcel cannot be excluded from future TOC Policy compliance cycles.

Note: Calculation of the average density includes parcels zoned to allow residential and/or commercial office development where it may not be physically possible to construct new residential, commercial office, or mixed-use buildings within the specified density ranges due to small parcel sizes, environmental factors, conflicts with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, etc.

Submitting Required Documentation
Demonstrating conformance to the TOC Policy includes four calculations of average density/intensity within the TOC area:
• Minimum zoning density required for zones allowing residential uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum residential density standards, the maximum zoning density for zones allowing residential uses.
• Minimum commercial office intensity (FAR) required for zones allowing office uses. • If a jurisdiction has maximum commercial intensity standards, the maximum commercial office intensity (FAR) for zones allowing office uses.

MTC’s submission portal is programmed to complete these calculations based on a jurisdiction’s zoning data. A jurisdiction may review and verify the data in the submission portal or contact MTC staff for assistance.

The guidance below explains how the calculations are completed and how to determine density and FAR equivalencies if a zoning district does not use these metrics. The calculations do not require a determination of “buildout” in the TOC area. Rather, they only require calculation of the average minimum and maximum density/intensity allowed by zoning on eligible parcels. Moreover, determination of the average zoning density and intensity is intended only as a theoretical calculation to evaluate compliance with the TOC Policy. The average density/intensity calculations do not in any way preclude or discourage mixed-use development or non-office commercial uses, nor do they disallow or discourage the addition of residential or office uses to projects of other uses.

A jurisdiction has two options for the density/intensity calculations:
• Option A is simpler and involves determining the area of all zoned parcels within the TOC area where residential uses are allowed and commercial office uses are allowed.
495

Page 12 of 40 ends

• Option B is more fine-grained and allows exclusion of certain parcels in each of these zones due to existing uses.

A jurisdiction may use either option. Both options require a “weighted average” calculation that accounts for the proportional land area in each zone.

A five-step process is outlined below. Step 1 is identifying the baseline set of zones or parcels to be used in the average density/intensity calculations for a TOC area. Steps 2 to 5 (which are the same for Option A and Option B) correspond to the calculations of minimum residential density, maximum allowable residential density, minimum commercial office intensity, and maximum allowable commercial office intensity for those zones or parcels.

Step 1: Determine the Baseline Areas to be Included in the Calculations

Option A:
i. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where residential uses are a permitted use (i.e., no use permit is required). This includes single-family zones, multi-family zones, mixed-use zones where housing is a permitted use, and non- residential districts that specifically identify housing as a permitted use. Zones intended to conserve land for open space or agriculture may be excluded from the average residential density calculation, even where residential is listed as a permitted use.
ii. Identify all zoning districts in the TOC area where commercial offices are a permitted use. This includes office zones, commercial and mixed-use zones where office is a permitted use, and any residential zones that allow 100 percent office uses (zones that only allow office as an ancillary use are excluded).

Subject to approval by MTC staff, zoning districts in which offices are permitted uses but are ancillary to industrial activities (such as manufacturing, warehousing, production, distribution, repair, etc.) may be excluded. iii. Calculate the net acreage in each zoning district in the TOC area. “Net” acreage means streets or un-zoned features within the zoning boundary are not counted. iv. Report the net acreage in each eligible residential zone and each eligible commercial office zone, the sums of these acreages, and the percentage of total eligible zones that each individual zone represents. Zoning districts included in the residential calculation may also be included in the office calculation, where applicable.
v. Proceed to Steps 2 through 5.

496

Page 13 of 40 ends

Option B:
i. Conduct steps (i) and (ii) as described above for Option A. ii. For each zoning district, prepare a list of parcels to be excluded (subtracted) from the eligible acreage in that zoning district. Parcels may be excluded if they are currently occupied by single- or multi-family dwelling units. However, if the parcel was counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element and assumed to produce one or more units of housing, it may not be excluded.

For any excluded parcel, the jurisdiction must document the assessor parcel number, address, acreage, existing zoning, and existing land use. iii. Report the remaining net acreage in each eligible residential zone and each eligible commercial office zone, the sums of these acreages, and the percentage of the total eligible zones that each individual zone represents. Zoning districts included in the residential calculation may also be included in the office calculation, where applicable.
iv. Proceed to Steps 2 through 5.

Step 2: Calculate the Average Minimum Residential Density Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum zoning density in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 1. A jurisdiction without minimum density standards may refer to the ranges in its General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum density standards (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan as described above) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 1: Average Minimum Zoning Densities Required for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum
Zoning Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
75 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
50 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 25 units/net acre or
higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions with 30,000 residents or fewer may use Tier 4 standards. For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance. 497

Page 14 of 40 ends

Table 2 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but minimum density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 2 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within their TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdiction- developed equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in a certified Housing Element from the 6
th Cycle or later. However, the equivalency table
may only be used if the FAR or height standards are legally required minimums, as described above for zoning districts that use a dwelling units per acre standard.

Table 2: Equivalency Table for Minimum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no
minimum density, but
the minimum FAR
required is…
…then use this
equivalent for
minimum density
If there is no
minimum density or
FAR, but the
minimum height is…
…then use this for
equivalent minimum
density
None Zero None Zero
Less than 0.5 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85’ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward

Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 1 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

498

Page 15 of 40 ends

Figure 1: Calculation of Average Required Minimum Residential Zoning Density

As shown in Figure 1, to calculate the average minimum residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(i) are used for the numerator and the denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does require a minimum FAR or minimum height, use Table 2 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average minimum residential density.

Step 3: Calculate the Average Maximum Residential Density Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum residential density standard, the average maximum allowable residential zoning density in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 3.

499

Page 16 of 40 ends

Table 3: Average Maximum Zoning Density Threshold for Residential Development Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning
Density
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
150 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
100 units/net acre or
higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
75 units/net acre or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 35 units/net acre or higher
Notes:

1. Tier 3 TOC areas in jurisdictions 30,000 or fewer residents may use Tier 4 standards . For the OBAG 4 cycle, this applies to the Tier 3 TOC areas in Belmont, Brisbane, Lafayette, Orinda, and San Carlos. January 1, 2024 population estimates from the California Department of Finance.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 2050 modeling for Strategy H3 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 44-45).

Table 4 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where housing is permitted but maximum allowable density is expressed using floor area ratio (FAR) or height. The table allows jurisdictions using zones not measured in dwelling units per acre to convert to density equivalents so averages may be more accurately estimated. The equivalencies in Table 4 are “default” standards based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC. MTC staff will automatically approve jurisdiction-developed equivalency tables or density calculation methodologies that were accepted by HCD in a certified Housing Element from the 6 th Cycle or later.

Table 4: Equivalency Table for Maximum Density Calculation (only for use in zones with no density standard)
If there is no maximum
density, but the
maximum FAR allowed
is...
…then use this
equivalent for
maximum
density
If there is no maximum
density or FAR, but the
maximum allowable
height is…
…then use this
for equivalent
maximum density
Less than 0.50 8 DUA Less than 25′ 12 DUA
Between 0.5 and 0.74 16 DUA 25′ to 34.9′ 35 DUA
Between 0.75 and 0.99 25 DUA 35′ to 44.9′ 55 DUA
Between 1.0 and 1.49 50 DUA 45′ to 54.9′ 75 DUA
Between 1.5 and 1.99 75 DUA 55′ to 64.9′ 100 DUA
Between 2.0 and 2.99 100 DUA 65′ to 74.9′ 125 DUA
Between 3.0 and 3.99 125 DUA 75′ to 84.9’ 150 DUA
Between 4.0 and 4.99 150 DUA Add 25 DUA for each 10’ from 85′ upward Add 40 DUA for each 1.0 FAR from 5.0 upward
500

Page 17 of 40 ends

Once a density or density equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 2 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

Figure 2: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Residential Zoning Density

As shown in Figure 2, to calculate the average maximum allowable residential zoning density for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(ii) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the allowable maximum density for that zone. If the zone has no density standard but does include maximum FAR or maximum heights, use Table 4 to determine the equivalent density. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where residential uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum residential density.

Step 4: Calculate the Average Minimum Commercial Office Space Intensity Required by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that the average minimum required zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets the adopted TOC Policy standard for its transit tier shown in Table 5. Again, it is recognized that a jurisdiction may not have adopted minimum FAR standards (or minimum heights) for commercial office space in its TOC area. A jurisdiction without such standards may refer to the ranges in its 501

Page 18 of 40 ends

General Plan or an adopted Specific or Area Plan that applies to the TOC area, to the extent the relevant Plan requires that development must occur at or above the minimum. Cities without minimum standards for FAR (either in zoning or the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Area Plan) must assign a “zero” to the applicable zones when calculating the TOC area average.

Table 5: Average Minimum Zoning Intensities Required for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Average Minimum Zoning
Intensity Required for
Commercial Office Space
(FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose)
4 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
3 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
2 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals 1 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

Table 6 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where minimum required intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. Table 6 shows equivalent FARs for height limits ranging from zero to 75 feet. The equivalencies in Table 6 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.

Table 6: Equivalency Table for Minimum Zoning Intensity for Commercial Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard) If there is no FAR standard, but the minimum
height required is...
…then use this as the equivalent
FAR
None 0
Less than 25’ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9’ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward
502

Page 19 of 40 ends

Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are subject to higher minimum intensity standards than projects that are 100 percent office.

For example, a zone may require a minimum FAR of 0.5 for a 100 percent office project but require at least 1.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher minimum may be used in the calculations. This recognizes the underlying intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 3 illustrates the formula used for this calculation.

Figure 3: Calculation of Average Minimum Required Commercial Office Zoning Intensity

As shown in Figure 3, to calculate the average minimum commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(i) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the minimum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have minimum heights, use Table 6 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required minimum commercial office intensity. 503

Page 20 of 40 ends

Step 5: Calculate the Average Maximum Commercial Office Space Intensity Allowed by Zoning in the TOC Area
A jurisdiction must demonstrate that, if it has adopted a maximum commercial office intensity standard, the average maximum allowable zoning intensity for commercial office space in the TOC area meets or exceeds the adopted TOC Policy threshold for its transit tier shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Average Maximum Zoning Intensity Threshold for Commercial Office Development
Level of Transit Service
Threshold for Average
Maximum Zoning Intensity
for Commercial Office
Space (FAR)
Tier 1: Rail stations serving regional centers (i.e., Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Oakland, and Downtown San Jose) 8 or higher
Tier 2: Stop/station served by two or more BART lines or BART and Caltrain
6 or higher
Tier 3: Stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit
4 or higher
Tier 4: Commuter rail (SMART, ACE, Capitol Corridor, Valley Link) stations, Caltrain stations south of Tamien, or ferry terminals
3 or higher
Notes:

1. For mixed-use projects that include a commercial office component, this figure shall not be less than the equivalent of the applicable allowed or permitted FAR standard.

2. The allowable densities are consistent with PBA 20505 modeling for Strategy EC4 (see Forecasting and Modeling Report, pp. 57-58).

Table 8 is an equivalency table for zoning districts where maximum allowable intensity is expressed using height rather than FAR. The equivalencies in Table 8 are “default” values based on sample projects. Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own equivalency tables based on actual projects within the TOC area or nearby, subject to approval by MTC.

504

Page 21 of 40 ends

Table 8: Equivalency Table for Maximum Zoning Intensity for Office (only for use in zones with no Floor Area Ratio [FAR] standard)
If there is no FAR standard, but the
maximum height allowed is...
…then use this as the equivalent FAR
Less than 25′ 0.3
25′ to 34.9′ 1.0
35′ to 44.9′ 1.5
45′ to 54.9′ 2.0
55′ to 64.9′ 3.0
65′ to 79.9′ 4.0
80′ to 99.9′ 5.0
Add 1.0 FAR for each 15’ from 100’ upward

Jurisdictions may have zoning districts in which mixed-use or residential projects are allowed a higher maximum intensity than projects that are 100 percent office. For example, a zone may allow a maximum FAR of 2.0 for a 100 percent office project but allow a 4.0 FAR for a residential or mixed-use project. In such instances, the higher maximum may be used when preparing the calculations. This recognizes the underlying intent of the TOC Policy, which is to incentivize zoning that supports higher building intensity in TOC areas.

Once an FAR or FAR equivalent has been assigned to each zone, the weighted average is determined. Figure 4 illustrates the formula for this calculation.

Figure 4: Calculation of Average Maximum Allowable Commercial Office Zoning Intensity

505

Page 22 of 40 ends

As shown in Figure 4, to calculate the average maximum allowable commercial office zoning intensity for the TOC area, the total number of acres in each zone to be included (shown as Zone 1, Zone 2, etc.) is divided by the total number of acres in the TOC area where office uses are permitted. The sums developed in Step 1A(ii) are used for the numerator and denominator. If using Option B for Step 1, exempted parcels are excluded.

This result is then multiplied by the maximum intensity for that zone. If the zone has no FAR standard but does have maximum heights, use Table 8 to determine the FAR equivalent. This process is repeated for each zoning district in the TOC area where office uses are permitted, and the results for each zone are summed to result in the weighted average required allowable maximum commercial office intensity.10

General Guidance and Special Circumstances for Average Density and Intensity Calculations

Parcels Bisected by the ½-Mile TOC Area Boundary
If a parcel is bisected by the TOC area’s ½-mile boundary, only the portion of the parcel within the ½-mile TOC area buffer is counted toward the weighted average density. At MTC staff’s discretion, the entirety of a bisected parcel can contribute to the TOC area’s weighted average density if local jurisdiction staff demonstrate the importance of the parcel for achieving TOC Policy goals.

