Agenda packet — Brentwood City Council, February 13, 2024 (part 6 of 8)

MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25 2022
Contact: Jennifer Hagen, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Phone: 925.516.5405
Email: [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________ BRENTWOOD RELEASES 2023-2031 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
BRENTWOOD, CA – The City of Brentwood is pleased to announce the release of its 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element. The Housing Element is one of seven State-mandated elements of the City’s General Plan. It is a comprehensive statement by the community of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels. The Draft Housing Element is available for download or review on the project website at https://brentwoodhousingelement.com.

Community members are invited to provide comments directly on the website, via email or mail, and/or to participate in upcoming community meetings. The public review period will run through September 27th. In order to facilitate public comment, the City Council will host an introductory special meeting on August 30th at 6 p.m. via zoom. Additional upcoming opportunities for public engagement on the Draft Housing Element include a Planning Commission hearing on September 20th and a City Council hearing on September 27th. Meeting details can be found on the City’s website at https://brentwoodca.gov
###

Page 610 of 894 ends

2023 - 2031
Housing Element Update
The City is pleased to announce the release of the
Public Review Draft of the 2023 - 2031 Housing
Element.

Community members are invited to
participate and provide feedback through
September 27, 2022.

For more information or to review
the Draft Housing Element visit:

By Mail: Attention Planning
City Hall, 150 City Park Way
By E-mail:
[email protected]
By Digital Form:
https://brentwood.info/HE_form
By Attending Public Meetings:

Planning Commission Hearing
September 20, 2022
City Council Hearing
September 27, 2022

Page 611 of 894 ends

Page 612 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-14

Page 613 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-15

Page 614 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-16

Page 615 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-17

Page 616 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-18

Page 617 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-19

Page 618 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-20

Page 619 of 894 ends

Brentwood Buzz
for your families. Please consider completing a short survey to help update the City's Housing Element: Housing Element Survey
Your feedback will help shape plans for the future of housing in Brentwood. The survey is intended to assist in creating policies and programs that appropriately address the housing needs of current and future Brentwood residents while at the same time respecting state laws.

We are also pleased to announce the launch of the webpage for the housing element project, Housing Element Update, which is translatable to Spanish and Chinese.

Please visit the website to get informed about the update, to review FAQs, download project documents, reports, and view a project schedule including upcoming public meetings and other opportunities for engagement.

Parks & Open Space Ballot Measure:

City Council has also directed staff to prepare a ballot measure crafted to protect - where allowed by state law - parks and open spaces from future development. If approved, specific properties will require a ballot measure to change permitted uses covered by the measure.

Details of the land use ballot measure will be discussed at upcoming City Council meetings. The goal is to complete work on the measure by the August deadline so that it can appear on the November 2022 ballot. Background from initial discussions during the April 26, 2022, City Council meeting can be viewed online by following this link: City Council Video Recording Thank you for taking the time to read our newsletter. We encourage your input and involvement in issues that affect your community, and this month I am focused on several land use issues that will benefit from your input.

Housing Element Update:

Based on California state law, the City of Brentwood is updating its 2023-2031 Housing Element, which establishes policies and programs to address housing needs at all income levels throughout the community. Many of you are concerned about the City’s future growth and the various issues tied to expansion, which include ensuring affordable housing options M a y 2 0 2 2
Stay Connected with the City of Brentwood
b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v City Manager's Message
Thank You,
City Manager Tim Ogden
City of Brentwood
[email protected]

Page 620 of 894 ends

7:00 PM - City Council Meeting
b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v View Agenda
View Agenda
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
7:00 PM
City Council Meeting
brentwoodca.gov/vcc

VIEW CALENDAR
Upcoming
Public Meetings
Tuesday, May 10, 2022
5:00 PM
Visit our Online Calendar
for All Upcoming Events
and Meetings
Zoom Link to City
Council Meetings
5:00 PM - Operating Budget
Workshop
p a g e 2 o f 7 M a y 2 0 2 2
Workshop on Upcoming City Budgets Open
to Citizen Input
What's New
The City Council will conduct a Zoom workshop at 5 p.m.

Tuesday, May 10, to discuss the draft 2022/23 - 2023/24 Operating Budget. The workshop is an opportunity for the public and the City Council to provide feedback on the
proposed budget. The operating budget outlines funding for the full range of services provided by the City, including police; parks and recreation; public works; economic development; planning; building; community enrichment; engineering and inspection; housing; general administrative services; water and wastewater utilities; and the collection and disposal of refuse.

The budget also specifies funding needed to implement
strategic initiatives included in the City’s 2022/23 - 2023/24 Strategic Plan. Any changes resulting from the workshop will be incorporated into the final budget document, scheduled for consideration at the City Council’s June 14 meeting. The Operating Budget Draft will be available on May 3, 2022.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Christine Andrews at [email protected]

MEETING INFO
Want to Stay Connect
with the City of Brentwood?
Subscribe to Receive Our
Newsletter and Other City
News

SUBSCRIBE
Concerts in the Park Returns June 17
6/17: Club 90 (90's jams
and beyond)
6/24: Big City Swing
Committee (Swing, jazz,
and blues)
Concerts in the Park Series
will make its return on Friday
June 17, 2022. Bring the whole
family for a free evening of
music, dancing, and fun.

VIEW FULL
LINEUP

Page 621 of 894 ends

b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v

FOLLOW BPD ON

FACEBOOK
p a g e 3 o f 7
Brentwood Police Dispatchers Honored During Telecommunicators Week Although they are rarely seen by the
public, police dispatchers serve as the
first line of communication for both
police and emergency services. They
are responsible for gathering vital
information from callers to help first
responders form an early
understanding of what they will face
when they arrive at the site of an
emergency call.

They are essential to public safety and
act as the lifeline for officers and citizens during dangerous incidents and encounters. They take calls from citizens, relay information to and from officers and record calls for service among other important functions.

Skills in multitasking, teamwork, communication and decision-making — essential to the position — make dispatchers invaluable members of the community.

The Brentwood Police Department
has 11 outstanding dispatchers who
serve their city day in and day out.

Today and every day, the City and its
citizens thank them for their
commitment to the community and
its officers.

Since the Brentwood Dispatch Center
opened in March of 2017, dispatchers
have taken more than 431,772 calls for
service, and 81,333 of those were 911
calls.

Page 622 of 894 ends

b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v p a g e 4 o f 7
The City of Brentwood is enrolled in the
new federal Low Income Household Water
Assistance Program (LIHWAP) which will
provide financial assistance to low-income
Californians to help manage their
residential water and/or wastewater utility
costs. LIHWAP offers a one-time payment
to help pay past-due drinking water and
wastewater bills.

The program is administered by the
California State Department of Community
Assistance with Water/Sewer Bills Available for Low Income Households Services and Development (CSD). Eligible households need to apply in order to receive assistance. Eligibility varies depending on income, household size, place of residence, and other factors. To see if you are eligible, please visit Low Income Water Assistance Program on the CSD website.

LIHWAP is scheduled to be available for households to apply in May 2022. To be notified via email when LIHWAP launches, sign up on the California Department of Community Services and Development website.

If you are behind on your energy bills, CSD also administers the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Yokut Park Soon to Get Its Own Book Box
In 2019, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved and installed book boxes in three Brentwood parks. The boxes allow the public to borrow, keep, or add to the collections. A fourth will soon go up in Yokut Park. Book boxes are now in Creekside, Monarch and Orchard Parks.

Creekside Park
1010 Claremont Dr
Monarch Park
760 Bella Drive
Orchard Park
40 Griffith Lane
“We read to know that we are not alone.” — C.S. Lewis
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more you learn, the more places you’ll go!” — Dr. Seuss

Page 623 of 894 ends

LEARN MORE
The East Contra Costa Historical Museum will
re-open to the public on May 7, 2022 at 2 p.m.

The Museum will be open from 2 p.m. - 4 p.m.
every Saturday and 3rd Sunday 2 p.m. - 4 p.m.
thru October 2022.

Re-opening of East Contra Costa
Historical Museum
b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v

VIEW MAP
p a g e 5 o f 7
Harvest Time in Brentwood farms are now open for the 2022 u-pick season. Early cherry varieties are available for u-pick or pre-pick. Did you know that Brentwood offers over 20 varieties of locally grown cherries? We hope residents can enjoy this year's crop by visiting our local farms or farm stands. Beat the crowds and take advantage of the farm's weekday u-pick
hours! Harvest Time in Brentwood provides an interactive online map for easy navigation.

Brentwood Farms Open for U-Pick
The City recently went live with a
new website, enhancing the digital
front door. Enhancements include
a user-friendly interface; easy
navigation; mobile friendly
features; events and news sections
to keep residents informed about
important information; and an
improved search function, just to
New Website Provides an Improved Intro to the City of Brentwood name a few. We welcome any feedback you may have regarding our website. Please email feedback to [email protected].

Page 624 of 894 ends

As businesses compete to
retain top talent, employee
training and development is
more important than ever.

During their careers,
Brentwood employees receive
annual ALICE Training®, which
uses option-based, proactive
survival strategies to prepare
for violent critical incidents.
b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v p a g e 6 o f 7 M a y 2 0 2 2
Brentwood
Connect 24/7
Helpful Resources
The Brentwood Connect 24/7
mobile app gives residents
and business owners direct
access to City staff, services
and resources that make our
City work.

LEARN MORE

LEARN MORE
Come One! Come All! The
Brentwood Senior Center is
hosting a free Health &
Resource Fair on Thursday,
May 26 from 1-4 p.m. The fair
Senior Health &
Resource Fair
We Are Hiring
will provide seniors with valuable information about health, wellness, utility savings programs, nutrition, and much, much more.

Accounting Specialist
Dance/Gymnastics Instructor
Information Systems Specialist
Lifeguard
Police Dispatcher II
Recreation Leader III - Front Desk
The training was first introduced in 2019 with a 100-percent completion rate. Once 2022 training is complete, employees will receive the ALICE recommended quarterly training. This is just one of the many benefits offered to Brentwood
employees. To learn more about careers with the City, visit the Career Opportunities page.

Some Current Opening Includes:

Page 625 of 894 ends

b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v c i t y o f b r e n t w o o d b r e n t w o o d c a . g o v p a g e 7 o f 7
Registration is still open for the City's free spring
neighborhood clean-up events in May. Clean-up began on
April 30. Other events will be on May 7, May 14, and May 21.

Brentwood residents who have an active garbage account
are invited to participate. Residents can bring up to 2 cubic yards (one pickup truck load or a small utility load) of unwanted household items. These can include – free of
charge – general yard waste, appliances, furniture,
mattresses, metal, computers, TVs and other electronic
waste. In order to participate, residents must register online.

For more information, including calendar dates for the spring Neighborhood Clean-Up
and fall cleanups, go to the Neighborhood Clean-Up Events page of the City website. The page also has a link to a more extensive list of acceptable items.

Brentwood Welcomes New and Coming Soon Businesses
Guadalajara Taqueria (561 1st Street)
Himalayan Salt Cave (8065 Brentwood Blvd Suite 2)
Salt and Fig (225 Oak Street)
Yum Cha Boba & More (380 W. Country Club Drive)
Bonchon Korean Fried Chicken To-Go
Jollibee
Club Pilates
Station 16 Seafood Seafood & Bar
The Cheese Steak Shop
The City of Brentwood Economic Development Department
would like to welcome a few new and coming soon
businesses.

New Businesses:

Coming Soon Businesses:

Business is
If you have questions about how to open a business in Brentwood, please send an email to [email protected].

Page 626 of 894 ends

Make your voices heard!
The City of Brentwood is currently preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element which establishes policies and programs to address housing needs at all income levels throughout the community. The Housing Element is required by State law to be updated every 8 years to account for changes in housing needs including demonstrating capacity to meet our local "fair share" of the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and adoption of new laws.

Be the first to fill out our Housing Element
Update Community Survey. The feedback provided in
the survey will help inform and plan for the future of
housing in Brentwood and is intended to gather
feedback and identify trends on housing preferences,
needs, and future housing opportunities in the city.

Brentwood Housing Element Update
For more information about the
Housing Element Update, please visit
www.brentwoodhousingelement.com
Make your voices heard!
The City of Brentwood is currently preparing the 2023-2031 Housing Element which establishes policies and programs to address housing needs at all income levels throughout the community. The Housing Element is required by State law to be updated every 8 years to account for changes in housing needs including demonstrating capacity to meet our local "fair share" of the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and adoption of new laws.

Brentwood Housing Element Update
For more information about the
Housing Element Update, please visit
www.brentwoodhousingelement.com

Page 627 of 894 ends

¡Haz que tus voces sean escuchadas!
La Ciudad de Brentwood está preparando actualmente el Elemento de Vivienda de 2023-2031, el cual establece políticas y programas para abordar las necesidades de vivienda en todos los niveles de ingresos en toda la comunidad. La ley estatal requiere que el Elemento de Vivienda se actualice cada 8 años para tomar en cuenta los cambios en las necesidades de vivienda, así como demostrar la capacidad para cumplir con nuestra "parte justa" local de la Asignación de Necesidades Regionales de Vivienda (RHNA) asignada y adoptar nuevas leyes.

Sea el primero en completar nuestra Encuesta comunitaria de actualización de Elementos de Vivienda. La retroalimentación proporcionada en la encuesta ayudará a informar y planificar el futuro de la vivienda en Brentwood y está destinada a recopilar comentarios e identificar tendencias sobre las preferencias de vivienda, las necesidades y las futuras oportunidades de vivienda en la ciudad.

Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda de Brentwood
Para obtener más información sobre el
Elemento de Vivienda , conéctese a:
www.brentwoodhousingelement.com
¡Haz que tus voces sean escuchadas!
La Ciudad de Brentwood está preparando actualmente el Elemento de Vivienda de 2023-2031, el cual establece políticas y programas para abordar las necesidades de vivienda en todos los niveles de ingresos en toda la comunidad. La ley estatal requiere que el Elemento de Vivienda se actualice cada 8 años para tomar en cuenta los cambios en las necesidades de vivienda, así como demostrar la capacidad para cumplir con nuestra "parte justa" local de la Asignación de Necesidades Regionales de Vivienda (RHNA) asignada y adoptar nuevas leyes.

Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda de Brentwood
Para obtener más información sobre el
Elemento de Vivienda , conéctese a:
www.brentwoodhousingelement.com

Page 628 of 894 ends

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
Meeting Date: May 10, 2022
Subject/Title: An informational Summary and Overview of Recent Statewide Housing Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood Prepared by: Sylvia Elias, Housing Analyst
Submitted by: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development

PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION
Receive an informational summary and overview of recent Statewide housing legislation and its potential applicability to the City of Brentwood.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
N/A

PREVIOUS ACTION
N/A

BACKGROUND
The attached report summarizes Statewide housing legislation that passed during 2021 and its potential applicability to the City of Brentwood as of January 2022. The report begins with an overview of the process that was used to research recent housing legislation and provides a summary of findings regarding California Senate and Assembly bills that may be applicable to Brentwood.

FISCAL IMPACT
This report is informational only and does not authorize expenditures.

Attachments:

New Housing Laws Summary
Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood C.7
Packet Pg. 100 Page 629 of 894
Overview of Recent State Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood (Legislation Passed During 2021 and Effective January 1, 2022) Summary of Statewide Housing Legislation
This report summarizes Statewide housing legislation that passed during 2021 and its potential applicability to the City of Brentwood as of January 2022. The report begins with an overview of the process that was used to research recent housing legislation and provides a summary of findings regarding California Senate and Assembly bills that may be applicable to Brentwood. It then describes additional information that was compiled during this research effort, and the key findings that are presented in the accompanying tables. This report was prepared by Seifel Consulting, Inc. with input from City staff and outside legal counsel, Goldfarb & Lipman.

Overview of 2021 Housing Legislation Research and Evaluation Process During 2021, a broad variety of housing legislation passed that could potentially affect local jurisdictions like the City of Brentwood, as well as many of the public and private entities who are involved in California’s housing industry. The first step in the research process was to review information published by the Governor’s Office, non-profit organizations and experienced law firms regarding housing legislation that passed during 2021.

This review identified more than thirty housing bills that were passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Newsom during 2021. Research on each bill involved reviewing and analyzing relevant information from the California Legislative Information website and summaries of key legislation prepared by law firms that specialize in California housing and land use law, as well as the League of California Cities.

As key housing legislation adopted in 2021 reflects the Governor’s four housing priorities, these priorities are used as a framework to help analyze and categorize each bill as summarized below:
• Streamlining– Streamlining the building of new homes– Legislation to reduce the time that it takes to secure land use approvals and streamline environmental review for infill housing, subject to certain labor provisions depending on the size of development.
• Production– Breaking down barriers to build housing, especially Affordable Housing– Legislation to help make housing more affordable by catalyzing the production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), smaller homes (duplexes), small developments (up to 10 units), student housing and helping to plan and fund more deeply affordable housing developments. • Fair Housing– Addressing systemic bias by elevating fair housing principles– Legislation to help ensure that local governments affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) and that various components of the housing transaction process, such as appraisals and title reporting, avoid discrimination to protected classes.
• Accountability– Holding local governments accountable to do their job, including maintaining and reporting Planning & Housing Data –
Legislation to require local jurisdictions to facilitate housing production (for example, through the Housing Element process), preserve housing and address other statewide housing goals/needs while providing State agencies with additional oversight, authority and enforcement to hold local governments accountable.

Each Senate Bill (SB) and Assembly Bill (AB) was evaluated to see how it could affect Brentwood according to three criteria:

C.7.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: New Housing Laws Summary (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Housing Legislation)

Page 630 of 894 ends

Overview of Recent State Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood (Legislation Passed During 2021 and Effective January 1, 2022) • Likely– A Senate or Assembly Bill that would likely affect how Brentwood undertakes planning activities (including the Housing Element), implements its housing programs and/or may be subject to greater oversight and monitoring.
• Indirect– A Senate or Assembly Bill that would indirectly affect Brentwood as it would help prioritize or redirect housing funding or could affect key players in the housing industry. • Unlikely– A Senate or Assembly Bill that would not likely affect Brentwood.

Exhibit 1 summarizes the Senate bills that were researched and evaluated according to their likely effect on the City, and Exhibit 2 presents the same information for Assembly bills. Many of these bills contain numerous, complex provisions and contain statutory references that will affect their implementation, so this report provides a high summary of these bills.

Each Senate and Assembly Bill is categorized in these exhibits according to how it addresses the Governor’s housing priorities as follows:
• Streamlining– Bills focused on expediting approvals and environmental review. • Production– Bills focused on producing housing (including affordable housing). • Affordable Housing– Bills focused on producing, preserving or protecting affordable housing.
• Fair Housing– Bills focused on affirmatively promoting fair housing. • Accountability– Bills focused on assuring that local governments are accountable. • Planning & Housing Data– Bills focused on planning and land use requirements, including the preparation of the Housing Element, and the preparation and monitoring of housing data, such as the Annual Housing Element Progress Reports.

Evaluation and Summary of Senate Bills
Based on the research and evaluation presented in this report, seven Senate Bills are most likely to affect housing and land use planning in Brentwood, as briefly summarized below and presented in Exhibit 1:
• SB 8– Amends and extends key provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) until January 1, 2030. Continues key legislative measures that expedite the construction of affordable and market-rate housing while protecting tenant rights. • SB 9– Allows a homeowner to construct a second unit on property zoned for single-family homes or convert existing single-family home to a duplex, provided certain criteria are met. • SB 290– Makes several changes to Density Bonus Law– redefining “total units”, expanding eligibility for ownership housing where at least 10 percent of units are sold to moderate income households and allowing student housing developments to qualify, provided certain criteria are met.
• SB 478– Prohibits a local agency from imposing a floor area ratio (FAR) standard that is less than 1.0 FAR on a 3 to 7 unit housing development or less than 1.25 FAR on an 8 to 10 unit housing development.
• SB 591– Allows intergenerational housing development that includes seniors if certain criteria are met.

C.7.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: New Housing Laws Summary (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Housing Legislation)

Page 631 of 894 ends

Overview of Recent State Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood (Legislation Passed During 2021 and Effective January 1, 2022) • SB 728– Broadens Density Bonus Law to ensure a "qualified nonprofit housing corporation" can purchase for-sale units in an approved housing development to preserve continued affordability for lower income homeowners.
• SB 791– Establishes a California Surplus Land Unit to help local agencies and developers facilitate the development of housing on local surplus land, including the provision of regulations, rules, advice, and support.

