Every eight years, state housing regulators give cities and counties across California an especially dreaded homework assignment: Make a plan for a bunch of new homes.<\/p>\n
Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s administration assigns localities goals to hit at four different affordability levels. Collectively, the numbers represent the housing department\u2019s best estimate of the number of new homes needed to match any expected population growth and to chip away at the state\u2019s decades-in-the-making shortage<\/a> of affordable places to live.<\/p>\n The targets are meted out to each region on a rolling basis. So in the spirit of a mid-term exam, how are cities and counties doing?<\/p>\n Bad news, California. If this were graded, the state would abound in D\u2019s and F\u2019s. The state is not building market-rate housing or more affordable housing fast enough.<\/p>\n Less than a third of cities and counties are on track to permit enough \u201cabove moderate\u201d units, the category that typically refers to market-rate housing, according to data submitted by locals to theCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development.<\/p>\n Statewide, the department reports that just 28.6% of municipalities in the state will hit their targets in building Above Moderate, or market-rate housing.<\/p>\n The progress report for more affordable types of housing is even bleaker. Only 32 jurisdictions \u2014 less than 6% \u2014 are on track to hit their \u201cvery low\u201d targets. That refers to housing within financial reach of anyone earning less than half the typical local income.<\/p>\n (Very Low means households earning less than half the area\u2019s median income; Low is between 51% and 80%, and Moderate is 81% to 120%.)<\/p>\n To be \u201con track,\u201d a city or county needs to have issued housing permits at a rate that, if sustained, would allow it to hit its state targets by the end of its planning cycle. A value of 100% means it is exactly on track to hitting its target for housing of that affordability level.<\/p>\n In Santa Clara County, according to the state, Milpitas has the worst record of hitting its state housing construction targets, with 9% of Very Low, 7% of Low and 14% of Moderate cost categories, with 24% for \u201cAbove Moderate\u201d housing, based on building permits.<\/p>\n Saratoga tops the list of 15 cities in the county, with the state projecting its housing construction rates at: Very Low, 49%; Low, 93%; Moderate, 78%; Above Moderate, 74%.<\/p>\n Sacramento is next best, followed closely by San Jose:<\/p>\n San Jose: Very Low, 35%; Low, 60%; Moderate, 54%; Above Moderate, 17%.<\/p>\n Sacramento: Very Low, 32%; Low, 82%; Moderate, 79%; Above Moderate, 36%.<\/p>\n Oakland also reports relatively good progress, compared to the rest of the state: Very Low, 38%; Low, 43%; Moderate, 14%; Above Moderate, 16%.<\/p>\n San Francisco is at half that pace for the lowest cost categories: Very Low, 22%; Low, 27%; Moderate, 18%; Above Moderate, 17%.<\/p>\n The rest of the state\u2019s largest cities \u2013 Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Long Beach and Bakersfield \u2013 are at half of that pace to reach their state-assigned housing construction goals.<\/p>\n Morgan Hill leads the way<\/p>\n Among smaller cities in Santa Clara County, Morgan Hill is among the leaders of the entire state, with Very Low housing construction at 66% of its target, 0% of Low-cost, but 133% of Moderate and 301% of market-rate housing.<\/p>\n Here are the numbers for other incorporated cities and towns in the county, from the state housing department:<\/p>\n Los Altos:\u00a0 Very Low, 53%; Low, 131%; Moderate, 96%; Above Moderate, 78%. After years of nudging, political trolling<\/a> and litigating, most cities and counties now have state-approved plans in place<\/a>. But as the production numbers show, it\u2019s one thing to plan and another to build. Almost nowhere in the state is actually seeing the new construction necessary \u201cto meet the housing needs of all Californians,\u201d as housing regulators have described these targets<\/a>.<\/p>\n Only five jurisdictions in the entire state are permitting at a pace to hit all four income targets. Four are the lightly populated unincorporated bits of small, mostly rural counties: Plumas, Napa, Yolo and Mono. The fifth is Placerville, a town of roughly 11,000 people in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento.<\/p>\n To be \u201con track,\u201d a city or county needs to issue permits at a clip that, if sustained, would allow it to hit its state targets by the end of its planning cycle. State housing regulators told the city of Irvine in Orange County, for example, to plan for 8,671 market-rate units by 2030. Now halfway there, the city has issued more than 6,000, making it one of the minority of cities to be on pace to reach its target for above-moderate housing.<\/p>\n But for more affordable digs, Irvine, like most California cities, is far behind. The city has permitted just 9% of the very low-income housing needed to reach its target by the end of the decade. For the next most affordable category, which refers to units priced for those earning up to 80% of the regional median, it\u2019s at a mere 3%.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the housing hold up?<\/p>\n For anyone who has been monitoring the pace of new residential development<\/a> in California over the last half century, the disconnect between housing planned and housing permitted won\u2019t come as a surprise. The state\u2019s total planning target adds up to nearly 2.5 million units over eight years, a reduction of the even more ambitious 3.5 million target Newsom set for his administration during his 2017 election. That 2.5 million figure works out to 312,500 new homes per year. Even during the state\u2019s boomingest boom years in the early 1960s and mid-1980s, construction figures never reached such lofty heights<\/a>.<\/p>\n This decade, despite a blizzard of state legislation and policy changes aimed at boosting the construction of new homes, the number of new homes built annually is still just north of 100,000.<\/p>\n Critics of the state\u2019s planning process have long stressed that California\u2019s targets are unrealistic and that local governments can only do so much.<\/p>\n \u201cCities cannot require developers to develop and cities don\u2019t build housing,\u201d said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities. You can lead a developer to a rezoned plot of land, in other words, but you can\u2019t make them build.