Mixed-Use Districts: Parcels to Include
Parcels in mixed-use zoning districts that allow both residential and commercial office as permitted uses should be counted in calculations of average residential density and then again in calculations of average commercial office intensity for each TOC area. No assumptions about the mix of uses are necessary on mixed-use parcels—simply report the minimum and maximum density or FAR permitted by zoning in each case. In cases where zoning establishes lower minimum and maximum FARs for projects that are entirely office than it does for mixed-use or residential projects, the higher minimum and allowable maximum FARs may be used in the calculation of the average commercial office intensity.

SB 6 (2022, Caballero)/AB 2011 (2022, Wicks)
SB 6 and AB 2011 allow residential uses by right in some commercial zoning districts.

For the purposes of the minimum and maximum average density calculations, residential uses should only be counted in a commercial zone if they are expressly listed as a permitted use in the zoning regulations. Jurisdictions are encouraged to amend their zoning codes to list residential as permitted in those zones affected by SB 6 and AB 2011.

10 Maximum FAR (intensity) thresholds are based on the potential maximum for a given site; this may vary from site to site in areas where Precise Plans or Specific Plans are in effect. 506

Page 23 of 40 ends

Planned Unit Development or Planned Development (PD) Districts For parcels in zoning districts where densities are determined through a subsequent project-level planning process (e.g., Planned Unit Developments), or were previously determined through such a process, the jurisdiction may use the densities and intensities in its General Plan. The jurisdiction also has the option of using any minimum and maximum densities/intensities that were established when the PD was created. To use a minimum density, the relevant Plan must require that development occur at or above the minimum.

Developer Agreements
If a jurisdiction has a developer agreement in place in the TOC area prior to January 1, 2024, and local staff are concerned about the impact on TOC Policy compliance, the jurisdiction should contact MTC staff for assistance. However, jurisdictions will not be able to seek flexibility or exemptions for TOC compliance for developer agreements established after January 1, 2024.

Overlay Zones
For parcels to which a base zone and overlay zone apply, a jurisdiction may include any supplemental density and intensity permitted by the overlay zone when calculating the average maximum allowable density/intensity, provided the overlay permits the residential or office use as a permitted use in a non-discretionary way (comparable to the base zone). If an overlay establishes higher minimum densities than the base zone, the same allowance applies, and the overlay minimum may be used in calculating the average minimum density/intensity.

Density Bonuses
For parcels subject to state density bonus law, the TOC Policy density requirements apply to the base zoning (i.e., state density bonuses cannot be considered for meeting the TOC Policy’s thresholds for minimum density or allowable maximum density).

Section 2: Affordable Housing Production, Preservation, and Protection Policies and Commercial Stabilization Policies

Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
A jurisdiction will fulfill the Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization requirements by selecting from the menu of options in Table 9 the policies that best meet local needs. To comply, a jurisdiction must adopt at least:
• Two policies for each of the “3Ps”—affordable housing production, preservation, and protection.
507

Page 24 of 40 ends

• One policy related to commercial stabilization, unless the jurisdiction can document there are no potential impacts to small businesses and/or community non-profits.

A jurisdiction may meet the requirements with existing adopted policies or as needed, adopt new policies by the TOC Policy compliance deadline. Appendix A describes each of the policy options in more detail and outlines the specific minimum standards a jurisdiction’s policy must meet to comply with TOC Policy requirements. Compliance with TOC housing policy requirements should be completed in conformance with relevant federal and state laws, including a jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

For each of the “3Ps” policies selected to comply with TOC Policy requirements, the jurisdiction must also include a brief explanation for how the policy addresses the jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and/or other housing needs as identified in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element.

Table 9: Affordable Housing and Commercial Stabilization Policy Options Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and Anti-
Displacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
2 policies
Select at least
1 policy

1. Inclusionary Zoning Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing
“Just Cause” Eviction Small Business
and Non-Profit
Overlay Zone

2. Affordable Housing
Funding
Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase
No Net Loss and Right
to Return to Demolished
Homes
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Preference Policy

3. Affordable Housing
Overlay Zones
Single-Room
Occupancy (SRO)
Preservation
Legal Assistance for
Tenants
Small Business
and Non-Profit
Financial
Assistance
Program

4. Public Land for
Affordable Housing
Condominium
Conversion Restrictions
Foreclosure Assistance Small Business
Advocate Office

5. Ministerial Approval Public/Community Land
Trusts1
Rental Assistance
Program
Blank

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts1
Funding to Support
Preservation Capacity
Rent Stabilization Blank

7. Development
Certainty and
Streamlined
Entitlement Process
Mobile Home
Preservation
Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Blank
508

Page 25 of 40 ends

Affordable
Housing
Production Policy
Affordable Housing
Preservation Policy
Affordable Housing
Protection and Anti-
Displacement Policy
Commercial
Stabilization
Policy

8. Blank Preventing
Displacement from
Substandard Conditions
and Associated Code
Enforcement Activities2
Tenant Relocation
Assistance
Blank

9. Blank Blank Mobile Home Rent
Stabilization
Blank

10. Blank Blank Fair Housing
Enforcement
Blank

11. Blank Blank Tenant Anti-Harassment
Protections
Blank
Notes:

1. This policy may fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

2. This policy may fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Geography for Policy Applicability
At minimum, policies must apply in all TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s), which could include the entirety of the jurisdiction (i.e., adopting a jurisdiction-wide policy). Some policies detailed in Appendix A have additional, policy-specific geographic applicability considerations.

Limits on Housing Policies Eligibility to Meet TOC Policy Requirements As noted in Table 9 and Appendix A, there are two cross-cutting policies that appear in multiple places in the menu of options:
• Public/Community Land Trusts can be used to meet the requirement for Production or Preservation policies, but not both.
• Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities can be used to meet the requirement for Preservation or Protection policies, but not both.

Additionally, three of the Production policy options have overlapping minimum requirements. For these policies, a jurisdiction will only receive credit toward the TOC Policy requirements for one of the overlapping policies and the jurisdiction may elect which policy. As noted in Appendix A, the policies for which this restriction applies are:
• Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones • Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
• Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process

509

Page 26 of 40 ends

References to State Laws
In some cases, the descriptions of housing policy options included in the TOC Policy refer to existing state laws. The laws listed may not represent all laws that are relevant to the policy topic. MTC may adjust the requirements for complying with the TOC Policy over time in response to any changes to state law.

Policy Options Requiring Funding Commitments
Several of the affordable housing policy options require a specified financial commitment from a local jurisdiction. The minimum financial commitments reflect the fact that an effective housing program will have minimum staffing and related costs, below which meaningful impact is unlikely. The policy options that require a funding commitment are:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement

Guidelines for Demonstrating Projected Funding Meets Requirements For any of the policies listed above to comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must demonstrate it has a program with secured funding above a minimum threshold. 11 The
minimum funding thresholds represent a total amount for a four-year period aligning with the relevant four-year OBAG cycle. For jurisdictions seeking TOC Policy

11 Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four -year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 510

Page 27 of 40 ends

compliance for OBAG 4, the four-year funding period is anticipated to correspond to the years 2026 through 2030. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction.

Guidelines for Counting Existing Funds or Past Expenditures Toward Requirements Jurisdictions that have an existing funding balance for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle.

Jurisdictions that have expended funds for a program corresponding to one of the above policy options prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
• The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an affordable housing project that will be constructed during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
• The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.

Jurisdiction Tiers for Funding Amounts
In recognition of the variation in Bay Area jurisdictions’ housing needs and funding capacity, there are seven different tiers to determine the minimum amount of funding a jurisdiction must provide over a four-year period for each policy option requiring a funding commitment (if that policy is selected by the jurisdiction to meet TOC Policy requirements). The tiers are based on the jurisdiction’s combined 2023-2031 RHNA for very low- and low-income units. The tiers, and the associated minimum funding commitment, are shown in Table 10 below. See Appendix B. for a list of the jurisdictions in each Funding Tier.

For the policies in the Protection category, the required funding amount by tier can be split among any two of the four policies, but the jurisdiction will only receive credit for one policy. For example, a Tier A jurisdiction could choose to spend $30,000 on fair housing enforcement and $70,000 on a rental assistance program, for a total of $100,000. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could spend $100,000 on a single policy, such as rental assistance. In either scenario, the jurisdiction would receive credit toward one policy for meeting the $100,000 funding threshold for Protection policies.

511

Page 28 of 40 ends

Table 10: Minimum 4-Year Funding per Policy by Tier
Production Preservation Protection
Tier

2. Affordable
Housing Funding,

6. Public/Community
Land Trusts

1. Funding to Preserve
Unsubsidized Affordable
Housing, 5. Public/Community
Land Trusts

3. Legal Assistance for
Tenants, 4. Foreclosure
Assistance, 5. Rental
Assistance Program, 10. Fair
Housing Enforcement
A $1,000,000 $500,000 $100,000
B $1,400,000 $600,000 $200,000 C $2,000,000 $700,000
D $3,000,000 $900,000 $300,000 E $4,000,000 $1,200,000
F $8,000,000 $2,400,000 $400,000
G $40,000,000 $8,000,000 $1,000,000

Though Preservation Policy 6 (Funding to Support Preservation Capacity) requires a funding commitment, the minimum funding requirement is not a set dollar amount that varies across the tiers listed above. Instead, jurisdictions seeking credit for this policy need to demonstrate their funding programs have secured funding able to support project management staffing for a minimum of four years at approximately 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE).

Additionally, Preservation Policy 8/Protection Policy 7 (Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities) have multiple options to achieve compliance, one of which is a loan/grant program for home repairs and addressing habitability issues in rental housing. Though these policy options require the jurisdiction to fund these programs, a minimum funding amount is not specified.

However, the option for Preservation Policy 8 requires a minimum loan/grant of $10,000 per low-income homeowner assisted by the program.

Allowable Sources for Policies Requiring Funding
Funding for some of the policy options must be locally generated, while other policy options do not have restrictions on the sources used to fund a program. The following policies representing investments in the physical production and preservation of affordable housing require funding to be locally generated:
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts

512

Page 29 of 40 ends

The following restrictions and guidelines apply when considering whether a funding source counts as “locally generated”:
• Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations.
• Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on affordable housing projects within its boundaries. • Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
• In-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
• If a jurisdiction is using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums. If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted.
• Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding.

The following policy options representing programmatic investments do not have restrictions on how a program is funded:
• Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for low-income homeowners)
• Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (if choosing the option to create a loan/grant program for landlords)
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement

513

Page 30 of 40 ends

Option for Local Jurisdiction Collaboratives to Meet TOC Policy Requirements MTC will allow implementation of affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies through collaboratives that involve more than one jurisdiction partnering to manage policy implementation. Implementation through a collaborative is intended to reduce administrative costs for local jurisdictions and increase efficiency of program delivery. This option may be particularly beneficial for smaller jurisdictions (those in Tiers A to D above) or medium-sized jurisdictions (those in Tiers E and F above).

Implementing a policy through a collaborative generally does not change the minimum requirements for each participating jurisdiction. However, a jurisdiction can receive a 10 percent reduction in the funding requirement for its individual financial contribution to collaborative implementation. For example, a city that transfers funds to its county to administer a tenant rental assistance program can contribute 10 percent less than the funding threshold in Table 10, as long as the county operates the program in accordance with the standards in Appendix A.

Target Policies for Collaboratives
MTC specifically anticipates that the policies below will benefit from collaborative implementation. However, jurisdictions may use a collaborative to implement any of the affordable housing and commercial stabilization policies, subject to MTC approval.

Production: 2. Affordable Housing Funding and 6. Public/Community Land Trusts.

Preservation: 1. Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing, 5.

Public/Community Land Trusts, 6. Funding to Support Preservation Capacity, and 8.

Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities

Protection: 3. Legal Assistance for Tenants, 4. Foreclosure Assistance, 5. Rental Assistance Program, 7. Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities, and 10. Fair Housing Enforcement

Commercial Stabilization: 3. Small Business and Nonprofit Financial Assistance Program

Any jurisdiction intending to implement a TOC housing policy through a collaborative must provide MTC with documentation on the roles and responsibilities for the collaborative and jurisdiction, as well as a schedule of expected funding to the collaborative. MTC may request additional information on collaboratives.

514

Page 31 of 40 ends

Relationship to HCD’s Prohousing Program
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has a Prohousing Designation Program that provides incentives to jurisdictions that have policies to support increased housing production. While there are similarities between the requirements for a Prohousing Designation and the TOC Policy, there is not sufficient consistency between the policy options and other requirements for a jurisdiction that has received the Prohousing Designation from HCD to automatically meet TOC Policy requirements for affordable housing production policies.

Table 11 provides information on which Prohousing Designation policies correspond to the affordable housing production policy options for the TOC Policy. If jurisdictions are currently applying for or planning to apply for HCD’s Prohousing Designation, they should consider committing to policies in their Prohousing Designation application that would also achieve TOC Policy compliance. Importantly, policies adopted for the Prohousing Designation would also need to meet the minimum requirements detailed in Appendix A of the TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Table 11: Overlap Between HCD Prohousing and TOC Policy Affordable Housing Production Policy Options
Affordable Housing
Production Policy Options for
TOC Policy Policy Options for HCD Prohousing Designation Production Policy 2: Affordable Category 4A: Establishment of local housing trust funds Housing Funding Category 4E: Directed residual redevelopment funds to affordable housing.

Blank Category 4F: Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source.

Blank Category 4G: Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing.

Production Policy 3: Affordable
Housing Overlay Zones
Category 1D: Density bonus programs which exceed
statutory requirements by 10 percent or more.

Production Policy 4: Public Land
for Affordable Housing
Category 4C: A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to lower income households.

A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or below- market land leases.

Production Policy 5: Ministerial
Approval
Category 2A: Establishment of ministerial approval
processes for a variety of housing types, including single- family and multifamily housing.
515

Page 32 of 40 ends

Affordable Housing
Production Policy Options for
TOC Policy Policy Options for HCD Prohousing Designation Production Policy 7:

Development Certainty and
Category 2D: Establishment of permit processes that take less than four months.