Evaluation and Summary of Assembly Bills
The State Assembly passed more than twice as many housing bills as the Senate in 2021. Based on this evaluation, 18 Assembly Senate Bills would likely affect housing and land use planning in Brentwood, which are briefly summarized below and presented in Exhibit 2:
• AB 68– Revises and modernizes the quadrennial Statewide Housing Plan and expands HCD's annual reporting requirements to include publication of an annual report on its website that includes specified information on grants awarded by HCD and land use oversight actions related to housing taken by HCD against local agencies. • AB 215– Increases oversight and accountability for cities that are underperforming on housing production and makes important changes to Housing Element deadlines. • AB 345– Facilitates Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by removing the requirement that local agencies first pass an ordinance allowing conveyance of an ADU separately from a primary residence before such conveyance occurs, and by permitting an ADU to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer (low to moderate income households) in limited circumstances.
• AB 491– Requires that a mixed-income residential building provide the same access to common entrances, areas and amenities for affordable units as market rate units, and affordable housing units should not be isolated within that building. • AB 571– Prohibits a local agency from charging affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees, public benefit fees and in-lieu fees on deed-restricted affordable units that are part of a project eligible for a density bonus under Density Bonus Law. • AB 602– Imposes additional standards and procedures for agencies adopting and increasing impact fees, which include imposing fees based on housing development square footage or making findings to use a different methodology that ensures smaller housing projects are not charged disproportionate fees.
• AB 634– Allows a local government to require an affordability period longer than 55 years for units that qualify a developer for a density bonus. • AB 721– Generally, makes recorded covenants that limit residential development unenforceable against qualifying affordable housing developments and ensures that restrictive covenants do not curtail the type and density of development • AB 787– Expands existing law that permits jurisdictions to claim credit for up to 25 percent of their RHNA from the conversion of existing housing units to include moderate income households, provided certain criteria are met.

C.7.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: New Housing Laws Summary (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Housing Legislation)

Page 632 of 894 ends

Overview of Recent State Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood (Legislation Passed During 2021 and Effective January 1, 2022) • AB 803– Removes the ability for local agencies to require setback requirements between units beyond that required by the State Building Code, establish a minimum home size, or require enclosed or covered parking beyond that allowed by state density bonus law. • AB 838– Seeks to ensure that tenants can receive timely inspections of their rental unit and explicitly prohibits a local government from placing unreasonable conditions on the inspection of rental housing.
• AB 1029– Requires HCD to consider making preservation of affordable housing into a prohousing policy for purposes of HCD's regulations and to establish a pro-housing designation for local jurisdictions.
• AB 1043– Adds a new housing affordability definition called "acutely low Income" households who earn 15 percent of Areawide Median Income (AMI) and whose rents can be no greater than 30 percent of the 15 percent AMI level. • AB 1174– Specifies that the "shot clock" for a development or modifications is paused when a project is sued and clarifies that subsequent permit applications must only meet objective standards in place when the project was initially approved. • AB 1304– Ensures that local governments must affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) in their jurisdictions by clarifying enforcement language and strengthening the housing element site inventory evaluation to show how the site inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing. • AB 1398– Imposes new zoning and site analysis requirements to encourage housing production and to affirmatively further fair housing, as well as reduces the allowable time period to one year (from 3.33 years) to complete rezoning of sites to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need when certain conditions occur related to a jurisdiction's Housing Element compliance.
• AB 1466– Requires a title insurance company involved in any transfer of real property and that provides a deed or other documents to identify whether any of the documents contain unlawfully restrictive covenants and to record a specified modification document with the county recorder if one is found.
• AB 1584– Restricts contractual development controls that mirror AB 721 by declaring any covenant, condition and restriction (CC&R) that prohibits, effectively prohibits or restricts the construction or use of an ADU on a lot zoned for single-family use is unenforceable.

C.7.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: New Housing Laws Summary (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Housing Legislation)

Page 633 of 894 ends

Overview of Recent State Legislation and Potential Applicability to the City of Brentwood (Legislation Passed During 2021 and Effective January 1, 2022) Goldfarb & Lipman is an experienced law firm that specializes in housing and land use law and serves as outside counsel to the City of Brentwood regarding the City’s housing programs and policies, which has included a review of SB 9. Appendix 1 includes the Goldfarb & Lipman Summary of 2021 Legislative Session Housing Bills that presents further information regarding key aspects of recently adopted housing legislation, which was a key reference for this report.

Evaluation and Summary of State Funding for Housing Programs Also evaluated, current State funding for housing programs authorized by the Budget Act of 2021 and related Budget trailer bills (SB 129 and AB 140), which provide substantial funding to housing and homelessness-related programs across California including:
• $2 billion in aid to counties, large cities, and Continuums of Care through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program.
• $380 million for the CalWORKs Housing Support Program over two years to house families in the program and help them avoid eviction.
• $300 million for the Home Safe Program over two years to help combat senior homelessness. • $250 million for Homekey within the Multifamily Housing Program (bringing total investment to $1.45 billion).
• $250 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. • $100 million to the California Housing Finance Agency to expand homebuyer assistance. • $50 million to expand the Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF) to provide five-year loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.

These State funding resources could help Brentwood to preserve and develop affordable housing for a broad range of households, including seniors, persons experiencing homelessness, special needs households, and first-time homebuyers.

C.7.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: New Housing Laws Summary (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Housing Legislation)

Page 634 of 894 ends

Exhibit 1
Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood – Senate Bills Effective 1/1/22
Bill Information and Applicability to Brentwood
Bill # Sponsor
Streamlining
Production
Affordable Housing
Fair Housing
Planning & Hsg Data
Accountability
Applies
to City?
Bill Title or Summary
Description Overview of Key Bill Provisions
Senate Bills
SB 8 Skinner X X X X X Likely Housing Crisis Act of 2019- Extension/Update
Amends and extends key provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) until January 1, 2030. Helps expedite affordable and market-rate construction by providing early vested rights, limiting ad hoc fee increases on housing, barring local governments from reducing the number of homes that can be built, and cutting the time it takes to obtain discretionary project approvals. Modifies definition of "housing development project" to include those that involve no discretionary approvals or build a single dwelling unit. Modifies requirements regarding replacement housing, relocation and tenant right to return. Provides that receipt of a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development inconsistent, noncompliant, or nonconforming with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement or similar provision Extends the Act’s sunset by five years to January 1, 2034.

SB 9 Atkins X X X Likely Duplex and Lot Splits Allows a homeowner to split their lot and construct a second unit on every property zoned for single-family homes in California or convert their existing single-family home to a duplex, provided certain criteria are met.

SB 290 Skinner X X X Likely Density Bonus Law
Amendents; Student
Housing
Makes several changes to Density Bonus Law. Redefines "total units" to include inclusionary housing units and exclude units added by state or local density bonus in calculating the density bonus and incentives/concessions.

Removes "specific adverse impact on the physical environment" as a basis for denying a concession, incentive, waiver, or deduction of development standard. Expands the types of for-sale moderate-income housing units that can benefit from a density bonus. Allows student housing developments that reserve at least 20 percent of their units for lower-income students to access one incentive or concession under Density Bonus Law and requires jurisdictions to report the number of units for lower-income students in such developments in their annual progress report.

SB 478 Weiner X X Likely Minimum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)/Lot Coverage
Standards
Prohibits a local agency from imposing a floor area ratio standard that is less than 1.0 on a housing development project that consists of 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a housing development project that consists of 8 to 10 units.

SB 591 Becker X X LIkely Senior citizens:
intergenerational housing
developments
Allows intergenerational housing development that includes seniors if both requirements are met: a) Affordable to lower income households as specified; b) 80% of the dwelling units are occupied by at least one senior citizen and up to 20% of the dwelling units may be occupied by at least one caregiver or transition age youth.

SB 728 Hertzberg X X Likely Density Bonus Law:
purchase of density bonus
units by nonprofit
Broadens Density Bonus Law to ensure a "qualified nonprofit housing corporation" can purchase for-sale units in an approved housing development project to preserve continued affordability for lower income homeowners.

SB 791 Cortese X X X Likely Establishment of California Surplus Land Unit
Establishes HCD California Surplus Land Unit to provide technical assistance to local agencies and developers to facilitate the development and construction of housing on local surplus land, including the provision of regulations, rules, advice, and support.
6 C.7.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational

Page 635 of 894 ends

SB 10 Weiner X X Unlikely Housing development: 10
Unit Upzonings
Creates a voluntary process for local governments to streamline the upzoning of parcels by passing an ordinance prior to January 1, 2029 to zone any parcel for up to 10 units in a "transit-rich area" or "urban infill site" without triggering environmental review under CEQA.
7 C.7.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational

Page 636 of 894 ends

Exhibit 2
Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood – Assembly Bills Effective 1/1/22 Bill Information and Applicability to Brentwood
Bill # Sponsor
Streamlining
Production
Affordable Housing
Fair Housing
Planning & Hsg Data
Accountability
Applies
to City?
Bill Title or Summary
Description Overview of Key Bill Provisions
AB 68 Quirk-Silva X X X Likely Statewide Housing Plans, Annual Reports by HCD
Revises and modernizes the quadrennial Statewide Housing Plan and expands HCD's annual reporting requirements. Authorizes HCD to use data collected by the Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council in compiling the Statewide Housing Plan. Requires HCD to develop and publish an annual report on its website by December 31 each year, which will include specified information on grants awarded by HCD and regarding land use oversight actions taken by HCD against local agencies for housing violations related to the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), SB 35 streamlining, Permanent Supportive Housing streamlining, and Low Barrier Navigation Center streamlining.

AB 215 Chiu X X X Likely Planning and Zoning Law:

Housing Element. Violations
and enforcement
Increases oversight and accountability for cities that are underperforming on housing production, including adding SB 8 to the list of housing laws that the Attorney General (AG) can enforce. Specifies that existing statutes of limitation of three years apply to any action or proceeding brought by the AG or HCD. Requires local agencies to make draft revisions of the housing element available for public comment for 30 days and must consider and incorporate public comments prior to submission to HCD for review. If public comments are received, cities must take at least 10 business days after the 30-day public comment period to consider and incorporate the comments.

Expands AG's authority to independently seek action and grants HCD the ability to hire or appoint other counsel if AG does not pursue action against a local agency that has allegedly violated certain housing laws, inclusive of the HCA, AFFH policies (AB 686), SB 35 Streamlining, Permanent Supportive Housing streamlining (AB 2162) and Low Barrier Navigation Center streamlining (AB 101).

AB 345 Quirk-Silva X X X Likely ADUs: separate conveyance Facilitates ADUs by removing requirement for a local agency to first pass an ordinance allowing the conveyance of an ADU separately from a primary residence before such conveyance occurs and permits an ADU to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer (low and moderate income households as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) in limited circumstances. Helps qualified non-profits sell ADUs to low and moderate income households in two ways: 1) requires local governments to allow such sales and 2) increases the clarity and efficacy of legal agreements between the homeowners.

AB 491 Ward X X X Likely Same housing access:
affordable and market rate
units
Requires that a mixed-income residential building provide the same access to common entrances, areas and amenities for affordable units as market rate units, and affordable housing units should not be isolated within that building to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor in any residential building with five or more residential dwelling units.

AB 571 Mayes X X Likely Planning and zoning, liimits
fees on affordable housing
per Density Bonus Law
Prohibits a local government from charging affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees, public benefit fees, and in-lieu fees on deed-restricted affordable units that are part of a project eligible for a density bonus under Density Bonus Law.

AB 602 Grayson X X Likely Development Impact Fee
nexus study standards and
procedures
Imposes additional standards and procedures for agencies adopting impact fees. Requires agencies to identify an existing and proposed level of service for public facilities and information supporting the agency's actions in increasing fees and requires agencies to impose fees on a housing development proportionately to the square footage of the development or make findings to use a different methodology that ensures smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.

AB 634 Carrillo X X Likely Density Bonus Law:
affordability restriction
Allows a local government to require an affordability period longer than 55 years for units that qualify a developer for a density bonus.
8 C.7.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational

Page 637 of 894 ends

AB 787 Gabriel X X LIkely Planning and Housing
Element: moderate-income
conversions counted toward
Expands existing law that permits jurisdictions to claim credit for up to 25 percent of their RHNA from the conversion of existing housing units to include moderate income households, provided certain criteria are met.

AB 803 Horvath X X Likely Home Revitalization Act,
Housing Density
Removes the ability for local agencies to require setback requirements between units beyond that required by the State Building Code, establish a minimum home size, or require enclosed or covered parking beyond that allowed by Density Bonus Law.

AB 838 Friedman X Likely State Housing Law:
enforcement response to
complaints
Seeks to ensure that tenants can receive timely inspections of their rental unit and explicitly prohibits a local government from placing unreasonable conditions on the inspection of rental housing. Also seeks to ensure other parties are given notice of violations and provides that, if a tenant submits a complaint to a city or county, the local government is required to cite any violations and provide free copies of inspection reports to the individual who submitted a complaint and others who may be impacted. Requires a local government to act as quickly as they would when conducting a final building inspection. Prohibits a local government from refusing to communicate with a tenant in order to avoid complying with the inspection requirements.

AB 1029 Mullin X X X Likely Housing Element: prohousing local policies, preservation
Requires HCD to consider making preservation of affordable housing into a pro-housing policy for purposes of their regulations, which may lead to the revisions in their approach to the pro-housing designation, as the current scoring system does not give credit for the preservation of affordable housing or other measures that keep housing affordable. Requires HCD to establish a pro-housing designation for local jurisdictions and defines “prohousing local policies” to mean policies that facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of housing, Requires that jurisdictions designated pro-housing and have an adopted housing element in substantial compliance according to HCD must be awarded additional points or preference in the scoring of program applications.

AB 1043 Bryan X Likely Housing programs: rental
housing developments,
affordablility levels
Adds a new subset of lower income households called "acutely low Income" households, who earn 15 percent of AMI and whose rents can be no greater than 30 percent of the 15 percent AMI level.

AB 1174 Grayson X X X Likely Reforms to SB 35's
Streamlined Ministerial
Process for Post-Approval
Changes and Permits
Specifies that the "shot clock" for a development or modifications is paused when a project is sued, and clarifies that subsequent permit applications must only meet the objective standards that were in place when the project was initially approved.

AB 1304 Santiago X X Likely Affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH), Housing
Element, Inventory of
land
Ensures that local governments must affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) in their jurisdictions. Clarifies enforcement language and makes clear that local governments must analyze racial segregation patterns within their own jurisdiction as well as within the broader region, in addition to historical factors and current policies that contribute to fair housing issues. Strengthens the existing requirement that the housing element sites inventory affirmatively further fair housing by requiring the local government to state how the inventory in fact does this. 9 C.7.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational

Page 638 of 894 ends

Exhibit 2
Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood – Assembly Bills Effective 1/1/22 Bill Information and Applicability to Brentwood
Bill # Sponsor
Streamlining
Production
Affordable Housing
Fair Housing
Planning & Hsg Data
Accountability
Applies
to City?
Bill Title or Summary
Description Overview of Key Bill Provisions
AB 1398 Bloom X X X Likely Accelerating By-Right
Rezoning Requirements for
Non-Compliant Housing
Elements
Imposes new zoning and site analysis requirements to encourage housing production and to affirmatively further fair housing. Reduces the allowable time period to one year (from 3.33 years) to complete rezoning of sites to accommodate a jurisdiction’s regional housing need If the jurisdiction does not adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance within 120 days of its due date and prohibits the housing element from being found in substantial compliance until that rezoning is completed.

AB 1466 McCarty X X Likely Real property, removal of
unenforceable discriminatory
restrictions
Requires a title insurance company involved in any transfer of real property and that provides a deed or other documents to identify whether any of the documents contain unlawfully restrictive covenants and, if found, record a specified modification document with the county recorder. Makes changes to the existing process of recording a restrictive covenant modification, as provided.

AB 1584 OmniBus X X Likely Housing Omnibus,
limitations on covenants for
ADU Zoning
Restricts contractual development controls that mirror AB 721 by declaring unenforceable any covenant, condition and restriction (CC&R) contained within a deed, contract, security instrument or other instrument that prohibits, effectively prohibits or restricts the construction or use of an ADU on a lot zoned for single-family use.

AB 447 Grayson X X Indirect Tax credit (LIHTC)
expansion for at-risk
properties
Revises and updates the list of eligible government assistance programs that count towards the "at risk" designation under the state LIHTC program. Allows the CTCAC to allocate tax credits to a wider range of affordable housing developments that are at risk of losing their affordability requirements and converting to market rate housing.

AB 948 Holden X Indirect Bureau of Real Estate:

Appraisers, disclosures,
demographic information
Contains requirements for disclosures in transactions, required pre-licensing and continuing education, and the addition of clear language in the Fair Employment and Housing Act that discrimination based upon protected classes in the provision of appraisal services is unlawful.

AB 1095 Cooley X X Indirect Equity in state and local
programs for affordable
homeownership
Creates parity between affordable homeownership and rental projects in state funding programs. Clarifies that projects eligible for AHSC funding include owner-occupied housing, in addition to rental housing. Requires the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to adopt guidelines or selection criteria that include both affordable rental and owner-occupied units and allows SGC to include guidelines or criteria for the award of funds to projects that provide home ownership opportunities for low-income individuals in notices of funding availability released after July 1, 2022.

AB 1297 Holden X Indirect State Infrastructure and
Economic Development
Bank: public and economic
development facilities,
housing
Expands the IBank's financing authority to include financing projects with a housing component when it is required for the operation of an economic or public development facility, and no part of the housing component is financed with tax-exempt bonds. The housing component could include but is not limited to rental housing, employee housing and student housing.
10 C.7.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational

Page 639 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
Summary of 2021 Legislative Session Housing Bills
Below is a summary of significant housing legislation that was passed in the 2021 legislative session and subsequently signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom.

GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT
Housing Element Timing. AB 215 makes important changes to Housing Element deadlines. Specifically, AB 215 provides that the first draft of a housing element must be made available for public review and comment for at least 30 days. If any public comments are received, the local government must take at least 10 business days after the 30-day public comment period to consider and incorporate the comments. This must be done before submitting the draft housing element to HCD for
review, otherwise HCD will not review the draft. Subsequent drafts must be posted electronically and those interested must be provided notice at least 7 days before submitting to HCD.

Additionally, AB 215 extends the time that HCD has to review the first draft of the housing element to 90 days and reiterates that it has 60 days to review any subsequent drafts.

AB 215 also provides HCD with authority to contract with an independent attorney to sue jurisdictions over housing law violations where the Attorney General has declined to bring suit or represent HCD. Lastly, it extends the statute of limitations to three years for actions brought by the Attorney General or HCD or pursuant to a notice of violation issued by HCD regarding housing laws.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The AFFH legislation primarily codifies requirements already imposed by HCD's AFFH Guidelines. AB 1304 requires local governments to
administer their programs and activities relating to housing in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing. Similarly, AB 1398 provides that the site inventory and analysis contained in housing elements must include discussion of the relationship between the identified site and the jurisdiction's duty to affirmatively further fair housing. AB 1398 also requires that any AFFH analysis identify and examine patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs both within the jurisdiction and regionally. Any assessments should include local and regional historical origins and current policies and practices for identified fair housing issues.

Rezoning. In addition to the AFFH changes, AB 1398 imposes new rezoning requirements on jurisdictions. If a jurisdiction does not adopt a housing element that HCD has found in
substantial compliance within 120 days of the housing element due date, the agency now has one year from the housing
element due date to complete rezoning of sites. Previously, the agency had three years and 120 days regardless of the date the element was found in compliance. If the housing element requires rezoning and it is not completed within one year of the housing element due date, HCD may revoke any findings of compliance it has previously made. Prior to revoking its findings, HCD must issue inconsistency findings and give the local agency an opportunity to respond. Finally, if a housing element is adopted more than one year after the due date, it cannot be found to be in compliance until the agency has completed any required rezoning.

AB 1398 also eliminates 4-year housing element cycles for local governments that fail to adopt a housing element within 120 days of the due date. Starting with the 6th cycle, adoption of a housing element that HCD finds to be in substantial compliance with state law will be deemed to satisfy the 4-year housing element requirement.

Annual Progress Reports. SB 290 requires jurisdictions to include in their annual reports the number of units in a student housing development for lower-income students for which a developer was granted a density bonus. SB 9 requires
C.7.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New Appendix 1

Page 640 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
jurisdictions to report the number of units constructed pursuant to its provisions as well as the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits.