<\/p>\n Pro-development advocates counter that the uninspiring production numbers suggest that cities still aren\u2019t doing enough to welcome more housing.<\/p>\n \u201cCities can argue that they don\u2019t directly control production, but they do control fees, zoning and permitting,\u201d said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action. The housing needs allocation process \u201cis only as good as we have the political will to actually hold cities accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n Foote directed some of the blame at state housing regulators for failing to compel cities to adopt more development-friendly policies.<\/p>\n In a written statement, housing department spokesperson Jennifer Hanson said regulators are \u201cactively monitoring and enforcing\u201d the commitments each jurisdiction has made in its housing plans. She also pointed to a couple of recent laws exempting many urban housing developments from environmental litigation and requiring local governments to allow for taller buildings near major public transportation stops. Both have already been used to \u201cadvance approved projects representing thousands of proposed homes,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n There are many reasons that developers may or may not choose to build in a particular location. Some are in the power of local and state governments, like zoning and building codes, permitting timelines and fees. But many are not, said Hanson.<\/p>\n \u201cWhether a project moves forward depends on interest rates, construction and land costs, access to capital, insurance and expected rents or sale prices,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Affordable housing construction faces an additional hurdle: A lack of public money. With very few exceptions, building homes that are affordable to those making below average incomes in California requires public subsidies, philanthropic capital or other lenders and investors willing to take a loss. Taxpayer support provided by the state has been in short supply after a voter-approved bond from 2018 that provided funding for California\u2019s signature affordable development subsidy ran dry.\u00a0 That explains why the affordable production numbers are so much lower.<\/p>\n Affordable developers and other housing advocates are hoping voters will back an $11.25 billion state bond in November to replenish the coffers.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, \u201cmoderate\u201d income housing is especially tough to build, facing the financial worst of both worlds. It often doesn\u2019t qualify for affordable subsidy programs that prioritize projects serving people further down the income ladder. But rents affordable to those earning median incomes are often too low for unsubsidized developers hoping to turn a profit.<\/p>\n An escape valve<\/p>\n The state may force local governments to lay the groundwork for new development \u2014 identifying potential sites, rezoning to allow for denser housing, changing local laws that make construction more economically feasible. But historically, local governments haven\u2019t faced any consequences if nothing actually gets built.<\/p>\n That changed in 2017, when state lawmakers passed a landmark housing bill aimed at boosting new housing production where it was most needed. In jurisdictions that are halfway through their planning process but have yet to permit at least half their housing targets for above-moderate, low- and very low-income housing (housing affordable to a \u201cmoderate\u201d income level isn\u2019t included), the law requires local governments to fast track most apartment and condo projects. In exchange, developers have to set aside a certain number of affordable units and pay their workers more.<\/p>\n Of the 212 Southern California cities and counties that crossed the halfway point this year, all but four failed to hit those numbers and are now subject to the streamlining law.<\/p>\n But if history is any guide, that alone isn\u2019t likely to trigger a building boom.<\/p>\n Private developers have insisted that the affordability requirements and higher wage standards written into the law make projects infeasible everywhere but in the highest rent neighborhoods. Since 2018, the law has been used to greenlight 27,961 units, according to the state\u2019s housing department. That\u2019s a significant sum, but it\u2019s far from enough to close the gap.<\/p>\n Ben Christopher is a reporter with CalMatters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Every eight years, state housing regulators give cities and counties across California an especially dreaded homework assignment: Make…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":430233,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[380,63800,6752,18997,7926,193,143,121,101,88,90,89,199],"class_list":["post-430232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-jose","tag-affordable-housing","tag-california-department-of-housing-and-community-development","tag-calmatters","tag-los-angles","tag-median-household-income","tag-morgan-hill","tag-oakland","tag-sacramento","tag-san-francisco","tag-san-jose","tag-san-jose-headlines","tag-san-jose-news","tag-saratoga"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=430232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430232\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/430233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=430232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=430232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=430232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nLos Altos Hills: Very Low, 41%; Low, 70%; Moderate, 14%; Above Moderate, 24%.
\nMonte Sereno: Very Low, 106%; Low, 53%; Moderate, 26%; Above Moderate, 81%.
\nMilpitas: Very Low, 9%; Low, 7%; Moderate, 14%; Above Moderate, 24%.
\nPalo Alto: Very Low, 7%; Low, 14%; Moderate, 21%; Above Moderate, 46%.
\nCupertino: Very Low, 9%; Low,16%; Moderate, 15%; Above Moderate, 18%.
\nCampbell:\u00a0 Very Low, 15%; Low, 26%; Moderate,23%; Above Moderate, 27%.
\nGilroy: Very Low, 13%; Low, 22%; Moderate, 189%; Above Moderate, 24%.
\nLos Gatos: Very Low, 21%; Low, 31%; Moderate, 30%; Above Moderate, 18%.
\nMountain View: Very Low, 25%; Low, 15%; Moderate, 10%; Above Moderate, 27%.
\nSanta Clara: Very Low, 10%; Low, 18%; Moderate, 23%; Above Moderate, 32%.
\nSunnyvale: Very Low, 15%; Low, 39%; Moderate, 18%; Above Moderate, 55%.<\/p>\n