Streamlined Entitlement
Process
Category 2E: Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan.

Blank Category 2F: Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan.

Blank Category 2L: Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer.

Submitting Required Documentation
For each policy a jurisdiction selects to meet the minimum number required for TOC Policy compliance, the jurisdiction must provide a document or website link that provides the adopted policy or relevant municipal code section. The jurisdiction must also confirm that it meets the minimum requirements established for each policy, which are described in more detail in Appendix A. Local jurisdictions must submit all documents electronically.

Section 3: Parking Management

Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
The purpose of the TOC Policy parking management requirements is to further support reducing automobile trips and prioritizing the limited land area near transit for other shared transportation modes and active transportation. Parking management is a key complement to residential and commercial density increases that support higher transit ridership on the region’s existing and planned fixed-guideway transit investments.

For compliance with the TOC Policy, MTC will focus on a jurisdiction’s compliance with the parking standards (Table 12). To support limits on off-street parking for new development, one or more additional policies or programs that address parking management must also be in place. These may be one of the policies or programs listed below under Complementary Policies for Parking Management, or another policy or program aligned with the intent of the parking management requirement. For policies or programs that are not one of those listed below, a jurisdiction must explain how the policy or program addresses parking demand management in the TOC area.

516

Page 33 of 40 ends

Parking Standards for New Residential or Commercial Development Off-street vehicle parking standards for new residential or general and neighborhood- serving commercial development (e.g., office, retail, and service businesses) must meet the applicable standards for its Transit Tier listed in Table 12, including:
• No minimum automobile parking requirement in most Transit Tiers for new residential or commercial development.12
• For parcels on which residential development13 is allowed:
o The applicable maximum automobile parking per dwelling unit ratio o At least one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. • For parcels on which commercial development is allowed:
o The applicable maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square foot ratio. o At least one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for commercial office.
• For parcels on which both residential and commercial development are allowed:
o The sum of the applicable maximum automobile parking per dwelling unit and the applicable maximum automobile parking per 1,000 square feet. o At least the sum of one secure bicycle parking space per dwelling unit plus one secure bicycle parking space per 5,000 occupied square feet for commercial office.
• Allow unbundled parking.14,15
• Allow shared parking between different land uses.16

12 The TOC Policy does not have a requirement related to minimum parking for Tier 4 TOC areas.

However, jurisdictions must comply with applicable state law prohibiting parking minimums, such as AB 2097.
13 Residential developments permitted in commercial zones through AB 2011 should follow the applicable TOC standards for residential development, not commercial development. 14 Unbundling parking means separating the cost of leasing a parking space from the sale or rental price of residential and commercial uses.
15 For jurisdictions in Alameda County or Santa Clara County, AB 1317 (2023) requires unbundled parking in new residential developments with 16 or more units that are issued a certificated of occupancy after January 1, 2025. See California Civil Code Section 1947.1 for more information. 16 AB 894 (2023) requires jurisdictions to allow entities with underutilized parking to share their underutilized parking spaces with the public, local agencies, or other entities, if those entities submit a shared parking agreement. See California Government Code Section 65863.1 for more information. 517

Page 34 of 40 ends

Table 12: TOC Policy Parking Management Requirements
Level of Transit Service
New Residential
Development
New Commercial
Development
Tier 1: Rail stations serving
regional centers (i.e.,
Downtown San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland, and
Downtown San José)
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.375
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.25
spaces per 1,000 square feet or
lower.

Tier 2: Stop/station served by
two or more BART lines or
BART and Caltrain
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 0.5
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.6 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

Tier 3: Stop/station served by
one BART line, Caltrain, light
rail transit, or bus rapid transit
Parking minimum
requirements not allowed.

Parking maximum of 1.0
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking minimum requirements
not allowed.

Parking maximum of 2.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

Tier 4: Commuter rail
(SMART, ACE, Capitol
Corridor, Valley Link) stations,
Caltrain stations south of
Tamien, or ferry terminals
Parking maximum of 1.5
spaces per unit or lower.

Parking maximum of 4.0 spaces
per 1,000 square feet or lower.

All Tiers Minimum of 1 secure
bicycle parking17 space per
dwelling unit.18
Minimum of 1 secure bicycle
parking space per 5,000 square
feet for commercial office.

The TOC Policy’s off-street parking standards do not supersede other applicable requirements for parking for people with disabilities that are required by the California Building Code, or other state or federal laws, or off-street parking for deliveries.

While not specified in the TOC Policy, in addition to accommodating conventional bicycles in the bicycle parking requirement, bicycle parking spaces should consider specifications that will also accommodate cargo and electric bicycles (e-bikes).

Note Regarding AB 2097 and Minimum Parking Standards
The TOC Policy and AB 2097 have similar provisions with respect to parking minimums.

Broadly speaking, AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing parking minimums on any residential, commercial, or other development project located within a ½-mile of a major transit stop. For the purposes of TOC Policy compliance,

17 Secure bicycle parking should follow the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ Essentials of Bike Parking Guidelines as well as HCD’s forthcoming update to the California Green Building Standards Code, per AB 2863 (2022).
18 For a single building with more than 100 units, the jurisdiction can apply a ratio of one secure bicycle parking space for every four units to the number of units above 100. For example, a 140- unit building would need 110 bicycle parking spaces (100 + 0.25*40).
518

Page 35 of 40 ends

MTC staff will defer to local jurisdictions’ interpretation of applicable state law (i.e., Government Code Section 65863.2) to determine which parcels are subject to the TOC Policy’s parking management requirements. In other words, the parcels in a TOC area that a jurisdiction has determined are subject to Government Code Section 65863.2 must also meet the parking management requirements described in Table 12 above.

AB 2097 has an exemption process where a jurisdiction can impose minimum parking standards. For TOC Policy compliance, MTC encourages, but does not require, jurisdictions to forgo this exemption process.

Complementary Policies for Parking Management
In addition to complying with the off-street parking standards, a jurisdiction must adopt at least one of the policies or programs from MTC/ABAG’s Parking Policy Playbook listed below to address transportation demand management (TDM) and curb management in TOC areas that complement the Policy’s required parking standards:
• TDM Policy for New Development: require provision and enforcement of transportation demand management (TDM).
• Curb Strategy/Management: Priority curb access based on variable need. • Parking Benefit District (PBD): Invest parking revenues into a PBD to fund streetscape, safety, and TDM programs.
• Demand-Responsive Pricing: Price parking according to level of convenience and demand.
• Priced Parking: Adding priced parking where it used to be free.

TDM and curb-management policies or programs may apply to either the TOC area or jurisdiction-wide.

Submitting Required Documentation

Parking Standards for New Residential or Commercial Development A jurisdiction must document its off-street parking requirements for new residential and commercial uses and its requirements for secure bicycle parking for new multifamily residential and office development in locations subject to the TOC Policy, including the citation for the municipal code or ordinance codifying such requirements.

Vehicle Minimum Parking Standards
A jurisdiction has three options for meeting the TOC Policy’s requirement related to minimum parking standards:

1. Confirmation of Compliance with AB 2097: Local jurisdiction staff can attest that their jurisdiction complies with AB 2097. A jurisdiction that complies with AB 2097 is deemed in compliance with the TOC Policy’s requirement related to minimum parking standards.
519

Page 36 of 40 ends

2. Resolution of Compliance with AB 2097: A jurisdiction is encouraged, but not required, to pass a resolution confirming compliance with AB 2097 and stating it will not seek exemptions from AB 2097 for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas.19

3. Ordinance to Remove Parking Minimums: A jurisdiction may adopt an ordinance that removes parking minimum requirements for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas. This prohibition could also be incorporated into an overlay zone or changes to the jurisdiction’s use table or chapter that is adopted to address the TOC Policy’s parking maximums (see below).

Vehicle Maximum Parking Standards
A jurisdiction must show that its adopted parking maximums cover at least the ½-mile TOC area (if the policy does not apply jurisdiction-wide) and meet the TOC Policy’s standards for the TOC area’s transit tier. If the jurisdiction’s parking maximums are not expressed as parking spaces per unit (e.g., instead there are parking maximums per bedroom), a jurisdiction may propose an alternative method of demonstrating compliance subject to MTC staff approval. This alternative method may include, but is not limited to, proposing an equivalency calculation that translates the local maximum into spaces per unit.

There are two approaches for meeting the TOC Policy’s maximum parking standards:

1. Adopt an overlay zone or updates to a parking use table or chapter: A jurisdiction must have an adopted policy that includes parking maximums for residential and commercial uses that meet TOC standards and that clearly defines the geography to which the standards apply. Defining the geography and maximum parking standards can be done by creating an overlay zone or by amending the jurisdiction’s parking use table or chapter for development within TOC areas. As the TOC Policy parking maximums vary based on a TOC area’s transit tier, a jurisdiction with multiple TOC areas may need to specify several combinations of geography/parking maximums. Optionally, a jurisdiction may choose to include language that removes parking minimum requirements for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 TOC areas (as described in Option 3, above).

A local jurisdiction must provide municipal code citations for the adopted overlay zone or parking use table/chapter that clearly demonstrate that the vehicle parking maximums for residential and commercial uses meet TOC thresholds for the TOC area’s transit tier and that those standards apply to, at minimum, the entire ½-mile TOC area.

2. Adopt a parking district, station area cap or other methods that limit parking: Standards may apply to individual projects or may be met through the creation of a parking district that provides shared vehicle parking for multiple land

19 Per TOC policy, a jurisdiction may require parking minimums in Tier 4 TOC areas. 520

Page 37 of 40 ends

uses within an area. For example, a specific or area plan may determine an overall total amount of new, off-street parking that may be constructed in the area. Some development projects may provide more off-street parking, while others may provide less off-street parking, or parking may be shared between multiple new uses. In such cases, the total amount of new off-street parking to be built should be equivalent to or less than the TOC Policy’s parking standards.

For parking districts or other types of area-wide approaches to parking management, a jurisdiction must provide any relevant plans or policies as well as calculations showing the approach will result in creation of the same or less new off-street parking than the TOC Policy’s parking maximum requirements. The calculations could use assumptions about future buildout (e.g., from a recently completed plan and/or EIR) and the parking permitted in the district to allow for a comparison to the TOC Policy parking maximum requirements.

Minimum Bicycle Parking Standards
A local jurisdiction must provide municipal code citations for an adopted overlay zone or parking use table/chapter that clearly demonstrate that the minimum bicycle parking standards for residential and commercial uses meet TOC thresholds for, at minimum, the entire ½-mile TOC area.

Unbundled and Shared Parking
For unbundled and shared parking, a local jurisdiction must document and provide citations for the adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance allowing unbundled and shared parking. Further detail on unbundled and shared parking is provided in the MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook.

Complementary Policies for Parking Management
A local jurisdiction must also document and provide citations for the adopted plans, policies, and/or municipal code or ordinance for one or more of the policies or programs from the MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook listed above that apply either to the geographic area where the TOC Policy applies or jurisdiction-wide.

Available Resources for Parking Management
The MTC/ABAG Parking Policy Playbook provides detailed guidance and practical tools, such as sample policy language, about how to implement policy changes related to parking, transportation demand management (TDM), and curb management.
521

Page 38 of 40 ends

Section 4: Station Access and Circulation

Summary of TOC Policy Requirements
In coordination with transit agencies and other mobility service providers, community members, and other stakeholders, a jurisdiction must complete the following in all TOC areas:
• Adopt a jurisdiction-wide Complete Streets Policy.
• Prioritize implementation of “All Ages and Abilities” active transportation projects on the regional Active Transportation Network, as stated in the MTC Complete Streets Policy20 and/or any relevant Community Based Transportation Plans within the TOC area in its capital improvement program (CIP) or other adopted plan or program that lists the jurisdiction’s funding and implementation priorities.
• Complete an access gap analysis and accompanying capital and/or service improvement program for station access from destinations within a 10-minute travel time (accounting for differences in travel speed and time for people who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids), and 15-minute bicycle or bus/shuttle trip either as a separate study or analysis or as part of a specific or area plan, active transportation plan, transit agency station access plan, or other transportation plan or study that, at a minimum, includes the following:
o The geographic area that can currently be accessed via a 10- or 15- minute trip by these modes,
21 with particular focus on access to Equity
Priority Communities and other significant origins and/or destinations. o Infrastructure and/or service improvements that would expand the geographic area that can be accessed via a 10- or 15-minute trip by these modes.
o Incorporation of recommended improvements into a capital improvement or service plan for the local jurisdiction and/or transit agency (if applicable). • As all TOC areas are also MTC Mobility Hub locations, identify opportunities for Mobility Hub planning and implementation as described in the Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook. For transit lines where stops or stations are more closely spaced (e.g., less than ½-mile apart) such as light rail or bus rapid transit facilities, planning and implementation for Mobility Hubs may be done on a corridor-wide basis rather than for each individual stop or station.

Additionally, recognizing that not all light rail or bus rapid transit stops/stations will receive enhancement treatments, locations that are transfer points for at least two different transit systems or major activity centers should be the focus.

20 See MTC Resolution No. 4493.
21 This generally equates to a 0.5-mile walk shed and 1.5-mile bike shed. 522

Page 39 of 40 ends

Submitting Required Documentation

Complete Streets:

A jurisdiction with an adopted Complete Streets (CS) Policy is considered compliant for the complete streets policy requirement. MTC has documented jurisdiction CS Policies through its One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program, most recently compiled in 2015. If a jurisdiction has updated its CS Policy since 2015, it should submit or include a link to the updated CS Policy.

A jurisdiction submitting a transportation project for regional funding that is located in the public right of way must be compliant with MTC’s updated Complete Streets Policy, Resolution 4493. This requires the submission of a Complete Streets Checklist.