SB 787 provides that a local agency may include in the annual report the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were deed-restricted rental for moderate-income
households by imposition of affordability
covenants/restrictions for up to 25 percent of moderateincome RHNA. The jurisdiction must clearly indicate that these are not newly constructed units and must meet specific
requirements to be able to count these units in the annual report. While implementation of this new provision begins January 1, 2023, the agency may report any conversion that occurred after January 1, 2022. SB 787 does not provide that jurisdictions may use these units in their housing elements to satisfy their RHNA.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
SB 330 Update. SB 8 extends the key provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 until January 1, 2030. If a qualifying preliminary application for a housing development is submitted prior to January 1, 2030, the rights to complete the project can vest until January 1, 2034. SB 8 extends the protections provided by a preliminary application to three and a half years from “final approval” if the project is an "affordable housing project" as statutorily defined.

Perhaps most significantly, SB 8 modifies the definition of "housing development project" to include (1) projects that involve no discretionary approvals, and (2) projects to build a single dwelling unit. While this definition does not impact the scope of "housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act, it does impact the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) and the Housing Crisis Act. As a result, the 30-day deadline in the PSA to notify applicants if their project is complete will apply to SB 35 projects, ADUs, SB 9 projects, and single-family homes.

Other clarifications made by SB 8 include:
• Expanding the definition of "hearing" to include "any appeal" conducted by the jurisdiction with respect to
the housing development project
• Providing that receipt of a density bonus, including
any incentives, concessions, or waivers, does not
constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed
housing development inconsistent, noncompliant, or
nonconforming with an applicable plan, program,
policy, ordinance, standard, requirement or similar
provision
SB 8 also amends the replacement housing and relocation requirements in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Existing law requires one-for-one replacement of statutorily defined "protected units" that are demolished. Moreover, existing law provides that all residents of protected units, regardless of income, are entitled to state relocation benefits and a right of first refusal to a comparable unit. SB 8 changes these
requirements by:
• Extending the requirement to replace "protected
units" to a project that proposes to demolish a singlefamily home. If a "protected" single-family home is being replaced in a development that consists of two
or more units, "comparable units" means:
o A unit that contains the same number of
bedrooms, if the single-family home had
three or fewer bedrooms; or
C.7.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 641 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
o A unit that contains three bedrooms, if the
single-family home had four or more
bedrooms.
• Clarifying that existing occupants that are displaced for the housing development project can return to
their units at their prior rental rate if the demolition does not proceed and the property is returned to the
rental market.
• Limiting relocation benefits, including rental
assistance payments and right of first refusal, to
lower-income households.
• Providing that the existing occupants' right of first refusal to a comparable unit in the new housing
development does not apply to:
o A development project that consists of a
single residential unit located on a site where
a single protected unit is being demolished;
o Units in a housing development in which 100
percent of the units, except the manager's
unit(s), are reserved for lower-income
households;
o Occupants of a short-term rental that is
rented for fewer than 30 days;
o Any unlawful occupant of a protected unit.

Floor Area Ratio. SB 478 sets minimum floor area ratios (FAR) in multifamily residential zones and mixed-use zones. For projects with 3-7 units, there is a minimum FAR of 1.0; the minimum FAR is 1.25 for projects with 8-10 units. A local agency cannot impose a lot coverage requirement that would physically preclude a housing development from achieving these FARs. However, it may impose other zoning design
standards. A local agency also cannot deny a housing
development project located on an existing legal parcel, and meeting specified requirements, solely because the lot area of the proposed lot does not meet requirements for minimum size.

Two-Unit Developments & Urban Lot Splits. For a
comprehensive overview of SB 9, see our Law Alert HERE.

Upzoning. For a comprehensive overview of SB 10, see our Law Alert HERE.

DENSITY BONUS
Changes to Density Bonus Law. SB 290 makes several small changes to state density bonus law. First, it redefines "total units" to (1) include inclusionary housing units, and (2) exclude the units added by state or local density bonus in calculating the density bonus and incentives/concessions. Additionally, SB 290 removes "specific adverse impact on the physical environment" as a basis for denying a concession, incentive, waiver, or deduction of development standard; denials may only be based on health or safety impacts.

Next, SB 290 requires a jurisdiction to grant one incentive/ concession for student housing with a 20 percent set-aside for low-income students. The jurisdiction's housing element annual report must include the number of housing units for lower-income students for which the student housing
development was granted a density bonus.

SB 290 also eliminates the requirement that moderate-income units be in a "common interest" development to qualify for a density bonus, instead providing for a density bonus so long as 10 percent of the total units in any for-sale housing
development are sold to moderate-income families. Lastly, C.7.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 642 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
SB 290 extends the parking ratio exception to cover
development with at least 40 percent moderate-income units and located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. Where the housing development project meets these requirements, jurisdictions cannot impose a parking requirement that
exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom.

Purchase of Density Bonus Units. SB 728 broadens the
requirements for a for-sale unit that qualifies an applicant for a density bonus. Whereas previously the applicant and the city or county had to ensure that the initial occupant of the for-sale affordable unit was a person or family of very low, low, or moderate income, now the for-sale unit may be purchased by a "qualified nonprofit housing corporation." The nonprofit must have 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and a state welfare
exemption and must sell to low-income families pursuant to a no-interest loan program. To satisfy the requirements in density bonus law, it must be purchased under a recorded contract that includes:
• A repurchase option that requires a subsequent
purchaser of the property that desires to sell or
convey the property to first offer the qualified
nonprofit corporation a right to repurchase;
• An equity sharing agreement, as statutorily defined;
and
• Affordability restrictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure the property will be
preserved for lower-income housing for at least 45
years.

Local Affordability Restrictions. AB 634 clarifies that state density bonus law does not prohibit a jurisdiction from requiring an affordability period that is longer than 55 years for any units that qualify a housing development project for a density bonus, if required to meet the terms of a local inclusionary ordinance, so long as the project is not financed with low-income housing tax credits.

IMPACT FEES
Development Fee: Impact Fee Nexus Study. AB 602 outlines the following new requirements for local impact fee nexus studies:

1. The study must be adopted prior to adoption of the
associated development fee;

2. The study must identify the existing and proposed
level of service for each public facility and explain why the proposed service level is necessary;

3. The study must include supporting information as
required by the Mitigation Fee Act;

4. If the study supports a fee increase, it must also
support the original fee;

5. The study must employ one of the following
calculation methods after July 1, 2022:
a. The fee is levied proportionately to the
square footage of the proposed units. This
method is automatically deemed a valid
method by which to establish a reasonable
relationship between the fee charged and
the burden imposed by the development; or
b. The fee is levied on some alternative basis
of calculation, if the local agency makes the
following specified findings: (1) an
explanation of why square footage is not an
appropriate metric; (2) an explanation that
the alternative basis bears a reasonable
relationship between the fee charged and
the burden imposed by the development;
C.7.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 643 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
and (3) other policies in the fee structure
ensure that smaller developments are not
charged disproportionate fees.

6. If the jurisdiction is a "large jurisdiction," meaning a county with a population of at least 250,000 people or
any city within such a county, the city or county must
adopt a capital improvement plan;

7. The study must be adopted at a public hearing with at least 20-days' notice, and the local agency must notify any member of the public who requested notice of
the date of the hearing; and

8. The study must be updated at least every eight (8)
years, beginning January 1, 2022.

Any member of the public, including an applicant for a housing development project, may submit evidence that the city, county, or local agency has failed to comply with the
requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Upon receipt of such information, the jurisdiction must consider the timely
submitted evidence and authorize the legislative body to adjust the proposal if deemed necessary in light of evidence
considered.

Additionally, a city, county, or special district must (1) request the developer to provide total amount of fees and exactions associated with a project upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, and (2) if the developer provides this information, post this information on its website. The information posted on the jurisdiction's website must be updated at least twice a year, but the jurisdiction may include a disclaimer that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the information received and posted. Developers are not required to provide the
information.

AB 602 is not intended to prevent a local agency from
establishing and adopting different fees for different types of developments. Additionally, these new study requirements do not apply to any fees or charges for water and sewer services and facilities.

Lastly, AB 602 directs HCD to create a template, by January 1, 2023, that may be used by local jurisdictions to design their impact fee nexus studies. The template must include a method for calculating the feasibility of housing being built within a given fee level.

Impact Fees & Affordable Housing. AB 571 prohibits the
imposition of affordable housing impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees and in-lieu fees, on a housing development's affordable units.

OTHER SIGNIFICANT HOUSING LEGISLATION
Mixed-Income Structures. AB 491 addresses fair housing
issues in mixed-income structures. Specifically, AB 491 provides that in a mixed-income multifamily structure, the residents of the affordable housing units must have the same access as the residents of the market-rate units to (1) the common entrances of the structure, and (2) the common areas and amenities of the structure. Perhaps more significantly, AB 491 also states that the affordable housing units in a multifamily structure cannot be isolated on a specific floor or area of a floor; rather, they must be integrated throughout the structure.

For the purposes of this legislation, a "mixed-income
multifamily structure" means any residential structure with five or more dwelling units that includes both affordable housing units and market-rate housing units. "Affordable housing unit" C.7.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 644 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
is defined to include both low- and moderate-income units.

Nothing in AB 491 prohibits the development of a separate structure with all affordable housing units.

Restrictive Covenants. During this session, the Legislature addressed restrictive covenants as barriers to the development of housing. First, AB 721 allows the owner of a statutorily defined affordable housing development to record a restrictive covenant modification to make inoperable a recorded
covenant, condition, or restriction that restricts the number, size, or location of the residences that may be built on a property, or that restricts the number of people or families who may reside on the property. To qualify, the owner of the affordable housing development must submit the modification document, along with supporting documentation, to the
county recorder. The county recorder must forward the
documentation to the county counsel who must make a
determination whether, among other things, the original restrictive covenant contains an unlawful restriction in violation of AB 721 and the property qualifies as an affordable housing development. The intended impact of AB 721 is to ensure that restrictive covenants do not curtail the type and density of development otherwise permitted on a site by the local zoning.

Similarly, AB 1584 makes void and unenforceable any
covenant, restriction, or condition that "effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts" construction or use of qualifying accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units on single-family residential lots. For the purposes of the law, reasonable restrictions are those that do not unreasonably increase construction costs, effectively prohibit construction, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct. Unlike AB 721, AB 1584's provisions automatically void the effect of any CC&Rs that conflict with its provisions; the owner of the property need not take any additional action.

While similar provisions were passed in 2019 and 2020 that amended Civil Code §§ 4740, 4741 & 4751 to prohibit these types of CC&Rs from being imposed by homeowners'
associations and common interest developments, AB 1584
amends Civil Code § 714.3 to void any of these CC&Rs,
regardless of their origin. AB 1584 serves to reinforce previously adopted legislation.

Conveyance of ADUs. Previously, the law permitted
jurisdictions to choose to allow separate conveyance of certain accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by adoption of a local
ordinance. SB 345 requires local agencies to allow for separate conveyance or sale of these ADUs.

To separately convey an ADU, it must meet the following requirements:
• The ADU was built or developed by a statutorily
defined qualified nonprofit corporation;
• The ADU is being sold to a statutorily defined qualified buyer;
• There is a recorded restriction on the use of the land between the buyer and the nonprofit;
• The property is held pursuant to a tenancy in common
agreement that, among other requirements, provides
for affordability restrictions on the future sale or
conveyance of both the ADU and the primary dwelling
on the property;
• The recording of a grant deed with the county naming
the grantor and grantee, and describing the property
interests being transferred; and
C.7.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 645 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
• If requested by a utility providing service to the
primary dwelling unit, separate water, sewer, or
electrical connection to that utility for the ADU.

AB 345 also requires that any tenancy in common agreement, as outlined above, that is recorded after December 31, 2021, include the following:
• Delineation of all areas of the property that are for the exclusive use of a cotenant;
• Delineation of each cotenant's responsibility for the costs of taxes, insurance, utilities, general
maintenance and repair, improvements, and any
other costs, obligations, or liabilities associated with the property; and
• Procedures for the resolution of disputes among the
cotenants before legal action.

To the extent that jurisdictions have adopted local policies regarding the separate conveyance or sale of these types of ADUs, AB 345 would override any conflicting provisions.

Starter Home Development. AB 803, or Starter Home
Revitalization Act, seeks to make it easier to develop smaller, more affordable homes to increase homeownership. AB 803 eliminates minimum lot sizes to encourage zero lot line detached homes and requires approval of projects that
propose these types of homes and meet certain other criteria.

The proposed development must, among other requirements, meet the following requirements:
• The site to be developed must be in a multifamily
residential zone, substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses, and at least five acres in size;
• The project must propose to develop single-family
homes on fee simple ownership lots;
• The project must comply with existing density, height requirements and setbacks in relation to other sites;
• The proposed development must be within the
boundaries of a jurisdiction that has adopted a
compliant housing element.

A local agency need not ministerially approve projects that meet all the criteria in AB 803, but it must approve the application so long as the development complies with nonconflicting local standards and would not have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. A local agency may impose conditions not in conflict with the law, except that it:
• May not impose setback requirements between
buildings, except as required by the state Building
Code;
• May not impose a minimum lot size;
• May not require covered or enclosed parking; and
• May not require the formation of a homeowner's
association.

The utility of AB 803 is likely to be limited given its narrow application and strict criteria.

Enforcement Response to Complaints. With the goal of
ensuring safe and habitable housing for tenants, AB 838 imposes on cities and counties new rules for the enforcement of complaints of substandard building conditions or lead hazard violations. First, AB 838 requires that local agencies inspect the property in question as promptly after receipt of a complaint as they would a request for final inspection.

C.7.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 646 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
Moreover, agencies cannot impose unreasonable conditions, such as that the tenant be current on rent or in compliance with their rental agreement, on responding to substandard building complaints.

Upon inspection, the agency must document any violations and substandard conditions. Thereafter, the agency must inform the owner of the property of any violations and
required corrective actions and schedule a time for
reinspection to ensure compliance with the corrective actions.

Finally, the city or county may not collect a fee from the property owner for the inspection or the report and must provide free, certified copies of inspection reports and citations to any who requests such copies.

A local agency is not required to conduct an inspection where (1) the complaint does not allege one or more substandard conditions, or (2) a previous complaint, submitted by a tenant, resident, or occupant about the same property, was
determined to be frivolous or unfounded by an inspector in the last 180 days.

Intergenerational Housing. SB 591 seeks to facilitate the establishment of intergenerational housing to benefit senior citizens who need special living environments and services. The new law provides that an intergenerational housing
development may be established to provide housing units for senior citizens, caregivers, or transition age youth if, among others, the following requirements are met:
• At least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one senior citizen, which is defined as a
person 55 years of age or older;
• Up to 20 percent of the occupied units are occupied
by at least one statutorily defined caregiver or
transition age youth, defined as a person who is 18 to
24 years of age and is either a current or former foster youth or a current or former homeless youth;
• The development is affordable to statutorily defined
lower-income households; and
• The CC&Rs or written policy for the development set
forth the limitations on occupancy, residency, or use.

SB 591 is particularly important because it allows developers that have certain funds or tax credits designated for affordable rental housing to expand occupancy to include not only senior citizens, but also caregivers and transitional youth.

Surplus Land Unit. SB 791 creates the California Surplus Land Unit within the Department of Housing and Community
Development. The purpose of the Unit is to facilitate
development and construction of residential housing on local surplus land, which is defined as land declared surplus by a local agency, pursuant to Gov. Code §§ 54220, et seq., or by a school district, pursuant to Educ. Code §§ 17455, et seq. The Unit may engage in the following activities in the furtherance of its purpose:
• Facilitate agreements between housing developers
and local agencies seeking to dispose of surplus land;
• Provide advice or technical assistance and services to local agencies with surplus land or developers seeking
to develop housing on the surplus land;
• Collaborate with other relevant state agencies, such
as the California Housing Finance Agency or the
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, to assist
housing developers and local agencies with obtaining
grants, loans, tax credits, and other types of financing; • Collect and compile data on housing production on
local surplus land.

C.7.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 647 of 894 ends

990051\01\3212597.1
Month 00, 2021 Month 00, 2021 February 17, 2022
For more information about this new housing legislation summary or any specific bills, please contact Barbara Kautz ([email protected]), Nazanin Salehi
([email protected]), or any other attorney at
Goldfarb Lipman LLP.

C.7.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Summary Matrix of Housing Legislation and Applicability to Brentwood (2674 : Informational Summary and Overview on New

Page 648 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-21
C.9 Public Review Draft
This section contains all outreach conducted for the release of the Public Review Draft Housing Element.

On August 25, 2022, the City released the Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element for a required 30-day public review period. The Document was made available on the project website as a complete document and in individual sections. The community had the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions on the Draft via a Feedback Form, email, mail, or public comment through September 27, 2022.

A total of two responses were submitted through the Feedback Form and four through email – they are summarized and provided below. The City has also included responses as to how the feedback was addressed in the Housing Element. All participants noted in the Feedback Form that they are Brentwood residents and one reported also owning property in the City.

Sections Public Comments Responses
Section 1 -
Introduction
Can the city go as high as 10 stories, instead of 6? I
think it will benefit the city to go higher so we can
put more housing or office space rather than
building out horizontal or out, besides other cities
have taller buildings and their on the earthquake
fault such as San Andres & The Hayward Fault,
here in Brentwood theirs not really any
earthquake faults.

Table 3-5 provides the
maximum heights for
developments in each
zoning district. The current
maximum is 40 feet in the
Brentwood Boulevard (BB)
district.

Increased maximum
building height incentives
are available to residential
developments proposing
affordable units through
the Density Bonus Program
detailed in Section 3:

Housing Constraints,
Resources, and Fair
Housing.

Section 3 –
Housing
Constraints,
Resources, and
Fair Housing
On Page 3-14, Under maps, why does it say,
“Source: City of Dublin Zoning Map”?
Noted – this has been
corrected.

On Page 3-16, Tri Delta Transit discontinued the
Dimes a Ride program in 2012 (see
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2012/01/04/eviews-151/
and
https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/08/30/eastcontra-costa-bus-district-plans-route-and-servicecuts-fare-increases/).

Noted – this has been
corrected.

On Pages 3-16 & 3-86, I looked up the bonus ride
included in the purchase of a 20-ride pass, as well
Noted – this has been
corrected.

Page 649 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-22
Sections Public Comments Responses
as a free $20 clipper card for trying out commuting
and couldn’t find either one of those as
promotional offers on the Tri Delta Transit site (as
with the Dimes a Ride program, I believe this is old
information). Is there a source for these offers?
On Pages 3-16 & 3-86, Back in 2011/2012 Tri Delta
Transit cut the bus routes to Byron and Discovery
Bay (see 8-30-11 article above & TDT source
below) and it only has 20 routes, not the 21 listed
(15 weekday routes and 5 weekend/holiday
routes).

Noted – this has been
corrected.

On Page 3-25, Table 3-7 is incorrect. It has very
low income at 6%; low income at 4%; and
moderate-income at 3%. It should read: very low
income at 3%; low income at 4%; and moderateincome at 6%. It also states the BMC as its source, but the online BMC still shows the 10% Affordable
Housing ratios (there is an ordinance alert, but
that ordinance doesn't list the new amounts
either).

Noted – this has been
corrected.

The Draft does not include flood and fire risk
mapping.

The maps have been
added in Section 3.A.4
Section 4 –
Housing Plan
I understand Brentwood has to comply with the
state and federal mandates in providing more
housing for the current and anticipated growth
we'll surely see in the coming years. What I don't
see is the requirement or rather mandate to
provide adequate infrastructure BEFORE a new
development breaks ground. For example, a new
apartment/condo development is near completion
at the corners of Shady Willow and Amber Lane
directly across from Pioneer Elementary. The
traffic at this and the surrounding intersections
and streets are already impacted early in the
morning and mid-afternoon with pickups and
drop-offs. I only see one way in and out of the
apartment/condo complex. With over 500
residents (best guess) in this complex coupled with
the current school traffic, it can only lead to a
much bigger nightmare scenario with a child
getting hurt or killed. I urge the planning
commission and City Council to build judiciously
and not accept builder's promises to expand roads
or add safety measures after the fact.

Multi-family residential
developments are subject
to CEQA review, which
analyzes potential impacts
and proposes mitigation
measures if impacts are
identified.

Traffic concerns have been
noted.