Project Prioritization/Implementation:

To demonstrate that it has prioritized implementation of active transportation projects and/or projects from MTC’s Community-Based Transportation Planning Program within the TOC area, a jurisdiction must submit at least one of the following:
• Capital Improvement Program with relevant projects identified. • Projects funded or submitted for funding (e.g., OBAG, ATP, etc.) within the past five years.
• Other funding or implementation plans that include relevant projects.

Access Gap Analysis:

To demonstrate that it has completed analysis or planning with a focus on improving 10- to 15-minute access to/from the TOC area (and connecting to Equity Priority Communities, if applicable), emphasizing capital or service improvements, a jurisdiction must submit at least one of the following:
• Adopted PDA, Specific, Precise or Area plan(s) that include a station access or circulation element (submit access/circulation element only, or include link to adopted plan with specific page numbers that reference access/circulation element).
• Transit agency station access plans.

However, if these plans have not been completed for the TOC area, a jurisdiction may submit:
• Adopted active transportation, bicycle or pedestrian plan(s) that include recommended access improvements to/from the TOC area.
• Applicable sections of General Plan Circulation Element that highlight specific elements that guide or inform station access improvements.

523

Page 40 of 40 ends

Jurisdiction-wide or county-wide documents such as active transportation, bicycle, pedestrian plans or General Plan Circulation Elements may only be submitted as evidence of compliance if they include details for specific improvements within the TOC area and should be noted upon submittal. MTC staff will work with local jurisdictions to streamline the process for verifying compliance in locations with overlapping TOC areas.

Mobility Hubs:

To comply with the Mobility Hub planning and implementation requirement, jurisdictions must submit any current plans or projects that enhance the TOC area as a community anchor enabling travelers of all backgrounds and abilities to access transit and other forms of shared transportation. Enhancements may include (but are not limited to) safety improvements, bike parking, electric charging infrastructure (bikes, scooters, carshare), public realm improvements (e.g., lighting, green infrastructure), information improvements (e.g., wayfinding, real-time information) or any other active transportation access improvements within the TOC area.

If the documents submitted to comply with the access requirements listed above contain plans for or implement these enhancements, they must be specifically noted to comply with this Mobility Hubs requirement; OR

List any current or prior funding application for MTC’s Mobility Hub Program for the TOC area. Include the date of application submission.

MTC staff will work with local jurisdictions to streamline the process for verifying compliance in locations with overlapping TOC areas.

Available Resources for Station Access and Circulation
Complete Streets and Active Transportation
• MTC’s Complete Streets webpage
• MTC’s Regional Active Transportation Plan webpage
• MTC’s Community-Based Transportation Plans webpage

Access Gap Analyses
• San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development Pedestrian Access Plan • Irvington Station Area Plan, Access & Mobility Chapter • Berkeley El Cerrito Corridor Access Plan

Mobility Hubs
• MTC’s Mobility Hubs webpage
• MTC’s Mobility Hubs Technical Assistance webpage
524

Page 1 of 61 ends

Appendix A: TOC Policy Housing and Commercial
Stabilization Policy Requirements
Affordable housing policies are typically designed for specific income groups. MTC recognizes that different income and rent limits are imposed by different state and federal programs, and it is not the intent of the TOC Policy to create new requirements.

This document generally refers to policies intended to target “lower-income” and/or “moderate-income” households. For reference, state law (Health and Safety Code, section 50079.5) defines “lower-income” as households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), and state law (Health and Safety Code, section 50093) defines “moderate-income” as households earning between 80% and 120% of AMI. Where the TOC Policy or this document discuss policies serving lower-income households, jurisdictions are free to design policies that serve any income group earning less than 80% of AMI, including very low-income (30% to 50% of AMI) and extremely low-income (0% to 30% of AMI) households. Similarly, policies serving lower- and moderate-income households can serve any income group below 120% of AMI.

I. Affordable Housing Production Policy Options

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must adopt at least two of the affordable housing production policies listed below:
• Production Policy 1: Inclusionary Zoning
• Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
• Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones • Production Policy 4: Public Land for Affordable Housing • Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
• Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts (This policy may fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.) • Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process.

A jurisdiction may meet the requirements with existing adopted policies, or as needed, adopt new policies by the TOC Policy compliance deadline. At minimum, policies must apply in TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s), which could include the entirety of the jurisdiction (i.e., adopting a jurisdiction- wide policy). See Section 2 of the guidance document for more information about these requirements.

525

Page 2 of 61 ends

Production Policy 1: Inclusionary Zoning
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Requires that 15% of units in new residential development projects above a certain number of units be deed-restricted affordable to low-income1 households. A lower percentage may be adopted if it can be demonstrated by a satisfactory financial feasibility analysis that a 15% requirement is not feasible.

Purpose
Inclusionary zoning requires new residential construction projects to contribute to a jurisdiction’s affordable housing stock. Inclusionary zoning can enable jurisdictions to leverage private dollars for affordable housing, bringing affordable units online faster and in greater numbers than relying exclusively on public funding streams. Inclusionary zoning also helps ensure new affordable housing units are developed in the same neighborhoods as new market-rate development, furthering the goal of economic integration.

Typically, a city or county will adopt an inclusionary zoning policy to both add more affordable homes to its inventory and ensure lower-income households can live in high- opportunity neighborhoods where they would otherwise be priced out. Inclusionary zoning can be a method to address historic patterns of exclusion and segregation by ensuring housing is available for lower-wage workers, guarding against concentrations of poverty and affluence, and making it possible for lower-income households to live in higher-resource neighborhoods. An effective inclusionary zoning policy will establish affordability requirements and standards for affordable units, as well as provide incentives and compliance alternatives for developers.

Relevant State Law
AB 1505 (2017)
AB 1505 (2017) outlines state requirements for a jurisdiction’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. The law requires jurisdictions to allow alternative means to comply with requirements, such as in-lieu fees, building affordable units off-site, or dedicating land for the construction of affordable housing. Under certain circumstances, the law also allows HCD to review a local ordinance that requires more than 15% affordable units. 2 Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s inclusionary zoning policy must meet the following minimum requirements:

1 In some contexts, state and federal agencies use the term “low-income” to refer to the more specific category of households earning between 50% of AMI and 80% of AMI. However, the use of the term “low- income households” in MTC Resolution No. 4530 is assumed to be synonymous with the broader category of “lower-income,” or all households below 80% of AMI. 2 For more information about Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 (2017) and the state legal framework governing inclusionary zoning policies, see this memorandum prepared by the Public Interest Law Project . 526

Page 3 of 61 ends

• The policy must apply to newly constructed residential or mixed-use residential projects. The policy must apply to ownership and rental units. • The policy may exempt properties with fewer than 11 units, student housing, 100% affordable housing, senior housing, or other special housing types. • The policy must require at least 15% of units be deed-restricted affordable housing units.
• For rental units, the policy’s affordability requirements must require the income mix of affordable units to average out to 80% of AMI or less, with no affordable rental units available to households above 120% of AMI. For ownership units, the policy’s affordability requirements must require the income mix of affordable units to average out to 120% of AMI or less, with no affordable ownership units available to households above 150% of AMI. Jurisdictions should require deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives. • The policy may require less than 15% affordable units if:
o The jurisdiction provides an analysis showing that an alternative requirement is economically equivalent to the 15% standard (for example, a policy that required fewer units at a deeper affordability level, such as 10% of units affordable to households earning less than 50% of AMI).

OR
o A financial feasibility analysis (completed within 24 months of the date that inclusionary zoning policy was adopted) found that a 15% requirement was not feasible.
• The policy may require more than 15% affordable units. 3 • Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing or at least 45 years for ownership housing.
• Per state law, inclusionary zoning must allow for alternative means of compliance (e.g., paying in-lieu fees to support affordable housing development, building affordable units off-site, or dedicating land for the construction of affordable housing). For compliance with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction with an in-lieu fee that typically results in a payment of less than $100,000 per affordable unit, must provide a justification for why the fee will result in at least as many restricted affordable housing units as would be required of a project providing onsite units.

3 State Law (AB 1550) allows HCD to request a feasibility study for requirements greater than 15%, but does not require that such a feasibility study be completed prior to adoption of the ordinance. 527

Page 4 of 61 ends

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• If the inclusionary zoning policy requires less than 15% affordable units, an analysis showing economic equivalency of the alternative standard (e.g., fewer units at deeper levels of affordability) or a financial feasibility analysis showing a 15% requirement is not feasible for the jurisdiction’s local market conditions. MTC has developed a spreadsheet illustrating the analysis of economic equivalency.

Jurisdictions may fill in the template spreadsheet or create/commission a comparable analysis to show that the jurisdiction’s requirements are comparable to the cost of providing 15% of rental units affordable to 80% of AMI and/or 15% or ownership units to 120% of AMI.
• If the policy allows payment of an in-lieu fee, documentation (e.g., municipal ordinance citation or program guidelines) demonstrating that the fee will typically exceed $100,000 per required onsite affordable unit. MTC has developed a spreadsheet to help determine whether an in-lieu fee is equivalent to at least $100,000 per require onsite affordable unit. If the in-lieu fee paid per affordable unit is typically less than $100,000, the jurisdiction must provide an analysis showing the in-lieu fee will be sufficient to produce at least as many restricted affordable housing units as the number that would have been required for onsite compliance.
• A management plan that outlines procedures for annual monitoring to ensure residents are income-eligible and rents are consistent with program guidelines.

Production Policy 2: Affordable Housing Funding
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Dedicated local funding for production of deed- restricted affordable housing.

Purpose
Dedicated, ongoing funding provided by local jurisdictions for the creation of deed- restricted affordable housing is a central piece of a comprehensive and inclusive affordable housing strategy. In addition to helping to make projects financially feasible, local financial support is a critical factor in securing outside subsidy. Without local funding, it can be difficult for projects to compete for the necessary state and federal funding. These funds are often collected into a housing trust fund or other dedicated account to be dispersed as subsidies and/or low-cost loans to developers. Effective affordable housing funding programs will pool and disperse funds, which are made available to developers through a single application process.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s affordable housing funding program must meet the following minimum requirements:
528

Page 5 of 61 ends

• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding4 that provides ongoing allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. • Funding must be locally generated.
o Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees and housing impact fees, taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations.
o Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on affordable housing projects within its boundaries.
o Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
o In-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can also be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
o If a jurisdiction is also using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums required for this affordable housing funding policy (Production Policy 2). If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted towards satisfying Production Policy 2.
o NOTE: Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding. • Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a housing funding program when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle). • Jurisdictions that have committed affordable housing funds prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds

4 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle.

529

Page 6 of 61 ends

toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an affordable housing project that will be constructed during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• The program must establish a standard set of financing terms, including affordability requirements. The program’s affordability requirements must define affordable units as rental housing available to lower-income households earning 80% of AMI or less, and ownership housing to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. Jurisdictions should incentivize deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives. • Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A copy of the program’s financing terms if they are not included in an ordinance or other documents establishing the program. Financing terms must indicate the income limits/affordability levels and required affordability period, and the terms must identify a legal mechanism for enforcement of affordable housing requirements (e.g., deed restriction, regulatory agreement, etc.). • Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding allocated to the program over the four-year period.

MTC understands that projections of future funding may be imprecise, and the expectation is that a jurisdiction will provide a reasonable projection of future funding based on the best information available at the time of submitting compliance documentation to MTC. At the end of the four-year planning period (expected to align with the OBAG cycle), MTC will expect documentation of actual funding received by the program and invested in projects, which may differ from initial projections.

530

Page 7 of 61 ends

Production Policy 3: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Area-specific incentives, such as density bonuses and streamlined environmental review, for development projects that include at least 15% of units as deed-restricted affordable housing; exceeds any jurisdiction-wide inclusionary requirements or benefits from state density bonus.

Purpose
Changes to local land use law and other regulatory reforms can both enable and incentivize the construction of affordable housing. Zoning incentives can increase the cost-effectiveness of building affordable homes. An Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) is a general term reflecting a variety of potential approaches that provide a package of incentives to developers who include units in their projects that are affordable to lower-income households. They are called “overlay” zones because they layer on top of established base zoning regulations, offering additional benefits to projects that increase the supply of affordable homes. AHOZ incentives may include increased density, relaxed height limits, reduced parking requirements, fast-tracked permitting, and exemptions from mixed-use requirements.

AHOZs are a mechanism through which cities can incentivize affordable housing development to specific zones. In addition, jurisdictions can expedite the approval and permit processes for affordable housing projects. Unlike inclusionary zoning policies that require either the building of affordable housing or the payment of an in-lieu fee, AHOZs are optional and incentive-based, offering developers key concessions in exchange for producing affordable housing. An effective AHOZ policy will provide meaningful incentives to projects that provide affordable housing and establish minimum affordability requirements at levels that reflect the jurisdiction’s need.

Relevant State Laws
State Density Bonus Law
State law (California Government Code Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives) dictates that a developer who meets certain requirements is entitled to a density bonus, including up to a 50% increase in density depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and an 80% increase for completely affordable projects.

This law includes incentives such as reduced parking requirements and concessions for reduced setbacks and minimum square footage requirements. 5 SB 35 (2017) and SB 423 (2023)
SB 35 (2017) dictates that a developer can request a streamlined, ministerial approval process for multifamily developments which include specified levels of affordable

5 For more information, including the full density bonus chart that outlines the percentage density bonus given for each level of affordability, see this guide on state Density Bonus Law prepared by Meyers Nave Legal Services.
531

Page 8 of 61 ends

housing in jurisdictions that have not met their prorated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Projects that comply with the jurisdiction’s objective design standards and existing zoning are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and public hearings. Depending on the number of units, the timeline for determining eligibility is either 60 or 90 days and the final decision must be issued between 90 and 180 days from application submittal.
6 SB 423 (2023) extends SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying multifamily developments until January 1, 2036. SB 423 also expands some provisions of SB 35, such as applying SB 35 to previously exempted coastal zone areas that are already zoned for housing.