Page 650 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-23
Sections Public Comments Responses
Appendix B –
Adequate Sites
Analysis
On Page B-13, under ID 6, Parcel: 019092046 2482
OLD SAND CREEK RD (2482 Old Sand Creek Rd is
located west of Hwy. 4)
Q: As this address is currently zoned ECLI, how can
we include this address in the 6th Cycle Sites
Inventory as HDR?
If it is the parcel number, that parcel has an
address of 2483 Old Sand Creek Rd. According to
GIS there is no address for that parcel and the
acreage is only 3.0 acres, not the 34.39 acres
listed, with 15 buildable acres
Sites 6 and 6a currently
have the same APN and
the same address,
according to Tax Assessor
data. The two make up a
total of 38 acres. A total of

15.57 buildable acres are
identified on both parcels.

Table B-8 provides
updated information on
the parcels.

Why was the site at the western stub of Sand
Creek Road not included as an opportunity site?
The City did not include
projects currently in
review. Only projects that
received approval were
included. Table B-1 shows
the City has an appropriate
buffer for its RHNA, and
any additional residential
projects to develop would
still count towards the
City’s RHNA.

Page 651 of 894 ends

Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of Brentwood
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
September 27, 2022
Re: Brentwood’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of Brentwood:

YIMBY Law proposes reimagining the City’s uninspired housing element. Brentwood faces unique challenges. Eighty-three percent of homes in Brentwood were built after 1990, which shows that the City is relatively innocent of mid-20th century forms of housing discrimination such as redlining. Yet “[t]he State faces a serious housing crisis,” and 60–80% of Brentwood residents are paying too much for housing. (Gov. Code § 65584.08(a)(1); Draft, p.3-99.) We ask the City to reassess its priorities.

The problem is this: the City plans “[a]nnual[] meet[ings]” to tell people how the homes they build should look, but pauses only “biennial[ly]” to ask how City law makes homes more expensive. (Compare Draft p.4-6 with id. p.4-4.) The draft misses low-hanging fruit. For example, just one of the City’s base densities meets State requirements for affordable housing. (See id. p.3-7 [only one zone allows 30 homes/acre].) The City proposes to rezone nothing. (Id. p.B-3.) Passively, the City recites that its yard requirements, lot-coverage and FAR requirements, maximum 1 2 building heights, and parking standards “are not considered a constraint.” (Id. 3 4 5 p.3-20.) And “case-by-case” review is the opposite of “greater certainty.” (Id. p.4-14.) 5 Assuredly, they are so considered.
4 Parking minimums are social housing for idle appliances, when we don’t have social housing for people.

Parking minimums also make walking to work unaffordable, and biking to work dangerous. 3 Height limits deprive small, local businesses of the neighbors they need to compete with Amazon. 2 Lot-coverage and FAR requirements make it illegal to build homes on most of the subject land. 1 Lawns waste water, and don’t house people.

Page 652 of 894 ends

Brentwood faces real problems that require real planning, such as coordinating infrastructure. But the draft omits figures for such problems, like flood and fire risk (id. pp.3-45 to -46). Worse, it shrugs that infrastructure costs are “borne by developers” and “passed on” to Brentwood residents (id. p.3-41) while failing to consider why the City’s sprawl-enforcing development standards (id. p.3-19) tack a $29,000–83,000 down payment (see id. p.3-37 [$29–83K]) onto every new Brentwood home. (See id. pp.3-35 to -37.) Surely these costs would fall if the missing-middle “infill” Brentwood says it wants (id. p.4-16 [Policy H.3-2]) were legal throughout the City.

We are also tracking the City’s yearslong opposition to a formerly (and we hope once again) multifamily proposal at the western stub of Sand Creek Road. Why is this not an opportunity site (see id. p.B-12) when, we are informed, it was so listed in the fourth and fifth cycles? (Letter from HansonBridgett to HCD, Aug. 24, 2022, on file.) Making missing middle ministerial—everywhere—is “appropriate and legally possible.” (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(3).) We regret that the City’s draft does not come close. Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2

Page 653 of 894 ends

Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
NIRAN S. SOMASUNDARAM
E-MAIL [email protected]

ELLIS RASKIN
E-MAIL [email protected]
September 26, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY [email protected]
Erik Nolthenius
Planning Manager
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Comments on Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Dear Mr. Nolthenius:

As you know, our law office represents Discovery Builders, Inc. and WCHB Development, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Discovery Builders") in connection with the housing development project in the City of Brentwood (the "City") commonly known as the Bridle Gate Project Subdivision 9586 ("Bridle Gate" project). The Bridle Gate project, as currently proposed, consists of 286 single-family residences, including 29 units set aside for below-market-rate households.

We write to comment on the Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element. In particular, we wish to comment on the City's decision to exclude the Bridle Gate project site (Assessor Parcel Nos. 019-082-009 and 019-082-010) from Table B-8 of the Brentwood 6th Cycle Site Inventory (the "Suitable Sites Inventory").

The Bridle Gate project site is conspicuously absent from the City's Suitable Sites Inventory, despite its inclusion in the City's suitable sites inventory for the Housing Element during previous cycles. The City's decision to exclude the Bridle Gate site from its Suitable Sites Inventory undermines the City's mandate to provide diverse housing inventory, including sufficient single-family homes, for moderate-income households throughout the entirety of the 6th Cycle. This exclusion also highlights the fact that there are insufficient realistic, alternative housing proposals on the City's planning horizon that would provide enough moderate-income units to satisfy the City's assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). Pursuant to Government Code section 65580, the City must prepare a realistic inventory of sites within the City that can accommodate future housing development to meet its RHNA requirement.

In the absence of any explanation as to why the City would purposefully exclude a site it knows is positioned to accommodate residential development in the near future, it appears the City is attempting to avoid Government Code section 65583.2(c). That code section mandates that any vacant site that remains undeveloped after being listed on two prior suitable sites inventories must allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. It also mandates upzoning to allow at least 30 units per acre. We understand the City and our client are currently entangled in two litigations,

Page 654 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 2 ends

and we hope City staff has not excluded the Bridle Gate site to further frustrate and illegally delay development of housing on the site. If the City is in fact attempting to avoid the mandates under Government Code section 65583.2(c), it is also undermining state efforts to ensure availability of housing, which the legislature has determined is of "vital statewide importance." (Gov. Code, § 65580).

Bridle Gate project background.

For more than 20 years, Discovery Builders had worked collaboratively with the City to entitle a residential project on a largely undeveloped 137-acre property located west of Highway 4 (known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 019-082-009 and 019-082-010). The City Council first approved a previous iteration of the Bridle Gate project in 2006; however, no portion of the 2006 iteration underwent development because necessary utility and roadway infrastructure was stubbed to the property. The City and Discovery Builders elected to not proceed with the 2006 iteration of the Bridle Gate project, and Discovery Builders spent the next decade refining, in concert with City staff a mixed-use residential and commercial project, incorporating community feedback.

In 2015, the City of Brentwood's 5th Cycle included the Bridle Gate site on its "Inventory of Single Family Sites." In 2017, Discovery Builders submitted a new application for a project consisting of parkland, a future school site with a residential overlay, 252 single-family residences, a 258-unit apartment complex, and 20 acres of commercial development.

In late 2020 and early 2021, Discovery Builders met with senior City staff, including the City Manager and Planning Manager, in an attempt to obtain a favorable staff recommendation at the City Council hearings for the project. Staff ultimately agreed to support the project, but only on the condition that Discovery Builders remove multi-family residential development in the northern portion of the project site and replace them with commercial uses. Accordingly, Discovery Builders proposed an alternative where commercial uses would replace multi-family uses in the project plans. This revision halved the total number of housing units proposed, from 510 to 252. Despite this change and even with City staff support, the City Council ultimately unjustifiably denied the 2017 application at two March 2021 hearings.

As the City knows, Discovery Builders then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Declaratory Relief against the City. The lawsuit is based, in part, on allegations that two City Councilmembers who voted against the project should have recused themselves for reasons of bias, given they had campaigned for office based on derogatory statements against the proposed development.

On October 21, 2021, Discovery Builders submitted a preliminary application under SB 330 for a revised iteration of the Bridle Gate project, consisting of 292-unit residential units. Discovery Builders later revised the application to include 286 single-family residences to accommodate more park land. Of the 286 proposed single-family residences, 29 units will be set aside for below-market-rate households, specifically moderate-income households. This Bridle Gate project application is currently pending before the City. However, due to the City's continued attempts to frustrate and delay the Bridle Gate project application, including insistence that the project must comply with non-existent and non-objective zoning provisions in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, Discovery Builders had no choice but to file a Petition of Alternative

Page 655 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 3 ends

Writ of Mandate and Peremptory Writ of Mandate against the City for failing to comply with State law.

It appears the City is taking multiple, coordinated steps to prevent development at the Bridle Gate property for reasons unrelated to sound planning principles.

The City's exclusion of the Bridle Gate site from the Suitable Sites Inventory threatens its compliance with State law.

Pursuant to the RHNA requirements approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), the City must construct 1,5221 housing units during the 6th (2023-2031) Housing Element Cycle. (See Gov. Code, § 65580, et seq.) Of these 1,522 units, 402 must be for very low-income households, 232 must be for low-income households, 247 must be for moderate-income households, and 641 must be for above-moderate income households.

Under state law, the City's Suitable Sites Inventory must be sufficient to satisfy the City's RHNA requirement for all income levels. In fact, the City of Brentwood is prohibited from allowing its inventory to fall below its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65863(a)). If the City finds that its remaining sites are insufficient to accommodate its remaining housing needs at any time during the 6th Cycle planning period, the City must take immediate action to correct the shortfall by amending its housing element sites inventory to increase capacity by either adding previously unidentified sites or rezoning remaining sites to correct for the shortfall. (Gov. Code, § 65863(b)).

For this reason, HCD guidance recommends that a suitable sites inventory contain at least 15-30% more capacity than is strictly required, to ensure that jurisdictions do not inadvertently violate state law if housing developments anticipated under a housing element do not come to fruition.
2 Critically, a city has the burden of producing a realistic site inventory — not a theoretical list that simply pencils out on paper. State law provides that a city must identify "vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level …." (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3), emph. added.) As evidenced below, the City here has failed to demonstrate its list of residential housing sites is in fact realistic.

Currently, the City's Public Review Draft 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element, or "Draft Housing Element," lists 968 units that are currently approved or under construction, the vast majority of which are for above moderate-income units (i.e., the “Pipeline Projects”). The Draft

1 While the majority of the Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element correctly states that the City's RHNA obligation is 1,522 units, several tables in the Public Review Draft and its appendices appear to erroneously states that the City's RHNA requirement is 1,552 units, including Table B-1.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development, "Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law Government Code Section 65863", October 2, 2019 at p. 5 (available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housingelement-memos/docs/sb-166-final.pdf).

Page 656 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 4 ends

Housing Element lists zero Pipeline Projects for moderate-income households, despite the fact that the Bridle Gate project, which has a pending development application, could position the City to meet its RHNA requirement with far more certainty. (Draft Housing Element, p. B-6, Table B-1; B-4). None of the units relied on by the City are even subject of any current development application before the City, as documented by the City of Brentwood's List of Active Development Projects.
3 Instead, the Draft Housing Element relies entirely on projected future development to satisfy the City's moderate-income RHNA requirements. This future development is a combination of:
(1) estimated future development of accessory dwelling units ("ADUs") based on a three-year average of past production, and (2) available capacity in specific plan areas or existing residentially zoned sites with no currently approved residential projects. Using a combination of these predicted actions, none of which are guaranteed to happen and some of which are not reasonably foreseeable, the City concludes that it will have the capacity to construct 337 moderate-income units, in excess of the 247 required. (Draft Housing Element, p. B-3, Table B-1). There is substantial evidence the City's Suitable Sites Inventory violates Government Code section 65583(a)(3) insofar as it does not include "vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level" and must include "an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites." (Emph. added.) The City's optimistic projections of future construction assume that, or the 337 moderate-income units contemplated, 41 units will consist of ADUs, 228 units will be built in the Priority Area One ("PA-1") Specific Plan area, and 68 units will be built on existing residentially zoned parcels, specifically within sub-area B of the Planned Development 49 ("PD-49") zone. (Id.) First, there is a potentially significant timing issue, in that the PA-1 Specific Plan, which would include the lion's share of moderate-income units, likely will not undergo complete buildout until at least 2038, which is eight years after expiration of the Draft Housing Element's planning horizon. This issue is explored in greater detail below.

Another significant issue is that the City assumes the foregoing numbers based on an estimation that developers of all of these sites will reserve 15% of units for moderate-income households. The City, however, does not attempt to explain or support this assumption. (Draft Housing Element, p. B-10). The City's affordability requirement is 13%, and only 6% of units must be allocated to moderate-income households. (Brentwood Municipal Code §

17.725.003(B)&(D), as amended by Ord. 1041.) Assuming that 15% of future development will include moderate-income units appears unreasonable, especially given that developers also must, per City ordinance, additionally make available 4% of units to low-income households and 3% of units to very low-income households. (See id.)
The recent history of approved and constructed residential projects within the City confirms the assumption of 15% moderate-income units is far too high. As documented in Appendix B, Table B-4 of the Draft Housing Element, the eight projects currently in the Project Pipeline each include 0% of units for moderate-income households. In the current RHNA cycle (2015-2023), a total of 3,3031 housing units have been built, with 59 units for moderate-income household.

3 City of Brentwood's List of Active Development Projects (available at https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/community-development/planning/development-projects).

Page 657 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 5 ends

(April 14, 2022 Staff Report for Joint Workshop Agenda Item Number 2, Table 1). This data demonstrates that over the last cycle, about 1.8% of constructed units have been reserved for moderate-income households. While the City acknowledges it historically did not enforce a high inclusionary requirement, there has been no substantive uptick in moderate-income housing proposals since the City updated its inclusionary housing ordinance in 2020. In fact, its historical approval of 1.8 percent has flattened to zero percent, judging by the present Project Pipeline.4 Overall, City provides no justification or explanation as to why it expects the rate of moderate-income housing to rise so drastically in coming years.

The City also neglects to account for its preference for commercial development over necessary housing units – an important factor under applicable, analytical methodologies.

As a corollary to the rule that a city must identify realistic capacity, HCD provides that a "capacity calculation must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development capacity on the sites in the inventory." (HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 20 (May 2020), emph. added.) Where a site has "the potential to be developed with nonresidential uses … these capacity limits must be reflected in the housing element … For example, if past production trends indicate that two out of three similar sites were developed for commercial use, an initial estimate of the proportion of new development which is expected to be residential would be two-thirds, i.e., 0.67." (Id. at 20-21; see also November 22, 2021 HCD letter to City of Lake Forest re: City of Lake Forest's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, Appendix A, page 35
["To demonstrate realistic capacity on [sites where zoning allows for non-residential uses], the element must analyze and account for the likelihood of residential development in the zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends, performance standards or other relevant factors."]).

On this point, the history of the Bridle Gate project serves as important data point. As discussed above, the Bridle Gate project originally proposed 258 multi-family units, but senior City staff, presumably with the input of elected leaders, told our client that obtaining a favorable staff recommendation would require that our client replace multi-family uses with commercial uses, even though the Bridle Gate site is ideally located for residential land uses, due to its proximity to existing services and job centers (within 0.3 miles). The City has prioritized establishing uses that create more jobs and tax revenue — e.g., commercial and other nonresidential development — which had material effects on Discovery Builder's own residential development plans. (See September 1, 2020 Staff Report, Item No. 2, Packet Pg. 12, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and most pertinent City determinations included in footnote 6, below.)6 This very real

4 Further, section 17.725.004 of the City's municipal code authorizes a developer to satisfy inclusionary requirements with "alternative equivalents," including via the dedication of vacant developable land or construction of affordable units on another site. Certainly some developers will elect these alternative equivalents—a viable possibility that has not been factored into the calculus. 5 Letter available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/oraLakeforestdraftOUT112221.pdf. 6 In cautioning against allowance of 258 multi-family units on the Bridle Gate site, the City's report provided as follows: "While it would enable the development of multi-family housing, it would also result in the loss of limited commercially zoned land in the city, and the attendant loss of sales tax revenue that helps maintain the quality of life that Brentwood residents and visitors enjoy. It would likewise preclude the development of that land for employment purposes, another City priority, given the percentage of residents who commute to their work outside city limits each day." The City further concluded that

Page 658 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 6 ends

preference could similarly influence the future buildout of other sites the City has identified as suitable for moderate-income housing. For instance, sub-area B of PD-49 permits, as a matter of right, commercial and employment uses that include general retail sales, services uses, and professional and business offices. (Brentwood Municipal Code § 17.499.003(A)&(C).) The City has failed, too, to account for this variable in identifying sites.

There are other issues with the City's analysis of the suitability of sites identified for provision of moderate-income housing:
• It is unclear whether the City evaluated site viability based on factors that include proximity to transit, access to schools, access to job centers, access to amenities (such as parks and community centers), access to services (such as grocery stores, shopping, and restaurants), access to health care facilities, and other factors identified by HCD. (See HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pp. 9-10 (May 2020).) Sites might be suitable in light of such factors, but the City has not shown its work in these respects. • It does not appear the unit yield on selected sites is accurate or in line with methodologies accepted by HCD. For instance, yield counts for the three sites in subarea B of PD-49 are calculated by multiplying the total gross acreage by the maximum density permitted under the zoning code. (Draft Housing Element, p. B-13, Table B-8, at rows 8-10). However, the yield count for each PA-1 Specific Plan site is calculated by multiplying the total amount of "buildable acreage" (which in most cases is equivalent to total gross acreage for the site) by the midpoint density between the maximum and minimum densities permitted under the PA-1 Specific Plan. (Id. at B-13, Table B-8 at rows 1-7.) The City's Draft Housing Element lacks the facts required to support the City's selection of expected densities. HCD recommends determining unit yield by multiplying expected density by site acreage only if the expected density matches a given site's minimum density requirement, as determined in its zoning. (HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 19 (May 2020).) Further, "to meet this standard on a zone that allows for multiple uses, the general plan or zoning must require the specified minimum number of residential units on the identified sites regardless of overlay zones, zoning allowing nonresidential uses, or other factors potentially impacting minimum densities." (Id.) Otherwise, a city must use a more thoughtful methodology set forth by HCD, and which includes an analysis of factors such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, on-site improvements required, and floor-area ratios. (Id. at pp. 19-20.) By contrast, if a city assumes a certain percentage of a site's maximum allowable density will be achieved for the Housing Element's calculation of residential capacity, it must demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence lead to its assumptions.7
(See, e.g., January 14, 2022 HCD letter to City of West Covina re: City of

establishing residential uses instead of commercial "could be found to be inconsistent with [General Plan Policy eED-25] … and that the "city's land use plan skews heavily residential. The further loss of commercial land to additional residential use could be found to be inconsistent with maintaining a balanced land use plan and a diversified, stable, and self-sustaining revenue base in order to generate the resources necessary to sustain essential and desired City services, as the loss of commercial use here would result in the attendant loss of associated sales tax revenue." 7 The City's selection of sites also seems to assume placement of High and Very High Density land uses adjacent to Residential Low and Very Low Density land uses, without discussing or analyzing the potential for public or political opposition to such projects that could lead to unit count reductions. While

Page 659 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 7 ends

West Covina's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, Appendix A, pages 2-3.)8

The City has provided no evidence to support its decision to assume maximum densities in calculating property yields.
• It is unclear the City has evaluated environmental and other constraints on all of the sites identified. For instance, the City does not appear to have consistently accounted for the impact of wetlands and other jurisdictional waters in calculating buildable acreage among the various sites. Other constraints that the City has not appeared to account for include, without limitation, right of way necessities, and stormwater detention, and biotreatment requirements. The City must identify and account for portions of otherwise buildable area needed to support these necessary site improvements. (See, e.g.

December 3, 2021 HCD letter to City of West Hollywood re: City of West Hollywood's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, Appendix A, page 5.)9 To this end, our client's planning team has conducted a preliminary analysis of various sites considered through the Draft housing Element process as suitable for moderate-income housing by the City, and identified the following constraints that would materially affect buildable area on those sites and in turn reduce the total unit counts:
• With respect to PD-49:
o Sub-area B sits adjacent to a streambed with intermittent water flows that likely qualify as federal or state jurisdictional waters, and are identified as such on the National Wetlands Inventory. (See Screenshot of National Wetlands Inventory, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) The presence of jurisdictional waters often limits the developable area in light of setbacks, environmental protection regulations, and mitigation requirements (see, e.g., East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan & Natural Community Conservation Plan, Table 6-2.). The City appears to have appreciated this constraint in calculating some site inventories,10 and so it is unclear why this factor was not accounted for in reviewing PD-49.

such land use compatibility issues are not "objective" standards under the Housing Accountability Act, to the extent residential units are proposed in a mixed use configuration, a given project might not qualify for such protections, allowing the City to reject a proposal on these grounds. 8 Letter available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/LanWestCovinaDraftOut011422.pdf. 9 Letter available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/lanWestHollywoodDraftallfindings120321.pdf. 10 For instance, the property designated as Very High Density (APN# 019092046, Id. at B-13, Table B-8 at rows 6 and 7) within the PA-1 Specific Plan is adjacent to Sand Creek (a streambed with intermittent water flows that likely qualify as federal or state jurisdictional waters, and are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory). It appears that the City assumed a reduction in buildable acreage for this site, insofar as it acknowledged that only 10 acres of the 32.63-acre parcel was buildable, but other sites do not appear to be analyzed with an eye towards similar constraints.

Page 660 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 8 ends

o The three sites within sub-area B of PD-49 also have site drainage constraints, as there appears to be no stormwater infrastructure bordering the site, including along the site's eastern border along John Muir Parkway. (See COB Map, attached hereto as Exhibit 3).

The three sites may require land for biotreatment areas, which are not discussed by the City and would reduce the buildable area. • The PA-1 Specific Plan (APN# 019092046, 2483 Old Sand Creek Road) presents potentially significant scheduling issues, and the site has drainage constraints and biotreatment requirements which are not discussed by the City, as follows:
o It is unclear that this development's units will be built within the Draft Housing Element's planning horizon, which sunsets in year 2031. Per the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the property will entail at least 6,200 days, which is equivalent to almost 17 years. (See, e.g., PA-1 Specific Plan Draft EIR, p. 3.7-30 [Table 3.7-4], where all environmental review for the project is incorporated herein by this reference.), The Draft Housing Element should address how a project with a construction schedule that concludes no earlier than 2039 will provide sufficient housing with a housing cycle that ends eight years earlier, in 2031.
o The site has a high potential flood risks given its proximity to special flood hazard areas pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program.

Furthermore, the entirety of the PA-1 site is adjacent to a streambed with intermittent water flows that likely qualify as federal or state jurisdictional waters, and are identified on the National Wetlands Inventory. Accordingly, any project at the site would likely require dedication of land for Sand Creek and most likely a stormwater detention basin to protect against flood risks. The City's calculation of residential capacity assumes a reduced buildable area on-site, but without further detail, it is not possible to determine whether the City's assumptions are sufficient to accommodate the above constraints.

To the extent the City revisits other sites it previously determined were eligible to accommodate moderate-income housing,
11 these properties also involve complications
that would materially affect density and reduce buildable area (and might explain why such sites did not appear in the latest iteration of the Draft Housing Element):
• APN # 019040031 (2401 Empire Avenue) would require right of way dedications, possible tree protection easements, a shared private drive easement, and require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater .

11 See City's initial Draft Site Inventory Excel Sheet presented at the July 21, 2022 City Council Housing Element Update Workshop (Agenda Item A). None of the constraints listed hereafter were discussed in the Staff Report for the July 21, 2022 City Council Housing Element Update Workshop.

Page 661 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 9 ends

• APN # 019040033 (2391 Empire Avenue) would require possible tree protection easements, a shared private drive easement, and would require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater.
• APN # 018190018 (Sunset Rd.) would require right of way dedications, a possible detention basin to address insufficient drainage capacity, and would require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater. • APN # 01870003 (Brentwood Blvd.) would require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater. The site would also require three points of public road access to support the assumed number of units pursuant to the City of Brentwood Engineering Procedure Manual, which would be challenging giving the buried nature of the site, and may necessitate a reduction in the total number of units the site could support.
• APN# 016120024 (Brentwood Blvd.) would require a possible detention basin to address insufficient drainage capacity, and would require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater. It also appears to have limited points of access reducing permitted unit count pursuant to the City of Brentwood Engineering Procedure Manual.
• APN # 016150114 (Brentwood Blvd.) would require right of way dedications, a possible detention basin to address insufficient drainage capacity, would require land to provide for biotreatment of stormwater have potential water quality issues, and has cross access and park easements on approximately half the site.

The assumed densities for all sites also fail to analyze how developments would satisfy Quimby Act requirements for park dedications, which could further reduce buildable area on the sites.

In addition to the City failing to demonstrate the Suitable Sites Inventory contains sufficient capacity for moderate-income housing, the City has failed to show that its list of sites could accommodate a diversity of housing product, as favored by State policy and as called for in the City's own Draft Housing Element.

The Bridle Gate site remains one of the City's only viable option for single-family, affordable housing units. Both the PA-1 and sub-area B of PD-49 are particularly ill-suited to provide for any moderate-income single-family housing. For instance, sub-area B of PD-49 is only permitted to contain "medium to high to very high density multifamily residential" units on site. (Brentwood Municipal Code § 17.499.003(D)). Of the three districts within the PA-1 Specific Plan Area that the City notes allow residential units, only one district (the High Density Residential District) permits single-family housing.

It is important for any City to ensure that below-market-rate units consist of a diversity of housing types, and not just multi-family apartments of condos. Having a diverse housing stock helps reduce or remove the stigma traditionally associated with affordable housing. Per HCD's guidelines, a city should take "meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns …" (HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, p. 8 (May

Page 662 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 10 ends

2020.) As the City notes in its Draft Housing Element, "providing a variety of housing units at all affordability levels is critical in ensuring all community members have their needs met." (Draft Housing Element, p. 2-4) (emph. added). As currently constituted, the Suitable Sites Inventory cannot achieve this critical goal for moderate-income households. It envisions affordable housing existing almost entirely in the form of multi-family housing, which does not result in integrated and balanced living patterns as envisioned.

Overall, the City has work to do, to meet its legal burdens. Its Suitable Sites Inventory does not include a single moderate-income housing unit under current consideration in the Project Pipeline, and the assumptions underlying its capacity analysis of other sites are plagued by practical obstacles and unrealistic expectations. Given these problems, it is puzzling that the City would fail to include the Bridle Gate proposal — a project with an SB 330 application currently pending before the City — in its Suitable Sites Inventory. Furthermore, as currently constituted, the City's Suitable Sites Inventory has extremely limited capacity for moderateincome single-family housing. The Bridle Gate project's 29 units set aside for moderate-income single-family units are much closer to approval and construction than many of the other moderate-income household projects in the City's Suitable Sites Inventory, and Bridle Gate should be included in the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element to give the City the greatest chance of satisfying its share of RHNA.

The City should not exclude the Bridle Gate project solely to avoid a by-right residential project or upzoning of the Bridle Gate site.

It is unclear why the City has failed to include the Bridle Gate property on the Suitable Sites Inventory, given that inclusion of the project would aid the City in satisfying its obligation to prepare a legally-compliant Housing Element.

However, it is possible that City's intent is to avoid upzoning the Bridle Gate site, as required by State law. Under Government Code section 65583.2(c), if a particular site has been listed in two or more consecutive planning periods and that site was not approved for development, then the site cannot be listed as suitable site to accommodate any portion of the City's low-income or very low-income unit requirements unless the site is "subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households." Further, any such site must be zoned at an allowable density of at least 30 units per acre, an increase over the density currently permitted on the Bridle Gate site. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2 (c)(3)(B)(iv)).

The City's unwillingness to upzone the Bridle Gate site is not an appropriate basis for the City purposefully avoid listing it in the Suitable Sites Inventory. The project would assist the City in meeting its share of RHNA, which is the stated purpose of the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element. (Draft Housing Element, p. 1-2).
* * *
The 2023-2031 Housing Element, as currently constituted, risks failing to accommodate the City's share of RHNA. The City's plan to provide moderate-income housing relies almost entirely on the hope of future production of multi-family developments and ADUs, where the capacity identified is not realistic. The Bridle Gate project, meanwhile, has already submitted a complete

Page 663 of 894 ends

Erik Nolthenius
September 26, 2022

Page 11 ends

SB 330 application to the City, which includes 29 moderate-income units, over 10% of the City's required share of moderate-income units. The City's decision to exclude the Bridle Gate site only serves to hurt its efforts to satisfy its RHNA obligations, and in turn hurts the statewide efforts to provide sufficient housing for all California residents. Accordingly, we urge the City to revise the 2023-2031 Housing Element to include Bridle Gate property in the Suitable Sites Inventory.

Sincerely,
Ellis Raskin
Attorney
Niran S. Somasundaram
Attorney
cc: Katherine Wisinski, Assistant City Attorney, City of Brentwood Alex Contreras, Policy Analyst, HCD
Lisa Frank, Housing and Community Dev. Specialist, HCD
Sean Marciniak, Esq., Hanson Bridgett LLP
Clients

Page 664 of 894 ends

EXHIBIT 1

Page 665 of 894 ends

STAFF REPORT

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
PREPARED BY:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

GENERAL PLAN:

ZONING:

OWNER/APPLICANT:

PREVIOUS ACTIONS:

Debbie Hill, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Item No. 2, A development agreement (DA 19-001)
setting forth specific terms for development of the
Bridle Gate project, a General Plan amendment
(GPA 17-001) to change the land use designation
for 13. 98 acres of the 137 .3-acre project site from
Regional Commercial to Planned Development for
up to 256 multi-family residential units and
designating two separate areas as Park, along with
an amendment to the Circulation Element for the
extension of San Jose Avenue, a rezone (RZ 17-
004) amending the Planned Development No. 36
(PD-36) Zone to accommodate the General Plan
amendment and amend the development
standards, a vesting tentative subdivision map
(VTSM 8506) to create 252 single-family residential
lots, two parks, two parcel for bio-retention, one
11 .35-acre school site with an additional 63-lot
overlay should the school site not be developed,
one 13.98 acre multi-family site, and one 18.72-
acre regional commercial site, a design review (DR
17-007) for the architecture for five home plans,
utilities, landscaping, and related improvements for
the low-density residential lots, and a design review
(DR 17-008) for the architecture for the multi-family
portion of the site. The project site is located west
of State Highway 4, south of Old Sand Creek Road,
and north of San Jose Avenue (APNs 019-082-007
and 019-110-076)
R-LD (Residential-Low Density), RC (Regional
Commercial, P-OS (Permanent Open Space), and
P (Park)
Planned Development No. 36
WCHB Development, LLC; Discovery Builders, Inc.
2 Packet Pg. 7

Page 666 of 894 ends

► At its meeting of April 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01), a Rezone (RZ 05-04), a Development Agreement (DA 04-02), a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8606) for 166 residential lots, and a Design Review (DR 01-02) for the Bridle Gate project and continued the item to a date uncertain.
► On April 27, 2005, Discovery Builders appealed the Planning Commission continuance to the City Council.
► On May 24, 2005, the City Council continued a public hearing on the appeal to its meeting of June 14, 2005, due to noticing requirements. ► On June 14, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and referred the project back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. ► On November 1, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01), a Rezone (RZ 05-04), a Development Agreement (DA 04-02), a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8606) for 166 residential lots, and a Design Review (DR 01 -02) for the Bridle Gate project and requested staff to prepare the necessary resolution for denial of the general plan amendment and rezone. ► On November 15, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-82 denying General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Rezone No. 05-04. ► On January 10, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal by Discovery Builders and directed staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for approval of the appeal.
► On May 23, 2006, the City Council held a continued public hearing on the appeal and approved the mitigated negative declaration, General Plan amendment, and introduced and waived the first reading of the ordinance for the Rezone, by Resolution Nos. 2006- 124 and 2006-125 and Ordinance No. 827, respectively, and referred the development agreement, vesting tentative subdivision map, and design review application back to the Planning Commission for action.
► On June 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved Development Agreement No. 04-02, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506, and Design Review No. 01 -12 by Resolution Nos. 06-47, 06-48, and 06-49, respectively for the Bridle Gate 166-lot residential project.
► On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to its meeting of September 1, 2020, for a Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment No. 17-001, Rezone No. 17-004, Development Agreement No. 19-001, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506, Design Review No. 17-007, and Design Review No. 17-008 for the Bridle Gate project.

BACKGROUND:

The Bridle Gate project in its previous form was originally submitted to the City in March of 2001 and was subsequently approved in June of 2006. At that time, the project sought approval for 166 residential lots, and included a General Plan amendment, rezone, vesting tentative 2 Packet Pg. 8

Page 667 of 894 ends

subdivision map, and design review. The map and design review approvals expired in 2013, leaving the General Plan amendment and rezone in place.

After entertaining other project concepts, the developer officially submitted a new application to the City in June of 2017for a substantially revised version of the Bridle Gate project. Since that time, staff has been working with the applicant to move forward with a development project for the 137-acre project site.

As discussed below, the current version of the project increases the proposed number of homes threefold from what is currently allowed, including multi-family project units, reduces the commercial acreage of the site by approximately 14 acres, and allows for the development of a new elementary school site.

Detailed Project Description
The current iteration of the proposed project includes a request for the following entitlements:
► A Final Environmental Impact Report to disclose the environmental impacts of the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; ► A development agreement (DA 19-001) setting forth the duration of the agreement, permitted uses and density of the project, requisite development standards, community benefits to be provided by the applicant, and additional terms and conditions regarding development of the project;
► A General Plan amendment (GPA 17-001) to change the land use designation on 13.98 acres of the project site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Planned Development (PD) with the intent of developing this acreage with up to 258 multi-family apartment units. In addition, the project site currently includes area designated 'Park' by the General Plan.

This 'Park' area would be relocated and divided into two separate 'Park'-designated sites totaling 4.3 acres on the project site. Finally, an amendment to the General Plan's Circulation Element is needed to allow the proposed San Jose Avenue extension to terminate at a new intersection with Sand Creek Road;
► A rezone (RZ 17-004) to amend the development standards within Planned Development 36 to accommodate the residential, commercial, and open space uses of the project;
► A vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM 8506) to subdivide the property into 252 single-family residential parcels, an 11 .35-acre elementary school site (or, alternatively, a residential overlay that could accommodate an additional 63 single-family units if development of the school does not occur), two park parcels, four parcels for stormwater bio-retention, a multi-family parcel, a commercial parcel, and open space areas; ► A design review (DR 17-007) for the single-family homes to be constructed on the single-family parcels consisting of five models with three elevations each ranging in size from 2,251-3,416 square feet; and
► A design review (DR 17-008) for up to 258 apartment units to be constructed on the proposed new multi-family parcel, consisting of 11 three-story apartment buildings 2 Packet Pg. 9

Page 668 of 894 ends

containing between 12-36 units each, and consisting of 84 one-bedroom units and 174 two-bedroom units.

Surrounding Land Uses
North - The Innovation Center@ Brentwood (formerly known as Priority Area One) zoned for Employment Center/Light Industrial
East - State Highway 4 and The Streets of Brentwood and Sand Creek Crossing commercial developments beyond
South - Brentwood Hills single-family residential subdivision (TSM 7882 and 8676) West - City of Antioch, designated as Open Space/Senior Housing in Antioch's General Plan The central and western portions of the project site contain moderately sloping hillsides along a northwesterly trending ridge. The northeastern and eastern portions of the site consist of gently easterly sloping topography ranging in elevation from approximately 120 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 160 feet above msl. The highest elevation at the site is along the ridge in the southwestern portion of the site, at an approximate elevation of 230 feet above msl.

ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendments
The General Plan is the City's land use constitution. All land use projects seeking approval within the city must either be consistent with the City's General Plan as proposed, or request approval for changes to the General Plan that would make the project consistent.

General Plan amendments. In order to approve the Project, three General Plan amendments would be needed:
► Conversion of commercial to residential. First, according to the General Plan, the Project site is currently designated with a mix of Open Space (primarily along the ridgelines), Park, Residential-Low Density, and Regional Commercial. In order to accommodate the proposed multi-family portion of the proposed development, a land use designation change is being requested for a 13.98-acre area at the northwest corner of the project site. This change would change the General Plan designation of this acreage from Regional Commercial to Planned Development in order to allow for up to 258 multi-family apartment units to be constructed. The remaining 18.72 acres designated as Regional Commercial are not proposed for any land use changes. (See Figures 1 and 2 below.) ► Division and relocation of Park land. Second, the area currently bearing a General Plan land use designation of 'Park' will be relocated and divided into two separate 'Park'- designated sites, totaling 4.3 acres. (See Figures 1 and 2 below.) ► Roadway reconfiguration. Third and finally, the Circulation Element of the General Plan currently includes a figure (Fig. CIR-1) that establishes the required design of the City's circulation system. Figure CIR-1 will need to be amended to allow the proposed San Jose Avenue extension to terminate at a new intersection with Sand Creek Road, which itself is being extended and will terminate at a temporary turnaround at the western project site boundary, ultimately to be extended westerly into Antioch by others in the future.

Figure 1
2 Packet Pg. 10

Page 669 of 894 ends

Current General Plan Land Use Map
Project Site
R-LD
P-0S
Figure 2
Proposed General Plan Amendments to
R-H D
-t
fvJ JUt R-VI
~
- . -
Convert Commercial to Residential and Divide and Relocate Park land In order to approve any requested General Plan amendments, the City must be able to determine that the request meets the following four criteria:

1. The amendment is deemed to be in the public interest; 2 Packet Pg. 11

Page 670 of 894 ends

Division and relocation of the Park parcels could serve the public interest, as it would locate parks closer to the residential developments they will serve. Likewise, the reconfiguration of the San Jose Avenue extension will serve the public interest by facilitating travel across the project site to the proposed Sand Creek Road extension. Whether the conversion of 14 acres of commercial area to multi-family use is in the public interest is a policy decision that the City Council must weigh. While it would enable the development of multi-family housing, it would also result in the loss of limited commercially zoned land in the city, and the attendant loss of sales tax revenue that helps maintain the quality of life that Brentwood residents and visitors enjoy. It would likewise preclude the development of that land for employment purposes, another City priority, given the percentage of residents who commute to their work outside city limits each day.

2. The amendment is consistent and/or compatible with the rest of the General Plan; While it is true that no project will necessarily be consistent with every General Plan goal and policy, and some weighing of priorities is allowed by the City in assessing minor deviations, amendments that are diametrically opposed to the existing, unchanged aspects of the General Plan are not supportable under the law. The table below analyzes the requested General Plan amendments against selected goals and policies in light of the question of consistency.

Table 1
General Plan amendment consistency analysis
General Plan requirement Consistent?
Conversion of Policy ED 2-5: Ensure that an Given that the proposed amendment commercial to adequate inventory of vacant would reduce the amount of commercial residential industrial, commercial, office, and land in the city's inventory and convert it business park land is designated, to residential use, such an action could zoned, and maintained for targeted be found to be inconsistent with this employment-generating uses. policy, unless the City believes that adequate commercial inventory exists
even without this 14 acre parcel.

Goal Fl 1: Maintain a balanced land The city's land use plan skews heavily use plan and a diversified, stable, and residential. The further loss of self-sustaining revenue base in order commercial land to additional residential to generate the resources necessary use could be found to be inconsistent to sustain essential and desired City with maintaining a balanced land use services. plan and a diversified, stable, and
self-sustaining revenue base in order
to generate the resources necessary
to sustain essential and desired City
services, as the loss of commercial
use here would result in the attendant
loss of associated sales tax revenue.

However, the project would participate
in community facilities districts and
pay impact fees to assist in funding
City services.

Policy LU 1-1: Maintain a supply of While the city currently has a sufficient developable commercial, business supply of land developable as oark, mixed use, and residential lands residential to meet its growth 2 Packet Pg. 12

Page 671 of 894 ends

General Plan requirement Consistent?
sufficient to meet desired growth and projections, its commercial inventory is economic needs over the planning far less extensive. Approval of this period. general plan amendment would limit the
supply of developable commercial land.

Policy LU 2-8: Provide for a variety of Conversion of this commercial acreage residential products through the to multi-family use would allow for the Zoning Ordinance in order to provision of apartments, which would accommodate the housing needs of add to the variety of residential products all segments of the city's population. available in the city in order to accommodate the housing needs of
more segments of the community.

POLICY H 2-1: Provide housing Converting this commercial site to multiaffordable and appropriate for a family use would allow for the variety of Brentwood households at all development of apartment housing that economic levels throughout the City. would likely appeal to households at economic levels that cannot afford
single-family homes. Applicant has
requested to be allowed to pay a fee in
lieu of constructing any affordable
housing on site, so no deed restricted
affordable housing would be
constructed as part of this multi-family
development. Those funds would be
banked for future use of affordable
housing opportunities.