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s AHOZ policy must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The AHOZ policy must offer incentives for projects with at least 15% affordable housing. The policy’s required share of affordable units must exceed any jurisdiction-wide inclusionary zoning requirements and what is otherwise incentivized by state law for any given income category. The policy could incentivize any higher proportion of affordable housing up to and including 100% (e.g., only provide incentives to 100% affordable projects). • To incentivize greater shares of affordability than otherwise incentivized by State Law, the AHOZ policy must provide qualifying projects with greater development potential in the form of:
o Density bonus: the policy must offset greater affordability with residential density greater than what is available under the state Density Bonus Law. o Additional “concessions” or “incentives”: the policy must provide qualifying projects with at least one additional “concession” or “incentive” than what is already available under the state Density Bonus Law. Incentives or concessions could include ministerial approval, some other form of streamlining, or modifications to other planning code requirements.

Incentives and concessions must result in an actual and identifiable cost reduction for the project.

6 For more information, see this fact sheet on Senate Bill 35 prepared by the City of San Leandro. 532

Page 9 of 61 ends

• The policy’s affordability requirements must define affordable units as rental housing available to lower-income households earning 80% of AMI or less, and ownership housing to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. Jurisdictions should require deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives.
• Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent and price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.

Production Policy 4: Public Land for Affordable Housing Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Policies to prioritize the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable and mixed-income housing that go beyond existing state law, typically accompanied by prioritization of available funding for projects on these sites.

Purpose
High land costs can make it difficult to create new affordable housing for low- or moderate-income households, particularly in high-value, amenity-rich locations. Local jurisdictions can help overcome this obstacle by identifying public property (including surplus government agency property and tax delinquent/seized property) that can be repurposed for residential use and making it available to developers who commit to creating and maintaining ongoing affordability.
7 Utilizing public land can increase
feasibility for developing affordable housing. Jurisdictions may donate land; sell land at a deep discount; or transfer land using a below-market, long-term ground lease to affordable housing developers or community land trusts. Jurisdictions can also incentivize the use of public land for affordable housing through zoning, fee waivers, and/or permit streamlining. This policy tool can be used effectively in all communities and is particularly important in communities where vacant land appropriate for residential use is scarce. Effective actions to prioritize the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable housing will include creating an inventory of publicly owned sites, noticing practices aimed towards maximizing affordable housing development, and collaboration with other public agencies.

Relevant State Law
Surplus Lands Act
The Surplus Lands Act (Government Code Sections 54220 – 54234) requires local agencies to make findings that property is either surplus or exempt surplus land before disposing of it. If the property is not exempt, the local agency must provide written

7 For more information, see the brief “Use of publicly owned property for affordable housing” prepared by Local Housing Solutions.
533

Page 10 of 61 ends

notice to housing developers to give them the first chance to purchase and develop surplus agency-owned land for affordable housing. If one of these interested parties purchases the land, then at least 25% of units developed must be affordable. However, if 90 days pass without reaching an agreement with one of these interested parties, then the affordability requirement for whatever development occurs on the land is 15% if 10 or more residential units are developed. The Surplus Land Act also includes penalties for local agencies that violate the Act when disposing of surplus lands.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must meet the following minimum requirements for prioritizing the reuse of publicly owned land for affordable housing:
• The jurisdiction must have a program or policy in the Housing Element that describes the redevelopment of publicly owned land for affordable housing and aligns with the other requirements described below.
o In the absence of a Housing Element policy/program, the jurisdiction must adopt a public lands policy that includes a set of principles and standards for planning, leasing, and disposing of publicly owned land, as well as a program of implementation actions.
• The jurisdiction must provide evidence of a recent, ongoing, or planned housing development project on a public land site that meets the requirements of this policy. Though jurisdictions should prioritize affordable housing development on public land within the TOC area, a public lands project does not need to be within the TOC area to receive credit toward TOC Policy compliance. o If the jurisdiction does not have an ongoing or planned public lands project, staff must demonstrate that at least one publicly owned parcel in the jurisdiction has been deemed suitable for affordable housing development. • If the recent, ongoing, or planned housing development project on a public land site is not on land owned by the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must provide evidence of financial support for the project. Financial support could be a grant/loan to the project or an in-kind contribution in the form of waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees. At their discretion, MTC staff may allow a jurisdiction to count a non-monetary benefit provided to a project in lieu of financial support. • For both rental and ownership projects, eligible developments on publicly owned land must exceed the Surplus Lands Act requirement to have at least 25% of units affordable to lower-income households earning 80% of AMI or less. Additional affordable units beyond the 25% for lower-income households can target both lower- and moderate-income households earning up to 120% of AMI. Jurisdictions should require higher percentages of affordable units and/or deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives. • Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents 534

Page 11 of 61 ends

and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.
• Building on its Housing Element sites inventory and supplementary data provided by MTC/ABAG (if needed), the jurisdiction must create a comprehensive inventory of publicly owned sites to identify opportunities to produce affordable or mixed- income housing. The site inventory must include both land that qualifies as “surplus” under the Surplus Lands Act and other currently underutilized sites owned by the jurisdiction and other public agencies (e.g., state, county, and local agencies, as well as other public entities such as school districts). • The jurisdiction must demonstrate it has dedicated staff or consultant time for monitoring and advancing the public lands program, including periodic review and evaluation of the inventory of publicly owned sites suitable for affordable housing development, outreach to affordable housing developers, and updates to City Council/Board of Supervisors.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A site inventory that meets the requirements described above. • At least one of the following:
o Documentation of a Housing Element policy/program for public land redevelopment that meets the standards described above.

OR
o An adopted public lands policy that meets the requirements described above. • Evidence (such as an RFQ/RFP) of a recent, ongoing, or planned housing development project on public lands that meets the standards outlined above. o In the absence of an ongoing or planned public lands project, evidence that the jurisdiction has at least one publicly owned land site suitable for affordable housing development.
• Documentation of dedicated staff or consultant for monitoring and advancing the public lands program or project, including anticipated full-time equivalent (FTE).

Production Policy 5: Ministerial Approval
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Grant ministerial approval of residential developments that include, at a minimum, 15% affordable units if projects have 11 or more units, or that exceed inclusionary or density bonus affordability requirements and do not exceed 0.5 parking spaces per unit.

535

Page 12 of 61 ends

Purpose
“Ministerial approval” means a process for development approval involving little or no subjective judgment by a public official or commission. A public agency or commission merely ensures the proposed development meets all the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards in effect at the time the application is submitted to the local government. Developments under ministerial approval are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which eliminates the costs and time for environmental review. 8 An effective ministerial approval
policy will significantly reduce the turnaround time of housing projects by expediting the approval process, reduce development risk by providing more certainty in the approval process, and thereby lead to faster construction of housing with decreased carrying costs.

Relevant State Laws
SB 35 (2017) and SB 423 (2023)
Jurisdictions that have not met their pro-rated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets must offer a streamlined (ministerial) approval process for multi-family developments per SB 35. The ministerial approval process applies to infill developments that comply with existing residential and mixed-use zoning and objective design standards. Affordability requirements vary depending on the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its RHNA targets or the submittal status of its Annual Progress Report.

Developments of 10 units or fewer are not subject to the affordability requirements.

Furthermore, jurisdictions cannot impose parking standards on developments within 0.5 miles of transit and other circumstances. While SB 35 only applies to jurisdictions that have not met their RHNA targets and for infill projects, language from SB 35 may be helpful for jurisdictions to include in their adopted ministerial approval policy.

SB 423 (2023) extends SB 35’s streamlined, ministerial approval process for qualifying multifamily developments until January 1, 2036. SB 423 also expands some provisions of SB 35, such as applying SB 35 to previously exempted coastal zone areas that are already zoned for housing.

State Density Bonus Law
Government Code Chapter 4.3 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives states that eligible developments are entitled to a density bonus, including up to a 50% increase in density depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and an 80% increase for completely affordable projects. This law includes incentives such as reduced parking requirements and concessions for reduced setbacks and minimum square footage requirements.
9 8 For more information, see Caltrans’ overview of Chapter 34 - Exemptions to CEQA. 9 For more information, see this guide on the state Density Bonus Law prepared by Meyers Nave Legal Services, which includes the full density bonus chart that outlines the percentage density bonus given for each level of affordability.
536

Page 13 of 61 ends

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s ministerial approval policy must meet the following minimum requirements:
• For projects with 11 or more units, the policy must do ONE of the following:
o Grant ministerial approval to any project where at least 15% of units are deed-restricted affordable housing units.

OR
o Grant ministerial approval for projects whose share of affordable units exceeds any existing local inclusionary zoning requirements and provides more affordable housing units or deeper affordability than would be required under state density bonus rules (given the bonus density obtained by the project). • The policy’s affordability requirements must define affordable units as rental housing available to lower-income households earning 80% of AMI or less, and ownership housing to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. Jurisdictions should require deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives.
• Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.
• At minimum, jurisdictions must provide ministerial approval to projects with 11 or more units meeting the affordability standards described above. This does not preclude jurisdictions from applying ministerial approval to a broader range of projects, such as all multifamily housing regardless of affordability. • Projects eligible for ministerial review cannot include more parking than is allowed by the parking space requirements outlined in Table 12 of MTC’s TOC Policy Administrative Guidance.

Production Policy 6: Public/Community Land Trusts
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent affordability protections. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both. 537

Page 14 of 61 ends

Purpose
Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are typically nonprofit organizations that acquire and steward land on behalf of community members. They contribute to the affordable housing stock by maintaining land ownership to ensure the housing built on land they own remains affordable to future renters or buyers. Community control of land through CLTs has high potential to prevent displacement in a variety of housing markets and around transit.10, 11

Land banks are public authorities or non-profit organizations occasionally created through local ordinances to acquire, hold, manage, and sometimes redevelop property to return these properties to productive use to meet community goals, such as increasing affordable housing.
12, 13

Housing cooperatives are democratically controlled corporations established to provide housing for members. Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives offer long-term affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. The development of these types of cooperatives is often funded with a combination of private and public funds.
14 The acquisition and rehabilitation of housing by CLTs, land banks, and cooperatives can help preserve a range of housing types, stabilize housing costs, and expand housing choice for low- and moderate-income households.
15 Support for CLTs, land banks, and
cooperatives not only serves as an anti-displacement measure, but also represents a place-based community development strategy for disinvested neighborhoods and communities with concentrated poverty, as jurisdictions can provide funding for these entities to acquire and rehabilitate vacant and distressed properties or maintain existing affordable housing options. This policy intends to set aside funding for CLTs, land banks, and cooperatives to remove land from the speculative market and ensure long- term affordability.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s affordable housing production funding program focused on public/community land trusts must meet the following minimum requirements:

10 See Table 1. Literature Review Summary Table in White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2021).
11 Chapple et al. 2022. Examining the Unintended Effects of Climate Change Mitigation. Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley.
12 Local Housing Solutions. Land Banks.
13 Center for Community Progress. Land Bank FAQ’s.
14 California Center for Cooperative Development. Housing Co-ops. 15 Yelen, J. 2020. Preserving Affordability, Preventing Displacement. Enterprise Community Partners. 538

Page 15 of 61 ends

• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding16 that provides ongoing allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. • Funding must be locally generated.
o Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations. o Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on affordable housing projects within its boundaries.
o Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
o In-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can also be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
o If a jurisdiction is also using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums required for this affordable housing funding policy (Production Policy 6). If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted towards satisfying Production Policy 6.
o NOTE: Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding. • Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a housing funding program when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).

16 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 539

Page 16 of 61 ends

• Jurisdictions that have committed affordable housing funds prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to a CLT to use for affordable housing production during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• The funding program must establish a standard set of financing terms, including affordability requirements. The program’s affordability requirements must define affordable units as rental housing available to lower income households earning 80% of AMI or less, and ownership housing to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. Jurisdictions should require deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives. • Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.
• The program’s funds must be reserved for CLTs and/or cooperatives to use for affordable housing production, or the jurisdiction or other public entities can use the funding to acquire and hold property that will be used for production of affordable housing.
• NOTE: A jurisdiction whose policy meets the minimum requirements above cannot also count this policy for credit for Production Policy 2 (Affordable Housing Funding). However, if a jurisdiction has a funding program that meets requirements for Production Policy 2, and if this program additionally has set asides for public/community land trusts that meet the funding listed in Appendix B, then the program can also receive credit for Production Policy 6 (Public/Community Land Trusts). For example, a Tier A jurisdiction that has a production program with $2,000,000 in secured funding during the relevant four- year OBAG cycle would receive credit for both Production Policy 1 and Production Policy 6 if the program has a set aside for CLTs of $1,000,000, as these amounts meet the $1,000,000 four-year minimum for both policies.

Page 17 of 61 ends

income limits/affordability levels and required affordability period, and the terms must identify a legal mechanism for enforcement of affordable housing requirements (e.g., deed restriction, regulatory agreement, etc.) • Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding allocated to the program over the four-year period.

MTC understands that projections of future funding may be imprecise, and the expectation is that a jurisdiction will provide a reasonable projection of future funding based on the best information available at the time of submitting compliance documentation to MTC. At the end of the 4-year planning period (expected to align with the OBAG cycle), MTC will expect documentation of actual funding received by the program and invested in projects, which may differ from initial projections.

Production Policy 7: Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Include the vested rights and five hearing limit provisions currently outlined in SB330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date.

Purpose
In some cities, towns, and counties, the process associated with obtaining approval for new construction is so time-consuming or costly that it dampens the amount of new development and adds significantly to its costs. Permit streamlining and other improvements in the regulatory environment can make cities more attractive to developers of both market-rate and affordable housing, helping to increase the housing supply over the long term and moderate price increases. 17 Relevant State Law
Housing Crisis Act of 2019
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 was established by SB 330 (2019) and amended by SB 8 (2021). State law establishes vested rights through a preliminary application—a project is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when this application is submitted. State law requires timely processing of housing permits that follow existing local zoning rules (must issue written determination of consistency with objective standards within 30 days for 150 or fewer units or 60 days for more than 150 units). SB 330 requires that no more than five total hearings be allowed for residential development projects and the final decision on a residential project must be made within 90 days after certification of an EIR for a development project, or 60 days for a development project where at least 49% of the units in the development are

17 For more information, see the brief “Streamlined permitting processes” prepared by Local Housing Solutions.
541

Page 18 of 61 ends

affordable to very low or low-income households. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 has a sunset date of January 1, 2030.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
Note: Production Policy 3 (Affordable Housing Overlay Zones), Production Policy 5 (Ministerial Approval), and Production Policy 7 (Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process) are related and contain overlapping requirements. As a result, jurisdictions may only count one of these policies for TOC compliance for production policies. However, if a jurisdiction implements all provisions from SB 330/SB 8 without a sunset date, then the jurisdiction meets the standards required by and can claim credit for both Production Policy 7 (Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process) and Protection Policy 2 (No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes).

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s development certainty and streamlined entitlement policy must meet the following minimum requirements:
• Adopt a local ordinance with no sunset date that provides the vested rights and five hearing limit provisions from SB 330.
• Adopt Protection Policy 2: No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes, unless preempted by state or federal law.
o If a jurisdiction does not adopt Protection Policy 2, staff must provide a detailed analysis of how the jurisdiction otherwise prevents displacement and protects tenants in areas where development certainty and streamlined approvals are available.

II. Affordable Housing Preservation Policy Options
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must adopt at least two of the affordable housing preservation policies listed below:
• Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing • Preservation Policy 2: Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase • Preservation Policy 3: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation • Preservation Policy 4: Condominium Conversion Restrictions • Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts (This policy may fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.) • Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity • Preservation Policy 7: Mobile Home Preservation
• Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (This policy may fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.) 542

Page 19 of 61 ends

A jurisdiction may meet the requirements with existing adopted policies or as needed, adopt new policies by the TOC Policy compliance deadline. At minimum, policies must apply in TOC areas. Jurisdictions may choose to apply policies beyond the TOC area(s), which could include the entirety of the jurisdiction (i.e., adopting a jurisdiction- wide policy). See Section 2 of the guidance document for more information about these requirements.

Preservation Policy 1: Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Public investments to preserve unsubsidized housing affordable to lower- or moderate-income residents (sometimes referred to as "naturally occurring affordable housing”) as permanently affordable.

Purpose
Most lower-income households in the Bay Area rent in the private market without any form of housing assistance. The private market properties offering rents that lower- income people can afford without subsidy are known as unsubsidized or “naturally occurring” affordable housing. Without subsidy, lower-income tenants are particularly vulnerable to rent increases as well as poorly maintained housing, and in the Bay Area’s competitive housing market these properties may be targeted by investors seeking to update units and raise rents. Lower-income homeowners are also vulnerable to market pressures that can result in displacement and loss of affordable homes. Preservation programs for unsubsidized affordable housing typically engage community organizations to help identify and monitor at-risk properties while also providing funding to support rehabilitation needs as well as acquisition and conversion to long-term affordable housing. Effective public investments to preserve unsubsidized housing will have funds available to secure unsubsidized affordable housing (rental or ownership), eligibility criteria for receiving funds, regulatory restrictions to maintain affordability of preserved units, and an anti-displacement strategy for existing tenants.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s funding program to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The jurisdiction has at least one funding program dedicated to the preservation of existing affordable housing, where preservation of unsubsidized affordable housing is explicitly identified as an eligible use.
• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding 18 that provides ongoing
allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The

18 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require

543

Page 20 of 61 ends

amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. • Funding must be locally generated.
o Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations. o Jurisdictions may also include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on preservation projects within its boundaries. o Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
o When relevant, in-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can also be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
o If a jurisdiction is also using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums for this policy (Preservation Policy 1). If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted toward satisfying Preservation Policy 1. o NOTE: Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding. • Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a housing preservation funding program when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).
• Jurisdictions that have committed affordable housing preservation funds prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an unsubsidized

future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one- time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 544

Page 21 of 61 ends

affordable housing preservation project that will be completed during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• The jurisdiction must establish criteria for borrower eligibility that require funding recipients to have experience with affordable housing preservation. • The program must establish a standard set of financing terms, including affordability requirements.
o For rental properties, the average rent for all units at each preserved property at the time of acquisition must be affordable to households earning no more than 80% of AMI. After acquisition, new residents must be income qualified and earn less than 120% of AMI, and the building must maintain an average income of no more than 80% of AMI. Existing residents of acquired buildings shall not be displaced, even if the household’s income exceeds the AMI thresholds noted above.
o All ownership units preserved as affordable housing (e.g., a single-family home acquired by a community land trust) must be sold to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. o Units acquired through the program must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A copy of the program’s eligibility and financing terms if they are not included in an ordinance or other documents establishing the program. These terms must indicate the criteria for borrower eligibility to ensure funding recipients have experience with affordable housing preservation, income limits/affordability levels and required affordability period, and the terms must identify a legal mechanism for enforcement of affordable housing requirements (e.g., deed restriction, regulatory agreement, etc.).
• Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding to be received by the fund over the 4-year period.

Page 22 of 61 ends

(expected to align with the OBAG cycle), MTC will expect documentation of actual funding received by the program and invested in projects, which may differ from initial projections.

Preservation Policy 2: Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Policies or programs that provide tenants or mission-driven nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at the market price when it is offered for sale, retaining existing residents and ensuring long-term affordability of the units by requiring resale restrictions to maintain affordability.

Purpose
A Tenant (or Community) Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA/COPA) policy can give tenants and nonprofits sufficient time to compete to purchase a property. TOPA/COPA policies aim to prevent displacement of lower-income communities, long-term renters, and other marginalized residents by preserving currently affordable housing and creating pathways for long-term affordability. A TOPA/COPA policy can also facilitate homeownership for tenants by creating limited equity housing cooperatives or other ownership models, enabling increased wealth building opportunities for communities who may have historically been denied access to homeownership. For these reasons, jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area have identified TOPA/COPA as key preservation tools to combat displacement.
19 Effective TOPA/COPA policies will identify what
housing types are subject to the policy, what organizations are qualified to purchase a property, noticing procedures for the sale of property, a consistent local funding source, a reasonable timeline to respond to the intent to sell, and an anti-displacement strategy for existing residents.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s TOPA and/or COPA policy must meet the following minimum requirements:20
• The jurisdiction can meet TOC Policy requirements with either a TOPA or COPA ordinance, or both.
• The TOPA/COPA ordinance defines eligible and exempt properties. • The ordinance establishes the legal right of first refusal that gives tenants and/or nonprofits the first right to purchase a covered property. • The ordinance establishes timelines for notice of sale, offer period, time to close, and time to counter-offer under TOPA/COPA.
21 19 Bay Area Housing Element Advocacy Working Group. “Leveraging the Housing Element to Advance Tenant & Community Opportunity to Purchase Policies.”
20 The requirements are derived from key components of: (1) OPA Policy described by Partnership for the Bay’s Future. 2022. Opportunity to Purchase Act Campaign Playbook (p.22) and (2) Public Advocates, “Key Considerations for Designing Tenant and Community Opportunity to Purchase Policies.” 21 San Jose Community Opportunity to Purchase (COPA) Proposed Program Summary – January 2023 Update.
546

Page 23 of 61 ends

Preservation Policy 3: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Preservation Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Limits the conversion of occupied SRO rental units to condominiums or other uses that could result in displacement of existing residents.

Purpose
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units are a unique form of affordable rental housing that does not exist in all communities. SROs are generally comprised of small, furnished single rooms within multi-tenant buildings with shared kitchens and/or bathrooms. SROs do not typically require a security deposit, credit references, proof of income, or a long- term lease agreement. For these reasons, SROs have provided low-cost housing for vulnerable populations with unstable finances, very low incomes, or limited access to credit. In some cases, SROs are used as transitional housing for people who are in between more permanent housing arrangements.

In the absence of preservation policies, housing market pressures leave SRO units vulnerable to demolition or conversion to tourist hotels, condominiums, or market-rate apartments, resulting in displacement and potential homelessness for low-income SRO residents. The purpose of SRO unit conversion regulations is to ensure the retention of existing SRO units and to assist SRO tenants that will be displaced by demolition, conversion, or rehabilitation of these units. An effective SRO preservation policy will limit the number of units that can be converted, ensure housing stability for SRO tenants, and monitor at-risk properties.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To receive compliance credit for this policy, a jurisdiction must have an existing supply of SRO buildings owned by private entities other than mission-driven nonprofit organizations. Due to the heightened vulnerability of both SRO housing stock and the residents who occupy it, a jurisdiction with an adopted SRO preservation policy that applies to all at-risk SROs may receive credit for this policy even if none of the SRO building are located within TOC areas.

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s SRO preservation policy must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The policy must limit the number of SRO units approved to be converted in a given calendar year to no more than the number of equivalent rental units completed the previous calendar year. “Equivalent rental units” shall be defined as low-cost SRO units or any income-restricted housing affordable to households with incomes at 30% of AMI or less.
547

Page 24 of 61 ends

• At the time of application for conversion of units, require applicants to produce a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan22 spelling out tenant protections, benefits and required relocation payments for any temporarily or permanently displaced residents.
• Exemptions to the conversion restrictions can be made for conversion of SRO buildings to 100% affordable units for tenants at 50% of AMI or less. However, affordable housing developers need to provide existing tenants with a first right of refusal for new units. Rents for these tenants must be based on their incomes, though rents for their units could reset at 50% of AMI upon turnover. Developers also need to produce the Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan referenced above for any temporarily or permanently displaced tenants.
• If none of the at-risk SROs in a jurisdiction are located within a TOC area, then the jurisdiction must apply this policy jurisdiction-wide.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit documentation of the presence of SRO units owned by private entities other than mission-driven nonprofit organizations that would be protected by the policy.

Preservation Policy 4: Condominium Conversion Restrictions Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Require that units converted to condominiums be replaced 1:1 with comparable rental units, unless purchased by current long-term tenants or converted to permanently affordable housing with protections for existing tenants.

Purpose
The conversion of rental housing to condominiums presents a risk to maintaining a supply of rental housing, which typically serves a wider range of households than ownership units in condominiums. Establishing criteria for the conversion of rental housing to condominiums can help preserve much-needed rental housing stock, reduce the risk of displacement of existing tenants in rental units, and ensure continued housing stability for tenants who are displaced in the event of conversions. Effective condominium conversion policies will include restrictions on conversion, right to purchase protections and relocation assistance, and the promotion of affordable housing through comparable replacement units.

22 Relocation Assistance Plan: A plan outlining the benefits and protections afforded to tenants to minimize displacement and support relocation, including at a minimum: no penalty for the tenant to terminate a lease, payment of tenant reasonable moving expenses, relocation assistance payments in an amount that is at least three times the monthly fair market rent of the unit that the resident is being relocated out of, and tenants that experience temporary displacement must be guaranteed protection against unreasonable rent increases upon returning to their unit. 548

Page 25 of 61 ends

Relevant State Law
Subdivision Map Act
The Subdivision Map Act (Gov Code 66410-66424.6) requires developers to provide notices of condominium conversion to tenants at every stage of the process.

Requirements for TOC Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s condominium conversion policy must meet the following minimum requirements:
• Require 1-for-1 replacement of existing units with comparable rental units, when permitted by law. A program may allow or require replacement units be provided through payment of a fee in an amount approximately sufficient to provide the local share of subsidy for one income-restricted rental unit serving lower-income households (earning 80% of AMI or less) and, in no case less than $100,000 per rental unit being converted. Jurisdictions may allow the following exemptions:
o Conversions where at least 90% of condominium units are purchased by current tenants.
o Conversions to 100% housing units with long-term affordability restrictions for households earning 120% of AMI or less.
• Provide existing tenants the first right to purchase a unit at the same price offered to the general public consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. 23 • At the time of application for conversion of units, require applicants to produce a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan24 spelling out tenant protections, benefits and required relocation payments for any temporarily or permanently displaced residents.

Preservation Policy 5: Public/Community Land Trusts
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Investments or policies to expand the amount of land held by public- and non-profit entities such as co-operatives, community land trusts, and land banks with permanent affordability protections. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing production or preservation requirement, but not both.

23 This is a right under the Subdivision Map Act (Gov Code 66410-66424.6). 24 Relocation Assistance Plan: A plan outlining the benefits and protections afforded to tenants to minimize displacement and support relocation, including at a minimum: no penalty for the tenant to terminate a lease, payment of tenant reasonable moving expenses, relocation assistance payments in an amount that is at least three times the monthly fair market rent of the unit that the resident is being relocated out of, and tenants that experience temporary displacement must be guaranteed protection against unreasonable rent increases upon returning to their unit. 549

Page 26 of 61 ends

own remains affordable to future renters or buyers. Community control of land through CLTs has high potential to prevent displacement in a variety of housing markets and around transit.25, 26

Housing cooperatives are democratically controlled corporations established to provide housing for members. Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives offer long-term affordable homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. The development of these types of cooperatives is often funded with a combination of private and public funds.
29 The acquisition and rehabilitation of housing by CLTs, land banks, and cooperatives can help preserve a range of housing types, stabilize housing costs, and expand housing choice for lower-income households.
30 Support for CLTs, land banks, and cooperatives
not only serves as an anti-displacement measure but also represents a place-based community development strategy for disinvested neighborhoods and communities with concentrated poverty, as jurisdictions can provide funding for these entities to acquire and rehabilitate vacant and distressed properties or maintain existing affordable housing options. This policy intends to set aside funding for CLTs, land banks, and cooperatives to remove land from the speculative market and ensure long-term affordability.