Division and Policy LU 4-4: Site new park and Allowing the existing areas designated relocation of recreation facilities where they will be as Park to be split and relocated across Park land accessible by the City's pedestrian the Project site would facilitate this and bicycle network and in close policy of siting new park facilities closer proximity to medium and higher to users throughout the Project site. density residential uses, where
aPPropriate.

Roadway Policy CIR 1-2: Ensure that the City's Allowing for the reconfiguration and reconfiguration circulation network is a well- improvement of San Jose Avenue, as connected system of streets, roads, proposed, would effectively highways, sidewalks, and paths that accommodate vehicular and multieffectively accommodates vehicular modal traffic in a manner that reflected and non-vehicular traffic in a manner the context of the surrounding that considers the context of residential and (potentially) school land surrounding land uses and the needs uses and the needs of operators of of all roadway users. vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

3. The potential impacts of the amendment have been assessed and have been detennined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

The project is required to comply with the Noise Element in that construction activities will be regulated to the allowable hours, and noise sources will be required to mitigate sound.

Compliance with the Safety Element would be achieved through seismically sound construction designs and practices, as well as the construction of building pads outside of the flood zone. 2 Packet Pg. 13

Page 672 of 894 ends

4. The amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and all mitigation measures have been incorporated as conditions of approval of the development.

The City Council will need to determine whether the requested General Plan amendments meet the criteria set out above.

General Plan Consistency
For those elements of the project that do not require a General Plan amendment, the City must still determine whether the project is consistent with the General Plan. With regard to density, the General Plan identifies the allowable density (expressed as dwelling units/acre or 'du/a') for the single-family residential portions of the project site.

Table 2
General Plan density consistency analysis
Density required by Density Consistent?
General Plan prooosed
Single-family homes 1.1-5.0 du/a, with a mid- 3.70 du/a The proposed density (with school) range of 3.0 du/a exceeds the mid-range
Single-family homes 1.1 -5.0 du/a, with a mid- 4.64 du/a The proposed density (with overlav) range of 3.0 du/a exceeds the mid-range
Multi-family N/A 18.45 du/a N/A
Per the General Plan's mid-range density policy, densities above the mid-range can be permitted at the discretion of the City Council through the exercise of transferable agricultural credits or if a significant amount of amenities is incorporated into a project, extensive off-site public improvements are installed, or other significant improvements of community-wide benefit are provided.

In this case, the applicant is proposing to provide certain amenities, as listed in the Development Agreement (DA), as improvements of community-wide benefit. As listed in the DA discussion below, these include contributions to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District; potential sale of an 11 .35 acre parcel within the project area for a school site or, alternatively, payment of $1,575,000 to the City to fund a youth center or youth programming; and a trail connection across Sand Creek and from the project site to commercial developments to the east. (In return for these benefits, the applicant will stand to receive their own benefits, which are detailed in the DA discussion below.) The Council will ultimately need to determine whether these community benefits are sufficient to not only allow development above the mid-range, but also to justify the requested General Plan amendments.

The overall density for the multi-family portion of the project site is 18.45 dwelling units per acre.

Since the General Plan amendment application includes changing the land use for 13.98 acres from Regional Commercial to Planned Development, the revised PD-36, Subarea B, zoning standards will govern the development of this acreage for up to a maximum of 258 units, or

18.45 dwelling units per acre.
2 Packet Pg. 14

Page 673 of 894 ends

Beyond density, the project's general consistency with the General Plan is analyzed in Table 3 below.

Table 3
General Plan consistency analysis
General Plan requirement Consistent?
Goal CIR 1: Provide a transportation system that The project would include the extension of facilitates the efficient movement of people and Sand Creek Road from its current goods within and through the city of Brentwood termination west of SR 4 to the Antioch city and promotes the use of alternatives to the limits. While the completion of an single-occupant vehicle intersection with Heidorn Road would have to wait for future development, this would
allow the final construction of Sand Creek
Road, a major arterial, to city limits, thus
facilitating the efficient movement of people
and goods. The project would also provide
bike lanes for bicycle use, and sidewalks and
pedestrian paths, including a connection
beneath SR 4 for multi-modal access to
development west of the oroiect site.

Action CSF Sa: Continue to coordinate with the The project includes a DA that requires the school districts to ensure the adequate provision applicant to have entered into an agreement of school and related facilities to serve existing with the School District to transfer an 11.35- and future development and support the acre parcel to the School District for the establishment of a School Facility Master Plan. construction of a school site. If built, this The City should work with the local school school would assist in providing adequate districts to develop criteria for the designation of school facilities to serve existing and future school sites and consider a range of development. However, the City has no way opportunities available to reduce the cost of land of guaranteeing that the site will ultimately be for school facilities. Such opportunities may transferred to the School District or that a include, but are not limited to, designating lands
school will be built if it is transferred.
as School (SCH) on the General Plan Land Use
map when future school sites are identified in the
adopted School Facility Master Plan. The City
shall encourage the local school districts to
comply with City standards in the design and
landscaping of school facilities.

Policy CSF 4-1: Encourage and support the East The project DA likewise would require the Contra Costa Fire Protection District and applicant to pay fire impact fees for the providers of emergency medical services to project. These fees may be used by maintain adequate staff and equipment to provide ECCFPD for fire facilities and equipment. high quality and responsive fire protection and However, the applicant has indicated that it emergency medical services to existing and believes the fire impact fee recently adopted future growth in Brentwood. by the City is flawed. Therefore, the fees may be paid under protest. Under the DA,
the applicant would also participate in a
Community Facilities District, a mechanism
that would assess the lots on the project site
and use those assessments to fund fire
services, a considerable benefit to ECCFPD.
2 Packet Pg. 15

Page 674 of 894 ends

General Plan reauirement Consistent?
Goal COS 1: Ensure the provision and The project proposes to maintain some preservation of diverse and accessible open 28.35 acres of permanent open space on the spaces throughout the Brentwood Planning Area site, thus ensuring the preservation of accessible open space within this portion of
the Brentwood Planninq Area.

POLICY H 1-1: Provide adequate residential The project would provide up to 573 new sites with densities distributed throughout the City homes (without development of the school; for the production of new for-sale and rental 510 with the school), at both low and high residential units, emergency shelters, and densities, and offer the option of for-sale and transitional and supportive housing sites for rental options, thus facilitating this policy. existing and future residents.

Policy ED 5-1: Ensure that public, residential, The project would include the development and non-residential developments locating along of a trail along the north side of Sand Creek, local creeks, waterways, and open space are thus including this natural feature as an designed to include these natural features as an attraction and amenity. attraction and amenity, while also providing for
their conservation where appropriate.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment
As with the General Plan, proposed projects must also either be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance as proposed, or request approval for changes to the Zoning Ordinance that would render the project consistent. The project site is currently zoned Planned Development No. 36. The PD-36 text identifies development standards for mixed-use business park, regional commercial, single-family residential, and open space and recreation uses. In order to accommodate the project as proposed and be consistent with the proposed General Plan amendment, certain zoning uses and development standards would need to be revised.

Therefore, a rezone is necessary to establish site-specific development standards for the proposed uses.

The proposed rezone includes a subarea map identifying each separate land use category and sets forth development standards for each subarea. The proposed development standards are fairly typical for the individual land uses. The single-family subarea sets forth a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet (which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Residential - Low Density), and includes typical minimum lot dimensions and setbacks associated with the lot area. The tentative map is in keeping with these proposed regulations and each of the residential homes is required to meet the minimum setback dimensions. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the proposed zoning designation should the rezone be approved as requested. The following table summarizes the development standards proposed for the residential of the project and compares them with the current residential zoning for the site:

Table 4
Proposed zoning development standards for residential uses and comparison with existing standards
2 Packet Pg. 16

Page 675 of 894 ends

2 Existing standard Existing standard Proposed single- Proposed (Single-family (Single-family family standard multi-family Subarea C) Subarea D) standard
Minimum lot 5,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. area
Minimum lot 55' 90' 45' - width
Minimum lot 35' at the front 45' at the front 30' at the front - frontage for property line property line property line lots on culde-sacs,
knuckles, or
curvilinear
streets
Minimum 20' for front-facing 20' for front-facing 20' for front-facing 10' front yard garages; 15' for garages; 15' for garages; 1 0' for setback building walls and building walls and building walls and porches porches porches
Minimum 5', with the sum of 5', with the sum of 5'; corner lots shall 10' side yard both sides 12'; both sides 15'; maintain a
setback corner lots shall corner lots shall minimum setback maintain a maintain a of 1 0' on the street
minimum setback minimum setback side yard
of 1 0' on the street of 1 0' on the street
side yard side yard
Minimum rear 15', with an 15', with an 15' 10'
yard setback average of 20' averaae of 20'
Maximum 2 stories, not to 2 stories, not to Two stories, not to 40' building exceed 30' exceed 30', except exceed 34'
height that the 10 lots
referenced on the
approved
residential
site plan with Model
11 shall not exceed

33.5'
Corner lot 5' from the street 5' from the street 5 feet from the - fence side property line; side property line; street side setback all other fence all other fence property line; all regulations shall regulations shall other fence
adhere to the adhere to the regulations shall
requirements of requirements of adhere to the
BMC Chapter BMC Chapter requirements of

17.660 17.660 BMC Chapter

17.660
Open space Lots adjacent to Lots adjacent to - - fencing open space shall open space shall utilize a 6' high utilize a 6' high
open space fence open space fence
along the common alona the common
Packet Pg. 17

Page 676 of 894 ends

Existing standard Existing standard Proposed single- Proposed (Single-family (Single-family family standard multi-family Subarea C) Subarea D) standard
property line(s), as property line(s), as
approved through approved through
the tentative map the tentative map
Accessory Prohibited in side Prohibited in side - -
structures or rear yards for or rear yards for
areas exceeding a areas exceeding a
3:1 slope 3:1 slooe
Maximum lot 40% for 2-story 40% for 2-story 50% -
coverage homes and 45% homes and 45%
for 1-story for 1-storv
Common - - - 15% of the
open space total site
area
Minimum - - - 10% of the
usable total site
common area
open space
Minimum - - - 100 sq. ft.
private open immediately
space adjacent to
each unit
(including
balconies)
Maximum 124 42 252 (with school) 258
number of or 315 (without
primary school)
dwellinq units
Total 166 units 510 units (with
possible school)
residential 573 units (without
development school)
The existing uses and development standards governing the commercial portion of the project site would not change with the rezone, with the exception of applicant's request to add gas stations as a conditionally permitted use. With minimal exception, no changes are requested for the open space uses or standards.

In determining whether to grant a requested rezone, under BMC § 17.870.008, the City will need to determine whether the request is:

1. Consistent with the General Plan; and

2. Inappropriate or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

The City Council will need to determine whether the requested rezoning conforms to the General Plan and if it is inappropriate or otherwise contrary to the public interest. 2 Packet Pg. 18

Page 677 of 894 ends

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
The project site consists of a total of 137 .3 acres. Of this acreage, 28.25 acres (Parcels G and N) are preserved as open space, the majority of which is located along the western property line corresponding to hillside ridge lines. Along the northern property line and north of Sand Creek, Parcel A, totaling 13.98 acres, will accommodate the multi-family apartment project. Parcel C consisting of 18. 72 acres and located just south of Sand Creek, remains dedicated to future regional commercial uses, and no development of this site is anticipated with this project at this time. The remaining acreage located south of Sand Creek Road includes the 11.35-acre potential school site (Parcel H), two park locations (1.74 acre Parcel T and 2.56 acre Parcel J), a ten-foot trail connection (Parcel S) to the Brentwood Hills subdivision to the south, and the 252 single-family residential lots. The single-family lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 16,912 square feet. The remaining parcels are to be utilized for bio-retention areas for stormwater treatment. Access to the single-family development would be through two main access points, one along Sand Creek Road and the other via the extension of San Jose Avenue from the south.

The proposed map also includes an overlay for 63 additional single-family lots should the anticipated school site not materialize. The terms for how this could develop are outlined in the development agreement.

Brentwood Municipal Code §16.060.040(8) identifies seven findings applicable to a decision to approve or deny a subdivision map. In the interest of space, each of these findings is analyzed in the resolution attached hereto. Proposed conditions of approval are also attached to the proposed resolution.

Figure 3
Proposed VTSM 8506
2 Packet Pg. 19

Page 678 of 894 ends

1111 .
.
.

Design Review
BRli'."F'"lu ~=.t:;;,=t,IJJP!!lbll!illi!t m ~~I=.i= -A liID!m =i ~

VFSTING TENTATIVE MAP &

PRELIMINARY GRADING PIAN
StJIIIllVISION lr.i)6
P4-Cn ',I°
-·u " ~c · . :, '
=
~ ~ ;;:· 11• <t
_~ _ - .... ,., ..
- - • • •e --- ---- ... ' .... .

The applicant seeks design review approval for both the single- and multi-family portions of the site. Each is considered separately below. Both are subject to the same approval criteria set out in Brentwood Municipal Code§§ 17.820.007.

Design Review No. 17-007 - Single-Family Residential
Architecture
This single-family community has proposed five distinct floor plans with three alternative elevations per plan. All plans are two-story homes with a two-car front-on garage. Due to the relatively small minimum lot size, alternative garage configurations are difficult to accomplish, however, the homes are designed to minimize the garage by setting it back from the front plane of the living spaces, thereby minimizing their prominence in the front elevation, and all of the plans show decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home.

As mentioned, each plan has three distinct architectural styles, including Tuscan, Craftsman, and French Cottage. Exterior materials, massing, roof shapes and pitches, trim shapes and 2 Packet Pg. 20

Page 679 of 894 ends

material, and colors vary by these elevation styles. The rear elevations vary by elevation style as well, with accent gable and hip roofs, accent trim, and a variety of roof pitches and massing styles. The trim around the windows is shown as being carried around all windows at the sides and rears facing street to matches the style of the window trim on the front elevation. This means that the window trim at the side and rear elevations is different by elevation style, but only if it can be viewed from an adjacent street.
► Tuscan. The Tuscan style elevations include a combination of stucco and stone exteriors with decorative wrought iron trim elements. The rooflines feature both modified hip and gable end and are finished with curved villa concrete tile roofing material. ► French Cottage. The French Cottage style elevations include stucco body and trim elements with mock shutters. Stone veneer trim elements are included along the front elevations. Also included are simulated wood siding and trim elements at various locations along the front elevation. The gable roofs are finished with flat concrete tile roofing materials.
► Craftsman. The Craftsman elevations are a combination of horizontal siding and stucco. In addition, there are stone trim elements either at the front or on the column bases on the porch posts. Front elevations feature a full grid pattern for the window fenestration, which is unique to this style. The gable roofs are accented with corbels and have flat concrete tile roofing.

Exterior materials, massing, roof shapes and pitches, trim shapes and material, and colors vary by these elevation styles. The rear elevations vary by elevation style as well, with accent gable and hip roofs, accent trim, and a variety of roof pitches and massing styles. The accent trim and around the windows and the varied window grid patterns are only proposed to be carried around to windows at the sides and rears that abut streets. A draft condition of approval on the project would require that these trim elements be included on all the homes, not just those that abut streets. The color schemes assist in further differentiating the styles. For each plan, the developer has proposed two different color schemes that represent traditional color choices for the style, for a total of 14 color schemes for the entire development.

Building Design and Massing
A summary of the proposed home models is included below:

Table 5
Single-family home models
Plan# Home Size
1 2,251
2 2,564
3 2,798
4 3,158
5 3,41 6
*Optional 5th bedroom
Preliminary/Master Plotting Plan
Bed/Bath Garaae Spaces
4/3 2
4 / 3 2
4* / 3 2
5 /4 2
5/3 2
Stories Max. Heiaht
2 27'0"
2 25'9"
2 29'5"
2 29'7"
2 28'0"
2 Packet Pg. 21

Page 680 of 894 ends

The master plotting plan depicts which home plans would be constructed on each particular lot.

Each plan would be plotted between 15.9% and 22.6% within the subdivision. The streetscape varies these five plans fairly evenly throughout the subdivision.

See discussion below under the Residential Design Guidelines section regarding compliance with the guidelines and proposed conditions of approval.

Landscaping
The proposed subdivision includes two designated park parcels. Parcel T, located west of the main access at Sand Creek Road, is 1. 7 4 acres and will be designed as a neighborhood park.

The larger park is Parcel J, which encompasses 2.56 acres and will also be designed as a neighborhood park. The landscape plans submitted with this application for a VTSM are preliminary only and pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 2.46.020G, a conceptual park plan will be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and final approval of the park design, programming and amenities. The Parks and Recreation Commission's approval will ensure conformance with all aspects of the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan for Neighborhood Parks. As with all new projects, the final landscape plans will be reviewed against the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to ensure conformance with these regulations.

The project includes a conceptual wall design for the required soundwall locations identified in the acoustical analysis done for the Environment Impact Report. These locations are adjacent to Sand Creek Road and State Route 4. As conditioned, walls will also be required adjacent to City park parcels. The wall design shall be masonry block units with wall cap, columns spaced appropriately and column caps. In order to insure that the wall is designed and installed in a manner acceptable to the City, a draft condition of approval is included that requires the developer to submit a modified design of the wall for review and approval by the Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works prior to construction. The intent is to have a hand-laid block wall with a cap, and columns approximately every 50 feet. All other fencing for the project would need to adhere to the City's standard for good-neighbor fencing between lots, and enhanced good neighbor between lots and City owned open space where trails or trail connections are adjacent. Open tube steel or wire fencing will be installed between City open space parcels and lots elsewhere.

A draft condition of approval for Parcel J will require dedication to the City for open space and trail purposes, and a 10-foot wide asphalt multi-use trail from the southern boundary of the project at the existing terminus of Black Gold Trail to the extension of Sand Creek Road or a portion of the Sand Creek Trail constructed with this project. This is consistent with the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan and will provide trail connections called for therein. In addition, the project is conditioned to construct the Sand Creek Trail from the western boundary of the project to the eastern boundary of the project. Construction of the Sand Creek Trail is also called for in the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan. Additionally, per the Development Agreement, the developer will assist in the construction of a trail connection to the east side of State Route 4.

Design Review No. 17-008 - Multi-Family Apartments
Access to the multi-family site, Parcel A, will be from one ingress/egress point at Sand Creek Road, which will provide right-in/right-out only. A secondary 20-foot wide emergency vehicle access point is provided at the northeast corner of the site out to Old Sand Creek Road. The 2 Packet Pg. 22

Page 681 of 894 ends

multi-family development consists of a total of 258 units clustered into 11 , three-story, apartment buildings, with each building containing between 12 and 36 units. The project is anticipated to include 84 one-bedroom units, and 174 two-bedroom units. In addition to the units themselves, an approximately 7,873 square foot clubhouse, with a pool and barbeque area is also included on the site. The multi-family development would include a total of 508 parking spaces comprised of 262 carport spaces, 36 garage spaces, 37 compact spaces, and 173 standard spaces.

The architectural style for the apartment buildings is a modernized mission and includes arched canopies over many of the outdoor patio areas, stucco siding, belly banding to break up the planes between the three stories, and hip roofs with corbels constructed with concrete tile roofing materials. The garage buildings and the clubhouse are proposed as one-story structures and utilize the same materials and architecture as the apartment buildings.

The on-site amenities for the apartment complex include an outdoor pool and barbeque area. A gazebo and pet park are included with the project plans, but their location is not identified on the site plan. Since this is a rather large apartment complex, facilities such as electric vehicle charging stations, a car wash area, and a tot lot should also be made available to the residents.

Accordingly, a draft condition of approval is included requiring these amenities to be included in the project building and landscaping plans. The developer is proposing to utilize a tubular steel fence design with columns and caps. A draft condition of approval requires approval of a fencing plan.

Design Guidelines
The City adopted a set of Residential Design Guidelines in 2006. These address all aspects of residential design, including project layout and composition, as well architectural design and features for a wide range of residential unit types, including single-family and multi-family.

The guidelines for building design for single-family residential include the provision of one distinct plan with four unique elevations for every 25 units in the project. This 252-unit singlefamily project has proposed a total of five models, with three elevation styles. This falls well short of the guidelines, which would require a minimum of ten different elevation styles.

Accordingly, a condition of approval has been included requiring approval of another elevation style for the five plans provided along with another five distinct plans with four elevations each, including two single-story plans.

Another guideline that needs to be addressed is the lack of incorporating an alternative garage configuration. As this project is a low-density development on relatively small lot sizes, incorporating an alternative garage configuration could be problematic; however, there are a number of lots of sufficient width to accommodate an alternative garage design. Therefore, a condition of approval on the project requires the inclusion of at least one elevation that incorporates an alternative garage style. It should be noted that the proposed plans do push the garages past the front plane of the homes, making them less prominent. In addition, the garages are conditioned to include decorative doors with windows on at least 60% of the lots.

Additionally, the project does not adhere to the residential guideline of having 50% of the corner lots within the neighborhood plotted with single-story homes. This guideline is particularly important as it reducing the massing of a project, particularly along ridge lines and abutting arterial streets and State Route 4. Therefore, a condition of approval has been included that 2 Packet Pg. 23

Page 682 of 894 ends

concurrent with the submittal of the new plans and elevations, that the master plotting plan be submitted for approval that addresses this issue.

The design guidelines specify lot coverage ratios of 45% for single-story homes and 40% for two-story homes, while the lot coverage ratio proposed for this development includes 50% for single-story homes. Given some of the proposed lot sizes and to accommodate the different floor plans proposed, staff is comfortable with a 50% lot coverage for single-story homes. This is reflected in the draft resolution for the rezone that would establish the various development standards for the project.

Other features identified in the design guidelines are carried through onto the proposed plans; including maintenance of architectural integrity with window wrapping treatment carried around to the side and rear elevations; inclusion of various roof heights and forms; the visual emphasis of front doors from the street, and the avoidance of exposed and unarticulated second-floor walls. Roof forms and pitch angles vary slightly, but are generally consistent throughout each architectural elevation style. Taken together, these elements reflect attention to detail and general compliance with the City's design guidelines.

Last, architectural integrity is maintained in that the architectural style of each elevation type remains consistent with the traditional examples on which the style is based and the elements evident on the front fa9ade are conditioned to be carried around to the less-prominent side and rear elevations.

Development Agreement
Finally, one of the entitlements sought for this project is a development agreement (DA).

Development agreements are contracts between a land use approval body (such as the City) and a developer that are typically used to govern the timing, development, and community benefits of a project. These contracts allow the City and an applicant to enter into an agreement that wi ll assure the City that a proposed project will provide the benefits identified in the agreement and to guarantee the applicant that the project will be subject the rules and regulations in effect at the time of project approval.

The key deal points of the DA proposed here are as follows:
► School site. By the time the DA is approved, the applicant must have entered into an agreement with Brentwood Union School District (the "School District") to transfer an 11 .35-acre portion of the Project site (the "School Site") to the School District for the development of a school. The existence of any such agreement does not guarantee that a school will be built here, but it is a necessary first step.

The School District Board met on August 19 to consider this agreement and voted unanimously to approve the purchase and sale agreement. Securing the ability of the School District to develop a school at this location has been a primary concern in processing this application.
► Residential overlay in lieu of school. If the School District decides not to acquire the School Site within the time identified in the agreement with the applicant, then (1) the applicant will be allowed to develop an additional 63 single-family homes on the School Site, and (2) the applicant will pay the City $25,000 per each of these additional singlefamily homes (for a total of some $1 ,575,000), with such funds to be used for a youth 2 Packet Pg. 24

Page 683 of 894 ends

center or youth programming. The City Council will need to determine whether such funds for a youth center or programming constitute a sufficient community benefit should a school site not be realized.
► Fire contributions. As with the siting of a future school, securing fire contributions for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) has likewise been a high priority in processing this application. To this end, under the DA, applicant will pay all impact fees adopted by the City as of the effective date of the DA to fund fire and medical support facilities operated by ECCFPD (subject to their right to challenge such fees) and will also annex the Project into or otherwise participate in any Community Facilities District established by ECCFPD prior to the Project's first building permit being issued.

It must be noted that the applicant has contested the basis of the fire impact fee recently adopted by the Council. The DA includes language requested by the applicant to acknowledge the ability of the applicant to protest and challenge the fees. ► Sand Creek Road right-of-way. In order to obtain the land necessary to develop the full extension of Sand Creek Road from its present termination point west of State Route 4 to the Antioch city limits, the City will sell applicant a small parcel of land, along with an otherwise unusable SR 4 remnant parcel, and provide applicant with development credits or payment of approximately $150,000.
► Affordable housing compliance. In order to satisfy City's affordable housing requirement to construct two percent of the residential units in the Project as affordable units or provide an alternative equivalent therefore, as required by the City's affordable housing ordinance, the applicant requested to pay a fee in lieu of constructing any deedrestricted affordable housing onsite. This method of compliance with the affordable housing ordinance is thus included in the DA.
► Design and Construction of an off-site trail connection. The applicant would design and construct an off-site trail connection along Sand Creek from the eastern boundary of the Project beneath State Route 4 to the Old Sand Creek right-of-way and provide funding in the amount of $500,000 for a pedestrian bridge, if a bridge is ultimately determined to be required. If construction of the pedestrian bridge has not begun by the time the DA expires, this payment for the pedestrian bridge would be returned to Developer.
► Term. The DA would have an initial term of 15 years, with one potential 5-year extension. This would mean that the rules, regulations, and policies that govern development of the Project would essentially be fixed for the life of the DA.

The Planning Commission and City Council will need to decide whether the benefits to the community offered through the DA are sufficient to justify (1) the requested General Plan amendment, (2) development of the single-family portion of the site at a density above the midrange, (3) the vesting of applicant's rights to develop the site per the rules and regulations in place now for a period of up to 15-20 years, and (4) the potential that the site identified for the school may instead be developed with 63 additional single-family homes.

Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, 2020
2 Packet Pg. 25

Page 684 of 894 ends

The Planning Commission agenda for the meeting of August 18, 2020, included the public hearing for the Bridle Gate project. Prior to the meeting, City staff had been advised by PG&E of the possibility of a power outage that may be required by the California Independent System Operator due to the strain on the electrical system caused by the excessive temperatures across the state and attendant demands on the electrical grid. According to the notice from PG&E, if such a blackout were to occur in Brentwood, it would be conducted between the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm on August 18, which could potentially disrupt the Planning Commission meeting. After discussions with the applicant, it was agreed that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission continue the item to its meeting of September 1, 2020. At the August 18 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the continuance and voted unanimously to approve the continuance of the public hearing for the project to its meeting of September 1.

Since that time, as noted above, the Brentwood Union School District Board held a meeting on August 19, 2020, and approved the purchase and sale agreement for the 11.35-acre school site within the project. The agreement includes a number of conditions that need to be met before the sale would go through.

Staff has also added one additional condition of approval to VTSM 8506 to reflect a late request from Tri-Delta Transit for the provision of bus stops within the project. The new draft condition of approval reads as follows:
"The Developer shall install bus turnouts on both eastbound and westbound Sand Creek Road at the intersection of Sand Creek Road and San Jose Avenue and Sand Creek Road and the entrance to the multi-family apartment site on Parcel "A" in coordination with Tri Delta Transit to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works concurrent with Sand Creek Road extension improvements.

These bus turnout locations shall also include bus shelters to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works."
Other than the above, no other changes to the project have been included.

DATE OF NOTICE:

The City published a public hearing notice in the Brentwood Press and mailed it to property owners within 300 feet of the site on August 7, 2020, noticing the public hearing for this project.

In addition, the project site is posted with the required signage along Sand Creek Road. During the processing of the application, staff did not receive any comments from neighboring property owners or members of the public at large.

Notice of the Planning Commission's action to continue the public hearing for the project to its meeting of September 1, 2020, was also provided on the City's Facebook page and on the Nextdoor app.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2019080071) for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several potentially significant impacts are identified; however, mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels, except that certain air quality and traffic impacts remain significant and unavoidable as set forth in the Draft EIR. All mitigation measures not addressed by the standard conditions of approval are included as recommended 2 Packet Pg. 26

Page 685 of 894 ends

conditions of approval. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was available for review and comment from June 1, 2020, to July 15, 2020. Several comments were received and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Draft EIR may be reviewed by clicking on the link below and scrolling to "Bridle Gate:" https://www.brentwoodca.gov/gov/cd/planning/ceqa.asp
CONCLUSION:

The Bridle Gate project has a lengthy history, dating back to an initial submittal in 2001 and a prior approval in 2006 that established General Plan land use designations and zoning standards that remain in effect. It is a large site with a number of unique attributes and constraints to consider. It has also generated interest in the surrounding and overall community, with several residents expressing significant concerns about the project through emails as well as during public comment at both Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The General Plan Update adopted in 2014 established the vision for the community, which for Bridle Gate (among other things) includes approximately 35 acres of Regional Commercial development and single-family development at a density of approximately three dwelling units per acre.

There are concerning aspects of the project, including the loss of 13.98 acres of Regional Commercial land, the density of single-family development exceeding the mid-range identified in the General Plan, and the development of at least portions of the existing hill forms and ridgelines. However, there are also some positive benefits provided by the project through the Development Agreement. These include the possible provision of a future elementary school site (or funding for youth programming of up to $1.575 million over time if the School District does not purchase the site), a trail connection beneath State Route 4, and provisions to address fire impacts.

To facilitate the Planning Commission's review and consideration of the project, as well as to facilitate making a recommendation at its meeting on September 1, staff has prepared resolutions to allow the Commission to recommend that the City Council approve the various actions associated with development of this project, as well as a resolution whereby the Commission could recommend that the City Council deny the project. The Planning Commission should therefore consider the discussion above, the findings set forth in each of the resolutions, public comment given at the meeting, and the record of the proceedings in making its final determination to recommend denial or approval of the project to the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be presented to the City Council in a special meeting on September 15, 2020.

RECOMMENDATION:

As set forth in the conclusion below, staff recommends that the Planning Commission proceed with one of the following actions:

1. Recommend that the City Council deny the project by adopting the following resolution:
a. A Resolution Denying the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review for the Single-Family Residential Parcels and the Multi-Family Residential Parcels; or
2 Packet Pg. 27

Page 686 of 894 ends

2. Recommend that the City Council approve the project by adopting the following resolutions:
a. A Resolution Recommending the City Council Certify the Final EIR, and Adopt CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation and Monitoring; b. A Resolution Recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 17-001;
c. A Resolution Recommending that the City Council approve Rezone No. 17-004; d. A Resolution Recommending the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 19- 001;
e. A Resolution Recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506;
f. A Resolution Recommending the City Council approve Design Review No. 17-007 for the single-family residential parcels; and
g. A Resolution Recommending the City Council approve Design Review No. 17-008 for the multi-family residential parcel.

Attachments:
/ Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-026 - Final Environment Impact Report 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-027 - Development Agreement 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-028 - General Plan Amendment Lf Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-029 - Rezone
S-pIanning Commission Resolution No. 20-030 - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map t Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-031 - Design Review Single Family ·1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-032 - Design Review Multi Family Y Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-033 - Denial
9 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506
\ o Design Review Booklet - DR 17-007
11 Design Review Booklet- DR 17-008
rz Bridle Gate Final Environmental Impact Report (with appendix) ,3BUSD Purchase and Sale Agreement
2 Packet Pg. 28

Page 687 of 894 ends

EXHIBIT 2

Page 688 of 894 ends

Page 689 of 894 ends

EXHIBIT 3

Page 690 of 894 ends

City of Brentwood - COB MAP
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
2,400
400.0

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
1:

NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet
0 200.00 400.0 Feet Notes:

Page 691 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-24
C.10 Planning Commission Hearing
This section contains all materials created for the February 28, 2023, Planning Commission hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to the General Plan to update the Housing Element for the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle). A recording of the meeting and its agenda packet is available on the Housing Element Update webpage: https://brentwoodhousingelement.com/.

Page 692 of 894 ends

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 150 CITY PARK WAY
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* UPDATED FEBRUARY 23, 2023
Planning Commission Members will be participating from the Council Chamber. Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: Council Chambers, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood CA As a courtesy and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to provide live remote oral public comment via the City’s Zoom Platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. In those instances, so long as the public may still attend the meeting in person, the meeting will continue. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE
The public is invited to participate in the Planning Commission meeting using any of the following methods:

1. IN PERSON:
a. Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chambers.

Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chambers will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.

2. REMOTE:
a. Zoom: https://www.brentwoodca.gov/planningmeetingonline or Zoom Webinar ID:
87350296630
b. Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (877) 853-5247 or (888) 788-0099 or (833) 548- 0276.
c. During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participant may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. If calling in via Zoom use *9 to raise and lower your hand. The meeting host will call on you, by name, and enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. In order to ensure the orderly administration of the meeting using this method, providing your name is encouraged, but is not required. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the Planning Administrative Secretary by noon of the meeting date at [email protected] or 925.516.5433)

3. E-MAIL
a. Public comments can also be submitted via e-mail to [email protected]. Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

1. distributed to the Planning Commission via email before the meeting,

2. posted online for public inspection within one day following the meeting via the following link under the meeting minutes
http://brentwoodca.iqm2.com/citizens/default.aspx, and

3. later summarized in the meeting minutes.
b. As e-mails containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your e-mail.

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a. The public may view the meeting via one-way video feed by selecting the video option at the City Council Agendas’ link on the City webpage at www.brentwoodca.gov

Page 693 of 894 ends

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
PAGE 2 OF 3
5:00 PM – SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS
As the public and Planning Commission have resumed meeting in the City Council Chambers, we invite the public to attend in person when feasible. We will continue to offer a virtual participation option as well.

The public is permitted to address the Planning Commission on items that are on the Consent Calendar, Requests for Future Agenda Items, or items not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. To accommodate those speaking in-person and via Zoom, we will call upon those in-person first, and then to Zoom. If necessary, we will repeat that process.

In Person: Please file a speaker’s card with the Administrative Secretary on the form provided on the counter at the back of the Chambers.

Zoom: Please use the Raise Your Hand feature in Zoom during this item to speak under Public Comments.

Persons are required to limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chairperson subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Planning Commission and, if relevant, they may direct them to the appropriate staff member. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular City business hours.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION’S ACTIONS ARE FINAL UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.

BUSINESS ITEMS

1. Public Hearing. An application for a General Plan amendment (GPA 23-001) to repeal the 2015 Housing Element and adopt an updated Housing Element for the period of 2023-2031 (6th Cycle), in compliance with state housing element law.

The amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council, which will take final action on this project. (Hagen)

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE This portion of the agenda is to provide an opportunity for Planning Commissioners to report on attendance at events and subcommittee meetings.

TRANSPLAN Committee (Brand) 2
nd Thursday of every month

Page 694 of 894 ends

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
PAGE 3 OF 3
Design Review Subcommittee (Flohr & Zeigler) 2
nd and 4th Thursdays of every month
Land Use and Development Committee (Roberts) 3
rd Monday of every month

REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
NEW REQUEST(S) Planning Commissioners wishing to have an agenda item placed on a future agenda shall make a request under this section of the agenda. These items will be included on the agenda for a future Planning Commission meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2023 at 7:00 PM and will be at the City of Brentwood Council Chambers located at 150 City Park Way.

Any disclosable public records related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed to all or a majority of the Planning Commission less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at City Hall, located at 150 City Park Way, during normal business hours. These writings will also be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting in the public access binder in the entrance of the Council Chambers.

Public comments received after 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date, but prior to the start of the meeting, will be emailed to the Planning Commission, posted online at within one day following the meeting, and will be summarized in the meeting minutes.

The Closed Captioning provided via Zoom is auto generated. It is not the official record and is provided as a convenience.

If you challenge the any of the matters listed under 'Public Hearings' in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Brentwood Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing
NOTICE
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available at the City Hall parking lot. If you are a person with a disability and you need disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Secretary’s Office at (925) 516-5405. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.102-35, 104 ADA Title II}

POSTING STATEMENT
On February 23, 2023, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board, outside City Hall, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 and at our website www.brentwoodca.gov A complete packet of information is available for public review at City Hall or on our website at www.brentwoodca.gov

Page 695 of 894 ends

Brentwood 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-25
C.11 City Council Hearing
This section contains all materials created for the March 14, 2023, City Council hearing to consider adoption of an amendment to the General Plan to update the Housing Element for the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle). A recording of the meeting and its agenda packet is available on the Housing Element Update webpage: https://brentwoodhousingelement.com/.

Page 696 of 894 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA23-001) TO REPEAL THE 2015 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2023-2031, IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW.

WHEREAS, the California Legislature has found that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and WHEREAS, the Legislature has further found that “[a]mong the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5.); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature recently adopted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) which states that “[i]n 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita… California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over 7 years”; and
WHEREAS, the State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580, et seq.) requires that the City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate the City of Brentwood (City) regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 1,522 housing units, comprised of 402 very-low income units, 232 low-income units, 247 moderate-income units, and 641 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, to comply with the State Housing Element Law, Brentwood has prepared the 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated March 2023, and incorporated herein by reference (the Housing Element) in compliance with the State Housing Element Law and has identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting the City’s RHNA; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350, et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RHNA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (Gov. Code Sections 65583.2 and 65583(c)); and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352 – 65352.5, the City referred the Housing Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed; and WHEREAS, no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and

Page 697 of 894 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

2 WHEREAS, the preparation, adoption, and implementation of the Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the City conducted extensive community outreach over the last 16 months, including nine public workshops, outreach events, and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on August 25, 2022, the City posted the draft Housing Element and requested public comment for a 30-day review period, and on October 17, 2022, after responding to public comments, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its review; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2023, the City received a letter from HCD providing its findings regarding the draft Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, City staff met with an HCD representative to discuss HCD’s findings and the City’s proposed revisions to the draft Housing Element in response; and
WHEREAS, the City incorporated each of HCD’s specific requirements identified in the January 13, 2023 letter in the City’s Housing Element to ensure that the Housing Element would substantially comply with Housing Element Law; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2023, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing to be held to consider adoption of the Housing Element by advertisement in the Brentwood Press, a newspaper of general circulation, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element dated February 2023, responding to HCD’s findings, and requested public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, the staff report and all attachments, and oral and written public comments received to date. Following the public hearing, at which no member of the public spoke, the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, concurrent with the commencement of the Planning Commission meeting, Discovery Builders, Inc., and WCHB Development, Inc. (collectively, “Discovery Builders”) emailed correspondence to the City’s Planning Division with comments on the draft Housing Element; and

Page 698 of 894 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

3 WHEREAS, on March 3, 2023, the City gave public notice of a public hearing to be held by the City Council to consider this resolution regarding the City’s Housing Element by advertisement in The Brentwood Press; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2023, the City published a revised draft Housing Element dated March 2023, further responding to HCD’s findings, and requested public comment on the draft; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2023, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider this resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the resolution, (2) the revisions and considerations discussed therein, (3) the consideration by the City’s Planning Commission, and (4) HCD’s findings and the proposed City response to HCD’s findings; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section §15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element Update would have a significant effect on the environment, in that no new policies adopted modify the density or physical design of housing and so do not have the potential for causing a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect change in the physical environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood based on the entire record of proceedings, including the oral and written staff reports and all public comment and testimony:

1. Finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action; and

2. Finds that the Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code Sections 65580, et seq., and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law, as shown in Attachment 1B to this resolution, incorporated herein by this reference; and

3. Finds, as required by Government Code Section 65585(e), that the City Council has considered the findings made by the Department of Housing and Community Development included in the Department’s letter to the City dated January 13, 2023, consistent with Government Code Section 65585(f), and as described in Attachment 1A to this resolution, incorporated herein, the City Council has modified the Housing Element in response to the findings of the Department to substantially comply with the requirements of State Housing Element Law as interpreted by HCD.

4. Finds that the 2023-2031 Housing Element is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan, as evidenced by, among other things:
a. Housing Element Action H.1i (“Continue implementation of the City’s water Conservation Program. The program promotes the use of water conservation devices in existing structures, including use of low-flow toilets

Page 699 of 894 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

4 and shower heads, and water-conserving landscaping”), which is consistent with Conservation and Open Space Policy COS 9-6 (“Continue to require new development to incorporate water efficient fixtures into design and construction”).
b. Housing Element Goal H.1 (“Facilitate a diversity of housing opportunities to enhance the City’s living environment and to satisfy the shelter needs of all Brentwood residents”), which is consistent with Land Use Policy LU 2-8 (“Provide for a variety of residential products through the Zoning Ordinance in order to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the city’s population”).
c. Housing Element Goal 3 (“Encourage an equitable distribution of housing for all economic groups throughout the community”), which is consistent with Land Use Policy LU 2-7 (“Strongly encourage residential development in the city in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses”).