Relevant State Law
SB 1079 (2020): Residential Property: Foreclosure
SB 1097 (2020) grants “eligible bidders” including CLTs certain rights and priorities to make bids on a foreclosed property after the initial trustee sale and potentially to purchase it as the last and highest bidder.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s affordable housing preservation funding program focused on public/community land trusts must meet the following minimum requirements:

25 See Table 1. Literature Review Summary Table in White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2021).
26 Chapple et al. 2022. Examining the Unintended Effects of Climate Change Mitigation. Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley.
27 Local Housing Solutions. Land Banks.
28 Center for Community Progress. Land Bank FAQ’s.
29 California Center for Cooperative Development. Housing Co-ops. 30 Yelen, J. 2020. Preserving Affordability, Preventing Displacement. Enterprise Community Partners. 550

Page 27 of 61 ends

• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding31 that provides ongoing allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. • Funding must be locally generated.
o Potential local funding sources include commercial linkage fees, housing impact fees (but see note below if the impact fees are part of an inclusionary zoning ordinance), taxes (such as an employee head tax or real estate transfer tax), local bond measures, successor agency funds, business/gross receipts tax on rental property, and general fund allocations. o Jurisdictions may include county or regional bond funds expended with the jurisdiction’s participation on preservation projects within its boundaries. o Jurisdictions may include grants from philanthropic organizations or private contributions made by businesses or individuals.
o When relevant, in-kind contributions to developments in the form of fee waivers for building permit fees, impact fees, and other fees can also be counted toward the required amount of local affordable housing funding. Staff hours are not eligible for consideration.
o If a jurisdiction is also using inclusionary zoning (Production Policy 1) for the TOC Policy’s production requirement, funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees from inclusionary zoning cannot be counted toward the funding minimums for this policy (Preservation Policy 5). If the jurisdiction has inclusionary zoning but does not use it to satisfy the TOC Policy's affordable housing production requirement, the funding generated by collecting in-lieu fees may be counted toward satisfying Preservation Policy 5. o NOTE: Federal and state funding (such as HOME/CDBG or PLHA) that is passed through a jurisdiction is not counted as local funding. • Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a housing preservation funding program for CLTs when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).
• Jurisdictions that have committed affordable housing preservation funds for CLTs prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count

31 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one- time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 551

Page 28 of 61 ends

expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to a CLT to use for acquiring and preserving an unsubsidized affordable housing property during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• The program’s funds must be reserved for CLTs and/or cooperatives to use for affordable housing preservation.
• The jurisdiction must establish criteria for borrower eligibility that require funding recipients to have experience with affordable housing preservation. • The funding program must establish a standard set of financing terms, including affordability requirements.
o For rental properties, the average rent for all units at each preserved property at the time of acquisition must be affordable to households earning no more than 80% of AMI. After acquisition, new residents must be income qualified and earn less than 120% of AMI, and the building must maintain an average income of no more than 80% of AMI. Existing residents of acquired buildings shall not be displaced, even if the household’s income exceeds the AMI thresholds noted above.
o All ownership units preserved as affordable housing (e.g., a single-family home acquired by a community land trust) must be sold to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less. o Units acquired through the program must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing and at least 45 years for ownership housing. • NOTE: A jurisdiction whose policy meets the minimum requirements above cannot also count this policy for credit for Preservation Policy 1 (Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing). However, if a jurisdiction has a funding program that meets requirements for Preservation Policy 1, and if this program additionally has set asides for public/community land trusts that meet the funding amounts listed in Appendix B, then the program can also receive credit for Preservation Policy 5 (Public/Community Land Trusts). For example, a Tier A jurisdiction that has a preservation program with $800,000 in secured funding during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle would receive credit for both Preservation Policy 1 and Preservation Policy 5 if the program has a set aside for 552

Page 29 of 61 ends

CLTs of $400,000, as these amounts meet the $400,000 four-year minimum for both policies.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A copy of the program’s eligibility and financing terms if they are not included in an ordinance or other documents establishing the program. These terms must indicate the eligibility, income limits/affordability levels and required affordability period, and the terms must identify a legal mechanism for enforcement of affordable housing requirements (e.g., deed restriction, regulatory agreement, etc.) • Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding allocated to the program over the four-year period.

MTC understands that projections of future funding may be imprecise, and the expectation is that a jurisdiction will provide a reasonable projection of future funding based on the best information available at the time of submitting compliance documentation to MTC. At the end of the 4-year planning period (expected to align with the OBAG cycle), MTC will expect documentation of actual funding received by the program and invested in projects, which may differ from initial projections.

Preservation Policy 6: Funding to Support Preservation Capacity Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Dedicated local funding for capacity building or other material support for community land trusts (CLTs) or other community-based organizations (CBOs) engaged in affordable housing preservation.

Purpose
Capacity refers to an organization’s ability to deliver a service or product. For organizations such as CBOs and CLTs which are engaged in affordable housing preservation, capacity may refer to having adequate staffing, organizational knowledge, and material or financial resources to effectively preserve affordable housing. By providing capacity funding to smaller organizations such as CBOs and CLTs, these entities are better equipped to secure properties and financing necessary to preserve affordable housing in a competitive housing market. Key features of an effective funding source to support preservation capacity include pairing capital funds for preservation with grants for capacity building, established guidelines for eligible funding recipients, and supporting developer experience through joint-venture partnerships. Effective policies to support preservation capacity will commit to multi-year funding dedicated for CBOs and CLTs.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s funding to support preservation capacity must meet the following minimum requirements:
553

Page 30 of 61 ends

• The jurisdiction must have a dedicated funding program with secured funding32 that supports capacity building for CLTs and CBOs for housing preservation work.

Funding must maintain project management staffing for a minimum of four years at approximately 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE).
• The jurisdiction must define eligibility for financial awards to CLTs and CBOs. • Funding for the program can come from any source that allows supporting staff capacity as an eligible use of funds. Potential funding sources could include, but are not limited to, local housing trust funds, county funds, state and federal funds passed through the jurisdiction, grants from philanthropic organizations, and private contributions from businesses or individuals.
• Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a funding program to support preservation capacity when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).
• Jurisdictions that have committed funds to support preservation capacity prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to CBO or CLT to support project management staffing during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• If a jurisdiction establishes a preservation funding program that meets requirements for Preservation Policy 1 (Funding to Preserve Unsubsidized Affordable Housing) and/or Preservation Policy 5 (Public/Community Land Trusts), the jurisdiction can use this program to also receive credit for Preservation Policy 6 (Funding to Support Preservation Capacity) if the program additionally has a set aside for capacity building that meets the requirements listed above.

32 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 554

Page 31 of 61 ends

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• An explanation for how the jurisdiction determined the amount of funding necessary to maintain project management staffing for the four-year period. • A copy of the program’s eligibility criteria if they are not included in an ordinance or other documents establishing the program.
• Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding allocated to the program over the four-year period.

Preservation Policy 7: Mobile Home Preservation
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Policy or program to preserve mobile homes from conversion to other uses that may result in displacement of existing residents.

Purpose
Mobile home parks provide a distinct type of naturally occurring affordable housing, due to the size of mobile homes, the type of construction, and a unique dynamic where residents typically own their mobile homes but rent the lots under them from mobile home park owners. While state law extends certain protections to mobile home units, mobile home parks are increasingly being acquired by speculative investors for potential future redevelopment. Such market pressures pose displacement risks to mobile home residents, many of whom live on fixed incomes and have limited alternative affordable housing options. Accordingly, a strategy to prevent displacement and promote community stability for mobile home residents is to regulate and limit the conversion of mobile home parks, and support residents and community organizations in purchasing the park to preserve affordability. An effective Mobile Home Preservation policy or program will either limit conversions through zoning rules or provide significant relocation assistance for park residents in the event of a closure.

Relevant State Law
Mobile Home Residency Law
The California Mobile Home Residency Law (California Civil Code Section 798 – 799.11) sets rules and regulations for mobile homes, specifically regulating the relationship between landlords and residents. The law states that in the case of a 555

Page 32 of 61 ends

change of use of the park, the management must follow specific noticing requirements and appear before a local governmental board, commission, or body to request permits for a change of use.

Requirements for TOC Compliance
To receive compliance credit for this policy, a jurisdiction must demonstrate there is at least one mobile home park (as defined by California’s Mobile Home Park Act) within the jurisdiction. Due to the heightened vulnerability of mobile home parks and the residents who occupy them, a jurisdiction with an adopted mobile home preservation policy that applies to all mobile home parks may receive credit for this policy even if none of the parks are located within TOC areas. If none of the mobile home parks are located within a TOC area, then the jurisdiction must apply its policy jurisdiction-wide.

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must adopt a mobile home preservation policy that meets the minimum standards for ONE of the following options:

1. Establish a Mobile Home Zoning District or Overlay Zone over existing mobile home parks which limits or prohibits the redevelopment of existing parks. o A jurisdiction may allow 100% affordable housing projects to be considered in this zone, conditionally permitted and after public hearings. If a jurisdiction chooses to do this:
 The policy’s affordability requirements must define affordable units as rental housing available to lower-income households earning 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) or less, and ownership housing to lower- and moderate-income households earning 120% of AMI or less.

Jurisdictions should require deeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives.
 Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing or at least 45 years for ownership housing.
 The ordinance must provide existing mobile home residents with the right to return to a unit in the new development.
 At the time of application for conversion of units, applicants must be required to produce a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan 33 spelling out

33 Relocation Assistance Plan: A plan outlining the benefits and protections afforded to tenants to minimize displacement and support relocation, including at a minimum: no penalty for the tenant to terminate a lease, payment of tenant reasonable moving expenses, relocation assistance payments in an amount that is at least three times the monthly fair market rent of the unit that the resident is being

556

Page 33 of 61 ends

tenant protections, benefits and required relocation payments for any temporarily or permanently displaced residents.

2. Adopt a Mobile Home Closure Ordinance that requires relocation assistance and conditional approval after public hearings.
o The ordinance must require owners to produce at the time of application a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan spelling out tenant protections, benefits, and required relocation payments for any temporarily or permanently displaced residents.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit documentation of the presence of at least one mobile home park within the jurisdiction.

Preservation Policy 8: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Policies, programs, or procedures designed to minimize the risk of displacement caused by substandard conditions including through local code enforcement activities. This may include proactive rental inspection programs and assistance to landlords for property improvements in exchange for anti- displacement commitments. This policy may be used to fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.

Purpose
Substandard conditions and physical deterioration represent a key threat to the region’s rental housing stock and unsubsidized affordable housing units. These conditions create health and safety risks for tenants and can lead to condemnation, abandonment, and/or demolition of housing units. The remediation of substandard conditions in unsubsidized affordable housing is not only necessary to preserve this housing but also represents an important anti-displacement strategy. Code enforcement programs need to ensure habitability issues and needs for substantial property repairs do not lead to the permanent displacement of tenants, which also requires maintaining housing stability for tenants during any temporary displacement necessary for repairs. Code enforcement and other programs to address substandard conditions need to be centered in an anti-displacement framework, otherwise these activities can lead to the immediate displacement of vulnerable tenants if properties are deemed uninhabitable.

An effective program which prevents the loss of housing stock due to code issues provides public support to landlords and low-income homeowners to maintain their properties.

relocated out of, and tenants that experience temporary displacement must be guaranteed protection against unreasonable rent increases upon returning to their unit. 557

Page 34 of 61 ends

Relevant State Law
California Health and Safety Code (HSC)
HSC Section 17920.3 provides a definition of a substandard building, which includes inadequate sanitation such as a lack of plumbing, ventilation, or heating; structural hazards such as deteriorated floors, walls, or ceilings; faulty weather protection such as defective waterproofing and windows; and so on. Section 17970 – 17972 requires that when a jurisdiction receives a complaint from a tenant, they must inspect the building, document any findings, prescribe a remedy to the property owner, and schedule a reinspection to verify the correction. Section 17980 – 17992 states that once a building is determined to be substandard, the enforcement agency of the jurisdiction cannot require the vacating of residents unless it concurrently requires expeditious demolition or repair to comply with state law. If the tenant cannot safely reside in their unit due to repair, state law requires a property owner to provide affected tenants with compensation for moving expenses; the value of property lost, stolen or damaged in the process of moving; and costs associated with connection charges imposed by utility companies for starting service. The relocation benefit also includes two months of the established fair market rent for the area as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the property owner must return the full security deposit to the tenant.

Requirements for TOC Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must adopt a policy to prevent displacement from substandard conditions that meets the minimum standards for at least ONE of the following options:

1. Establish an amnesty program to waive fines and fees for property owners with occupied units constructed without the proper permits in exchange for bringing the unit into compliance with health and safety codes.
o Prior to making repairs, the property owner must complete a tenant habitability plan describing how they will maintain habitability for the tenant and any adjacent units while repairs are being performed. If the tenant needs to be relocated for repairs, the plan discusses how the landlord will assist with temporary relocation, which must include offering a nearby available unit at same rent (if landlord owns other properties), paying for moving expenses, and providing relocation assistance to pay for the cost of temporary housing. o As a condition of receiving amnesty for fines and fees, the property owner must agree to continue renting to the existing tenant after repairs are complete with reasonable limits on rent increases for that tenant.

2. Create a low-or no-interest loan or grant program to support lower-income homeowners (including seniors and people with disabilities) with making repairs or modifications to their residences.
558

Page 35 of 61 ends

o The program must limit funding to owner-occupied homes that are the homeowner’s primary residence, which includes mobile homes where the mobile home owner rents the lot beneath the home.
o Funding for the program can come from any source that allows home rehabilitation as an eligible use of funds. Potential funding sources could include, but are not limited to, local housing trust funds, county funds, state and federal funds passed through the jurisdiction, grants from philanthropic organizations, and private contributions from businesses or individuals. o Funding recipients must be below 80% of AMI.
o The program must define other eligibility requirements for receiving a loan or grant, eligible uses for funds, and minimum/maximum loan or grant amounts. o The minimum loan/grant amount must be at least $10,000.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A template of the tenant habitability plan or a document outlining details that must be included in such a plan if a jurisdiction is selecting the amnesty program for unpermitted units.
• The home rehabilitation program’s eligibility requirements and financing terms if a jurisdiction is selecting this option.

III. Affordable Housing Protection Policy Options
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction must adopt at least two of the tenant protection/anti-displacement policies listed below:
• Protection Policy 1: “Just Cause” Eviction
• Protection Policy 2: No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes • Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
• Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
• Protection Policy 5: Rental Assistance Program
• Protection Policy 6: Rent Stabilization
• Protection Policy 7: Preventing Displacement from Substandard Conditions and Associated Code Enforcement Activities (This policy may fulfill either the housing preservation or protection requirement, but not both.)
• Protection Policy 8: Tenant Relocation Assistance
• Protection Policy 9: Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
• Protection Policy 10: Fair Housing Enforcement
• Protection Policy 11: Tenant Anti-Harassment Protections.

559

Page 36 of 61 ends

Protection Policy 1: “Just Cause” Eviction
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Defines the circumstances for evictions, such as nonpayment of rent, violation of lease terms, or permanent removal of a dwelling from the rental market, with provisions that are more protective of tenants than those established by AB 1482 (2019, Chiu).

Purpose
Just cause ordinances prohibit landlords from ending a tenancy or evicting a tenant without a specific reason. Just cause protections are generally intended to shield tenants from arbitrary evictions that may occur due to economic incentives in a competitive rental market, retaliation against specific tenants, or other instances in which tenants are not at fault. Accordingly, research identifies just cause eviction as a policy with high potential to prevent residential displacement.
34 Though state law currently provides just cause
protections for some tenants, these protections expire in 2030 and do not cover a wide range of tenancies and housing situations. Moreover, in the absence of local just cause policies and local government infrastructure to implement these protections, tenants may be unaware of their rights under state law and how to utilize them. As a result, multiple jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area and across California have adopted local just cause eviction ordinances that go beyond state law to better ensure stability for tenants.

An effective just cause eviction ordinance will clearly define a limited set of recognized causes for eviction, provide protections for a wide range of tenants and most housing situations, and create processes for local implementation.

Relevant State Law
AB 1482 (Tenant Protection Act of 2019) and SB 567 (2023) While some tenants now have just cause eviction protections due to AB 1482 (the Tenant Protection Act of 2019), this law currently has a sunset of January 1, 2030. SB 567 (2023) modified the protections provided by AB 1482 by creating new requirements for landlords seeking to carry out two types of “no-fault” evictions: evictions for substantial remodels of units and owner move-in evictions. SB 567 also makes landlords who violate the Tenant Protection Act liable in civil court for damages and provides mechanisms for the Attorney General, city attorney, or county counsel to enforce the law.

34 Chapple, K. et. al. (2022). Housing Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
560

Page 37 of 61 ends

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s just cause ordinance must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The ordinance must not have a sunset date.
• The ordinance must require landlords to file notices of termination of tenancy with a designated local government agency, such as a rent program/board or other city department.
• The ordinance must make the failure to file these notices with a designated agency an affirmative defense for a tenant in an eviction case.

Additionally, the ordinance must also expand on other aspects of statewide just cause protections in at least ONE of the following ways:

1. Limit the legally recognized causes for eviction: The “at-fault” and “no-fault” just causes for eviction allowed by state law can be found in California Civil Code Section 1946.2(b). If choosing this option, a jurisdiction’s just cause policy must include fewer just causes for eviction or define them with greater restrictions to increase protections for tenants.

2. Expand the types of housing and tenancies covered by just cause protections: The protections provided by state law only apply after all tenants have lived in the unit for 12 months, or where at least one tenant has occupied the unit for 24 months. Additionally, California Civil Code Section 1946.2(e) exempts several unit types from these protections. If choosing this option, a jurisdiction’s just cause policy must provide protections to a wider range of tenants and housing types, with the possibility of applying these protections to all renters in the jurisdiction and/or with no minimum period of tenancy to qualify.

Protection Policy 2: No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Include the no net loss provisions currently outlined in SB 330 (2019, Skinner) without a sunset date. Require one-to-one replacement of units that applies the same or a deeper level of affordability, the same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and comparable square footage to the units demolished. Provide displaced tenants with right of first refusal to rent new comparable units at the same rent as demolished units.

Purpose
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 was established by SB 330 (2019) and amended by SB 8 (2021). The no net loss provisions in the Housing Crisis Act prevent development projects that require demolition of existing residential structures from reducing the overall housing stock and supply of affordable housing. These provisions create safeguards to ensure that new development increases the housing supply and 561

Page 38 of 61 ends

maintains or improves existing levels of affordability. The Housing Crisis Act’s right to return protections and relocation benefits aim to prevent permanent displacement of existing lower-income tenants by development projects that require demolition. These protections can enable lower-income tenants to maintain housing in their communities at affordable rents, which deters new development from contributing to displacement, housing instability, and homelessness for vulnerable renters.

Relevant State Law
Housing Crisis Act of 2019
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 prohibits a jurisdiction from approving a housing development that requires demolition unless the project creates at least as many units as will be demolished. The project must also replace all demolished occupied or vacant “protected units,” which include units deed-restricted for lower-income households within the past five years, units subject to rent control within the past five years, units occupied by lower-income households within the past five years, or units withdrawn from the rental market via Ellis Act within the past 10 years. 35 The law also includes
protections for existing tenants of units that will be demolished. All existing tenants must be allowed to remain until six months prior to the start of construction. Lower-income occupants are entitled to relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to rent or purchase a comparable unit in the new development at an affordable price. The amount of relocation assistance is defined by California Government Code Sections 7260 – 7277. The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 has a sunset date of January 1, 2030.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
Note: If a jurisdiction implements all provisions from SB 330/SB 8 without a sunset date, then the jurisdiction meets the standards required by and can claim credit for both Protection Policy 2 (No Net Loss and Right to Return to Demolished Homes) and Production Policy 7 (Development Certainty and Streamlined Entitlement Process).

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s policy for no net loss and right to return must meet the following minimum requirements:
• Include all the no net loss provisions in the Housing Crisis Act with no sunset date, to the extent permitted by state or federal law. These provisions require replacing all demolished units with units of equivalent size
36 and replacing demolished
protected units with units affordable to low-income households.37 • Include all right of return provisions in the Housing Crisis Act with no sunset date, to the extent permitted by state or federal law. These provisions require providing

35 For more information on “protected units” defined by state law, see California Government Code Section 66300(d)(2)(F)(vi).
36 State law defines equivalent size as containing at least the same number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.
37 For more information on the affordability requirements for replacing protected units, see subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of California Government Code Section 65915. 562

Page 39 of 61 ends

displaced lower-income tenants with relocation assistance and right of first refusal to a comparable unit at an affordable rent.38

Protection Policy 3: Legal Assistance for Tenants
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Investments or programs that expand access to legal assistance for tenants threatened with displacement. This could range from a “right to counsel”39 to dedicated public funding for tenant legal assistance.

Purpose
Many tenant protections granted by state law can only be enforced by tenants using the court system to assert their rights, as is the case for the just cause and rent stabilization protections provided by AB 1482 as well as state anti-harassment laws. However, research and advocates have documented tenants’ lack of legal representation in eviction cases and disputes with landlords, while landlords are more commonly represented by attorneys. Legal representation for tenants can ensure greater fairness and due process and increase the likelihood of tenants keeping their housing. Providing legal assistance to tenants helps ensure that tenants have access to legal counsel and are better equipped to defend their rights in court. In recent years, there have been increasing efforts by cities to expand access to legal assistance for tenants facing eviction, which can promote housing stability and prevent homelessness. An effective tenant legal assistance program will include eligibility criteria, a definition of the legal services provided, dedicated funding, and outreach.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s tenant legal assistance program must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding 40 that provides ongoing
allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. o The required funding amount by tier can be split among any two of the four Protection policies requiring funding, but the jurisdiction will only receive credit toward one policy. For example, a Tier A jurisdiction could choose to

38 For more information on relocation assistance and right of refusal provided to lower -income households, see California Government Code Section 66300(d)(2)(D). 39 “Right to counsel” extends the right to an attorney, required in criminal procedures, to tenants in eviction trials, which are civil procedures.
40 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 563

Page 40 of 61 ends

spend $30,000 on fair housing enforcement and $70,000 on a tenant legal assistance program, for a total of $100,000. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could spend $100,000 on tenant legal assistance. In either scenario, the jurisdiction would receive credit toward one policy for meeting the $100,000 funding threshold for Protection policies.
• Funding for the program can come from any source that allows tenant legal assistance as an eligible use of funds. Potential funding sources could include, but are not limited to, local housing trust funds, county funds, state and federal funds passed through the jurisdiction, grants from philanthropic organizations, and private contributions from businesses or individuals.
• Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a tenant legal assistance funding program when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).
• Jurisdictions that have committed legal assistance funds prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a program occurring during the relevant four- year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an organization to use for legal assistance services during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

AND/OR
o The funds are expended after January 1, 2025.
• The program’s funding terms must define the situations in which a tenant receives legal assistance and set the eligible criteria for who receives assistance. At minimum, eligibility must include eviction and pre-eviction legal services for lower- income tenants.
• A jurisdiction must contract with one or more legal services organizations to provide legal assistance and representation for cases involving eviction and other eligible tenant issues.
• The jurisdiction must make information available for the public on its website regarding the legal service providers who are funded to assist residents.

Submitting Additional Required Documentation
In addition to the standard submission requirements, a jurisdiction must submit:
• A copy of the program’s eligibility criteria if they are not included in the ordinance or other documents establishing the program.
• Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has contracted or will contract with one or more legal services organizations.
564

Page 41 of 61 ends

• A link to a website where the jurisdiction has made information available about legal services for residents.
• Documents demonstrating the jurisdiction has secured funding that meets the minimum requirements for being considered “secured.”
• A schedule of expected funding allocated to the program over the four-year period.

Protection Policy 4: Foreclosure Assistance
Description from TOC Policy Resolution: Provide a dedicated funding source to support owner-occupied homeowners (up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI)) at-risk of foreclosure, including direct financial assistance (e.g., mortgage assistance, property tax delinquency, HOA dues, etc.), foreclosure prevention counseling, legal assistance, and/or outreach.

Purpose
Foreclosures occur when homeowners are unable to make mortgage or other debt payments on a property and therefore must forfeit the rights to their home. Homeowners at risk of foreclosure, especially lower-income households, are also vulnerable to community displacement, homelessness, and may struggle to secure housing in the future due to foreclosure related credit issues. Accordingly, local policies providing foreclosure assistance actively seek to keep homeowners in their residence, which prevents displacement and promotes community and household stability. Foreclosure assistance activities may be administered directly by a jurisdiction, but often are administered in partnership with nonprofit organizations. An effective foreclosure assistance program will provide stable annual operating support to qualified partners to support homeowners facing foreclosure.

Relevant State Laws/Programs
California Homeowner Bill of Rights
The California Homeowner Bill of Rights provides some protections to homeowners facing foreclosure, which focus largely on requirements for how loan servicers must act during the foreclosure process.

California Mortgage Relief Program
The California Mortgage Relief Program provides financial assistance for homeowners who have fallen behind on housing payments or property taxes during the COVID-19 565

Page 42 of 61 ends

pandemic because of COVID-related hardships. Funds will be deployed from the program until they are all allocated, with an end date projected by 2025.

Requirements for TOC Policy Compliance
To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s foreclosure assistance program must meet the following minimum requirements:
• The jurisdiction must have a program with secured funding41 that provides ongoing allocations to the program at or above the level identified in Appendix B. The amount contributed can vary by year as long as the total for the relevant four-year OBAG cycle meets the specified target for the jurisdiction. o The required funding amount by tier can be split among any two of the four Protection policies requiring funding, but the jurisdiction will only receive credit toward one policy. For example, a Tier A jurisdiction could choose to spend $30,000 on foreclosure assistance and $70,000 on a rental assistance program, for a total of $100,000. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could spend $100,000 on foreclosure assistance. In either scenario, the jurisdiction would receive credit toward one policy for meeting the $100,000 funding threshold for Protection policies.
• Funding for the program can come from any source that allows foreclosure assistance as an eligible use of funds. Potential funding sources could include, but are not limited to, local housing trust funds, county funds, state and federal funds passed through the jurisdiction, grants from philanthropic organizations, and private contributions from businesses or individuals.
• Jurisdictions that have an existing balance in a foreclosure assistance funding program when submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count existing funds toward the required total so long as funds are available for expenditure during the four-year planning period (anticipated to align with the OBAG cycle).
• Jurisdictions that have committed foreclosure assistance funds prior to submitting final documentation for TOC Policy compliance may count expended funds toward the required total so long as at least one of the following conditions is met:
o The funds are used to support a project or program occurring during the relevant four-year OBAG cycle (e.g., funds are committed to an organization to use for foreclosure assistance services during the OBAG 4 cycle sometime between 2026 and 2030).

41 Secured Funding: Housing program funds may be considered secured if they are included in a current budget from a source that is expected to continue and where the use of these funds for the program can be reasonably expected to be approved in subsequent years. The subsequent years’ funding may require future budget approvals or may be dependent on uncertain but expected revenue sources, so long as there is not a known sunset date or other limit. For bond proceeds or other one-time investments, funding can be considered secured if it will be available for investment at the required level at any point in the four-year planning period, expected to align with the OBAG cycle. 566

Page 43 of 61 ends

Dublin City CouncilOctober 1, 2024

Dublin City Council
October 1, 2024