5. Directs the Director of Community Development (Director) to transmit the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for its earliest action and review as provided by law; and further directs and authorizes the Director to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element as required to make it internally consistent, or to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by HCD to achieve a finding of conformance with State Housing Element Law. Should HCD require substantive changes to the adopted Housing Element, the City Council directs City staff to bring such changes or amendments back to the City Council for its further review and appropriate action; and

6. Finds that the Housing Element incorporates the City’s goals, quantifiable objectives, and policies to affirmatively further fair housing and the maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing per Government Code Section 65583(b), and is thus in the public interest; and

7. Repeals the 2015 Housing Element and adopts the Housing Element as shown in Attachment 2 and incorporated herein; and

8. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of the 14th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

Page 700 of 894 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

5 APPROVED:

Joel Bryant, Mayor
ATTEST:

Margaret Wimberly, MMC
City Clerk

Page 701 of 894 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

6 ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Response to HCD Findings, Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD reviewed the draft Housing Element and reported the results of its review.

Attachment 1A describes the changes requested by HCD and the City of Brentwood’s response.

Attachment 1B demonstrates that the City of Brentwood’s Housing Element contains each of the elements mandated by State law.

Attachment 2 – Housing Element dated March 2023

Page 702 of 894 ends

1 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 65583 The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Appendix B
The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.

Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Appendix B
The element shall contain all of the following: Noted. (a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the following:

Section 2 Section 3
(a)(1) An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections Section 2.B
(a)(1) A quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, including extremely low income households, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 50105 and Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income households. The local agency may either use available census data to calculate the percentage of very low income households that qualify as extremely low income households or presume that 50 percent of the very low income households qualify as extremely low income households. The number of extremely low income households and very low income households shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very low income households pursuant to Section 65584.

Section 2.F
(a)(2) An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, Section 2.C Section 2.D
(a)(2) housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and Section 2.C Section 2.D
(a)(2) housing stock condition. Section 2.F
Attachment 1B

Page 703 of 894 ends

2 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory.

Appendix B.A Appendix B.B Appendix B.C Appendix B.D
[Note that AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022) amended Section 65583(a)(4). It does not apply to ABAG-area housing elements unless the first draft of the housing element is submitted to ABAG after January 31, 2023 or a draft is submitted after April 1, 2023. Therefore the sections below include the statutory provisions of Section 65583(a)(4) effective in 2022. Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why AB 2339 is not applicable to them.] Noted.
(a)(4)(A) The identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Section 3.A.2 Action H.4k
(a)(4)(A) If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element. The local government may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.

Section 4 (Action H.4k)
(a)(4)(A) The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(4)(A) Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following: (i) The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility.

Section 3.A.2
Attachment 1B

Page 704 of 894 ends

3 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(ii) Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (iii) The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. (iv) The provision of onsite management. (v) The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart. (vi) The length of stay. (vii) Lighting. (viii) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation. (a)(4)(B) The permit processing, development, and management standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be discretionary acts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Section 3.A.2
(a)(4)(C) A local government that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department the existence of one or more emergency shelters either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a zone or zones where new emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(4)(D) A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take additional action to identify zones for emergency shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the requirements of this paragraph.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(5) An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and [Note: The types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1) include multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.] Section 3.A Section 3.D
(a)(5) for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), Section 3.A.2 Attachment 1B

Page 705 of 894 ends

4 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
Section 3.D.1
(a)(5) including land use controls, Section 3.A.2 (a)(5) building codes and their enforcement, Section 3.A.2 (a)(5) site improvements, Section 3.A.2 (a)(5) fees and other exactions required of developers, Section 3.A.2 (a)(5) local processing and permit procedures, Section 3.A.2 (a)(5) and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(5) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 Section 3.A.2
(a)(5) and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7).

Section 3.A.2
(a)(6) An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, Section 3.A.1
(a)(6) the price of land, Section 3.A.1 (a)(6) the cost of construction, Section 3.A.1 (a)(6) the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, Section B.B.2
(a)(6) and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.

Section 3.A.3
(a)(6) The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.

Section 3.A.1
(a)(7) An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) elderly; Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; Section 3.D.1
Attachment 1B

Page 706 of 894 ends

5 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(7) large families; Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) farmworkers; Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) families with female heads of households; Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. Section 3.D.1 (a)(7) The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(7) The need for emergency shelter may be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified to allow construction during the planning period.

Section 3.A.2
(a)(7) An analysis of special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services.

N/A
(a)(8) An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Cities and counties are encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, and its electrical system.

Section 3.C
(a)(9) An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, local redevelopment programs, the federal Community Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915.

Section 3.D.1
Attachment 1B

Page 707 of 894 ends

6 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(a)(9)(A) The analysis shall include a listing of each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need only contain information available on a statewide basis.

Section 3.D.1
(a)(9)(B) The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from lowincome use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for each five-year period and does not have to contain a project-by-project cost estimate.

Section 3.D.1
(a)(9)(C) The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing developments.

Section 3.D.1
(a)(9)(D) The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community. In considering the use of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify the amounts of funds under each available program that have not been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be available for use in preserving assisted housing developments.

Section 3.D.1
(b) (1) A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Section 4 Section 3.D.1
(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of Recognized Appendix B
Attachment 1B

Page 708 of 894 ends

7 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
housing units by income category, including extremely low income, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period. (c) A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element Section 4
(c) through the administration of land use and development controls, Section 4 (c) the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, Section 4 (c) the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, Section 4
(c) and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code).

Section 4
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following:

Noted.
(c)(1) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09.

Section 4 Appendix B
(c)(1) Sites shall be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing Section 4 Appendix B Appendix B.F
(c)(1) and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, Section 4 Section 3.A.2 Appendix B Appendix B.F
(c)(1) factory-built housing, Section 3.A.2 (c)(1) mobilehomes, Section 3.A.2 Attachment 1B

Page 709 of 894 ends

8 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(1) housing for agricultural employees, Section 3.A.2 Section 4 (Action H.1l)
(c)(1) supportive housing, Section 3.A.2
Section 4 (Action H.4l)
(c)(1) single-room occupancy units, Section 3.A.2
Section 4 (Action H.4.j)
(c)(1) emergency shelters, Section 3.A.2
Section 4 (Action H.4.k)
(c)(1) and transitional housing. Section 3.A.2 (c)(1)(A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, for jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

No rezones proposed
(c)(1)(B) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. The identification of sites shall include all components specified in Section 65583.2. Note: Please see Section 65583.2 regarding the land inventory and conformance with subdivision (h).

Appendix B
(c)(1)(C) Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for farmworker housing, the Section 4 (Action H.1l) Appendix B
Attachment 1B

Page 710 of 894 ends

9 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
program shall provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and very low income households. (c)(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households.

Section 4
(c)(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels Section 4
(c)(3) and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.

Section 4
(c)(3) Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

Section 4
(c)(3)Supportive housing, as defined in Section 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).

Section 4
(c)(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.

Section 4
(c)(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

Section 4
(c)(6) Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a).

Section 4
(c)(6) The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy Section 4
Attachment 1B

Page 711 of 894 ends

10 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. (c)(6) The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance.

Section 4
(c)(7) Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.\ Section 4
(c)(8) Include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals.

Section 4
(c)(9) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.

Section 4
(c)(10)(A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:

Section 3.D Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction Section 3.D Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(i) and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity.

Section 3.D.1
(c)(10)(A)(ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, Section 3.D.1
(c)(10)(A)(ii)racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, Section 3.D.1 (c)(10)(A)(ii) disparities in access to opportunity, Section 3.D.1 (c)(10)(A)(ii) and disproportionate housing needs, Section 3.D.1 (c)(10)(A)(ii) including displacement risk. Section 3.D.1 (c)(10)(A)(ii) The analysis shall identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and needs, both within the jurisdiction.

Section 3.D.1
Attachment 1B

Page 712 of 894 ends

11 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(A)(ii) and comparing the jurisdiction to the region in which it is located, based on race and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.

Section 3.D.1
(c)(10)(A)(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors, including the local and regional historical origins Section 3.D.2 Section 3.D.1 Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(iii) and current policies and practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) and (ii).

Section 3.D.2 Section 3.D.1 Section 4 Appendix A
(c)(10)(A)(iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(iv) and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.

Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(v) and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(v) as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, Section 4
(c)(10)(A)(v) and protecting existing residents from displacement. Section 4 (c)(10)(B) A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair housing into its housing element.

Section 4
Attachment 1B

Page 713 of 894 ends

12 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c)(10)(C) The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after January 1, 2021.

Section 4
(d)(1) A local government may satisfy all or part of its requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning of the planning period.

N/A
(d)(2) The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was allocated as part of its housing element.

N/A
(d)(3) Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement shall describe in its housing element all of the following:

N/A
(d)(3)(A) How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency shelter need. (d)(3)(B) The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the development and ongoing operation and management of the facility. (d)(3)(C) The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction contributes to the facility.

N/A
(d)(4) The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual capacity of the shelter.

N/A
(e) Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to this article that alter the required content of a housing element shall apply to both of the following: [Note that this provision is applicable to AB 2339 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022), which amended Section 65583(a)(4). Jurisdictions adopting their housing element after January 1, 2023 should describe why this amendment is not applicable to them.] Noted.
(1) A housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.

Noted.
(2) Any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and Noted.

Attachment 1B

Page 714 of 894 ends

13 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
county fails to submit the first draft to the department before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02. Section 65583.1(a) (a) The Department of Housing and Community Development, in evaluating a proposed or adopted housing element for substantial compliance with this article, … may also allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units based on the number of accessory dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department.

Appendix B
(b) Sites that contain permanent housing units located on a military base undergoing closure or conversion as a result of action pursuant to the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526), the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510), or any subsequent act requiring the closure or conversion of a military base may be identified as an adequate site if the housing element demonstrates that the housing units will be available for occupancy by households within the planning period of the element. No sites containing housing units scheduled or planned for demolition or conversion to nonresidential uses shall qualify as an adequate site.

Not applicable
Note: If communities are using the provisions of Section 65583.1(c), which allow RHNA credit for conversion of non-affordable to affordable housing and for preservation of existing affordable housing at risk of loss, the applicable provisions need to be added to this table.

Noted
Section 65583.2 (a) A city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with paragraph (10) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583, Appendix B
(a) that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section 65584. As used in this section, “land suitable for residential Appendix B.F
Attachment 1B

Page 715 of 894 ends

14 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
development” includes all of the following sites that meet the standards set forth in subdivisions (c) and (g): (a)(1) Vacant sites zoned for residential use. Appendix B.B.3 (a)(2) Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development. Appendix B.B.3 (a)(3) Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county Appendix B.B.3
(a)(4) Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use, and for which the housing element includes a program to rezone the site, as necessary, rezoned for, to permit residential use, including sites owned or leased by a city, county, or city and county.

Appendix B.B.3
(b) The inventory of land shall include all of the following: Appendix B (b)(1) A listing of properties by assessor parcel number. Appendix B.F (b)(2) The size of each property listed pursuant to paragraph (1), and the general plan designation and zoning of each property.

Appendix B.F
(b)(3) For nonvacant sites, a description of the existing use of each property. Appendix B.F (b)(3) If a site subject to this paragraph is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Appendix B
(b)(4) A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation for which has been made available to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

Section 3.A.4 Appendix B
(b)(5)(A) A description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities.

Appendix B.A.1
(b)(5)(B) Parcels included in the inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan, including a program or plan of a public or private entity providing water or sewer service, to secure sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities supply to support housing development. This paragraph does not impose any additional duty on the city or county to construct, finance, or otherwise provide water, sewer, or dry utilities to parcels included in the inventory.

Appendix B.A.1
Attachment 1B

Page 716 of 894 ends

15 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(b)(6) Sites identified as available for housing for above moderate-income households in areas not served by public sewer systems. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.

Appendix B.A.1
(b)(7) A map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory, such as the land use map from the jurisdiction’s general plan, for reference purposes only.

Appendix B.F
(c) Based on the information provided in subdivision (b), a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period, as determined pursuant to Section 65584. The inventory shall specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing.

Appendix B.B Appendix B.C Appendix B.F
(c) A nonvacant site identified pursuant to paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) in a prior housing element and a vacant site that has been included in two or more consecutive planning periods that was not approved to develop a portion of the locality’s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower income households that must be accommodated in the current housing element planning period unless the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with paragraph (3) of this subdivision and the site is subject to a program in the housing element requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. An unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall not be subject to the requirements of this subdivision to allow residential use by right.

Section 4 Action H.2o
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning pursuant to this subdivision shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.

Noted.
(c) The analysis shall determine whether the inventory can provide for a variety of types of housing, including multifamily rental housing, Appendix B.B Section 3.A.2
Attachment 1B

Page 717 of 894 ends

16 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(c) factory-built housing, mobilehomes, Section 3.A.2 (c) housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, Section 3.A.2 Section 4 (Action H.1l and Action H.4l)
(c) single-room occupancy units, Section 3.A.2
Section 4 (Action H.4.j)
(c) emergency shelters, and Section 3.A.2
Section 4 (Action H.4.k)
(c) transitional housing Section 3.A.2 (c) and whether the inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing . Section 3.D Section 3.A.2 Section 4
(c) The city or county shall determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site as follows:

Appendix B
(c)(1) If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density. If the city or county does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, then it shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site pursuant to this subdivision will be accommodated.

Appendix B.B.2 Appendix B.C.2
(c)(2) The number of units calculated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, Appendix B.B.2 Appendix B.C.2 Section 3.A.2
(c)(2) the realistic development capacity for the site, Appendix B.B.2 Appendix B.C.2
(c)(2) typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, Appendix B.B
(c)(2) and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

Appendix B.A.1
(c)(2)(A) A site smaller than half an acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality Appendix B.B.3
Attachment 1B

Page 718 of 894 ends

17 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
provides other evidence to the department that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. (c)(2)(B) A site larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to the department that the site can be developed as lower income housing.

Appendix B.B.3
(c)(2)(B) For purposes of this subparagraph, “site” means that portion of a parcel or parcels designated to accommodate lower income housing needs pursuant to this subdivision.

Noted.
(c)(2)(C) A site may be presumed to be realistic for development to accommodate lower income housing need if, at the time of the adoption of the housing element, a development affordable to lower income households has been proposed and approved for development on the site.

Appendix B.A
(c)(3) For the number of units calculated to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower income households pursuant to paragraph (2), a city or county shall do either of the following:

Appendix B
(c)(3)(A) Provide an analysis demonstrating how the adopted densities accommodate this need. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower income households.

Appendix B.B.2 Appendix B.C.2
(c)(3)(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.

Appendix B.B
(4)(A) For a metropolitan jurisdiction: Appendix B.B
Attachment 1B

Page 719 of 894 ends

18 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
(4)(A)(i) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing, but not more than 100 units per acre of housing.

Appendix B.B
(4)(A)(ii) At least 25 percent of the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for above moderate-income housing shall be allocated to sites with zoning that allows at least 4 units of housing.

Appendix B.B
(B) The allocation of moderate-income and above moderate-income housing to sites pursuant to this paragraph shall not be a basis for the jurisdiction to do either of the following: (i) Deny a project that does not comply with the allocation. (ii) Impose a price minimum, price maximum, price control, or any other exaction or condition of approval in lieu thereof. This clause does not prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing any price minimum, price maximum, price control, exaction, or condition in lieu thereof, pursuant to any other law. (iii) The provisions of this subparagraph do not constitute a change in, but are declaratory of, existing law with regard to the allocation of sites pursuant to this section.

Appendix B.C
(C) This paragraph does not apply to an unincorporated area. Noted. (D) For purposes of this paragraph: Noted. (i) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.

Noted.
(ii) “Unit of housing” does not include an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that could be approved pursuant to Section 65852.2 or Section 65852.22 or through a local ordinance or other provision implementing either of those sections. This paragraph shall not limit the ability of a local government to count the actual production of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units in an annual progress report submitted pursuant to Section 65400 or other progress report as determined by the department.

Noted.
(E) Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the subdivision of a parcel, provided that the subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)) or any other applicable law authorizing the subdivision of land.

Noted.
(d) For purposes of this section, a metropolitan county, nonmetropolitan county, and nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area shall be as determined by the United Noted.

Attachment 1B

Page 720 of 894 ends

19 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
States Census Bureau. A nonmetropolitan county with a micropolitan area includes the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada, Tehama, and Tuolumne and other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future. (e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, in which case it shall be considered metropolitan. A county, not including the City and County of San Francisco, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan.

Noted.
(2)(A)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a county that is in the San FranciscoOakland-Fremont California MSA has a population of less than 400,000, that county shall be considered suburban. If this county includes an incorporated city that has a population of less than 100,000, this city shall also be considered suburban. This paragraph shall apply to a housing element revision cycle, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 65588, that is in effect from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2028, inclusive.

Noted.
(2)(A)(ii) A county subject to this subparagraph shall utilize the sum existing in the county’s housing trust fund as of June 30, 2013, for the development and preservation of housing affordable to low- and very low income households.

Noted.
(2)(B) A jurisdiction that is classified as suburban pursuant to this paragraph shall report to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Department of Housing and Community Development regarding its progress in developing low- and very low income housing consistent with the requirements of Section 65400. The report shall be provided three times: once, on or before December 31, 2019, which report shall address the initial four years of the housing element cycle, a second time, on or before December 31, 2023, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the housing element cycle, and a third time, on or before December 31, 2027, which report shall address the subsequent four years of the Noted.

Attachment 1B

Page 721 of 894 ends

20 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
housing element cycle and the cycle as a whole. The reports shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 9795. (f) A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000 in which case it shall be considered suburban. (g)(1) For sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) [non-vacant sites], the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential.

Noted. Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(1) The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(1) the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(1) the current market demand for the existing use, Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(1) an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(1) development trends, Appendix B.B.3
Appendix B.F
(g)(1) market conditions, Appendix B.B.3
Appendix B.F
(g)(1) and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

Appendix B.B.3 Appendix B.F
(g)(2) In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential Noted. Not applicable.

Attachment 1B

Page 722 of 894 ends

21 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. (g)(3) Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2), sites that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income, subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or occupied by low or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915.

Appendix B.B.3
(h) The program required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 shall accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households allocated pursuant to Section 65584 for which site capacity has not been identified in the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) on sites that shall be zoned to permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period.

Noted.
(h) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least Appendix B.B
(h) 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), Appendix B.B
(h) shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) Appendix B.B
(h) and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b).

Appendix B.B
(h) At least 50 percent of the very low and low-income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need on sites designated for mixed uses if those sites Appendix B.B
Attachment 1B

Page 723 of 894 ends

22 990052\01\3407083.1
Government Code Provision Housing Element Compliance
allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project. (i) For purposes of this section and Section 65583, the phrase “use by right” shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act.

Noted.
(i) A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Noted.
(i) Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.

Noted.
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, within one-half mile of a Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit station, housing density requirements in place on June 30, 2014, shall apply.

Noted.

Attachment 1B

Page 724 of 894 ends

Page 725 of 894 ends

2 opportunity sites includes both PA‐1 Parcels and PD‐49 parcels, neither of which are “projects that received approval,” both are speculative project with the City assumes will be developed in the future, but are not the subject of any current project application. Second, the City does not fully respond to our comments, which included very detailed analysis and comment regarding the suitability of the PA‐1 parcels and PD‐49 parcels for development at the unit capacity assumed under the Draft. The City must provide a more detailed response to our comment, pursuant to HCD’s mandate that City's final housing element must summarize all public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the Final Element (HCD, Jan. 13 Letter at p. 15.)
 The updated Housing Element now includes a chart of all sites that were included in the Fifth Cycle Suitable Sites Inventory, and notes regarding inclusion in the Sixth Cycle. (Agenda Packet p. 454). This chart includes the Bridle Gate project site, but states: “Based on multiple General Plan land use designations and acreage uncertainty, this parcel is not being included in 6th Cycle.” This is flawed reasoning o First, the Suitable Sites Inventory includes both PA‐1 and PD‐49, both of which have land use or zoning designations allowing for commercial uses. HCD Guidance suggests that where a site has "the potential to be developed with nonresidential uses… these capacity limits must be reflected in the housing element,” but there is no rule that sites with designations allowing for uses other than residential cannot be included in the Suitable Site Inventory.
o Second, there is no acreage uncertainty – numerous City documents list the acreage of the Bridle Gate project site. To the extent the City is referring to uncertainty with the amount of acreage suitable for realistic residential development, that too can and should be accounted for on all sites listed in the Suitable Sites Inventory. As our comments on the initial Public Review Draft pointed out, the City has failed to do so with the PA‐1 and PD‐49 sites, and should complete such an analysis, but the need to conduct such an analysis cannot be used a reason why a site should not be included on the Suitable Sites inventory.
 In our September 26, 2022 comment, we noted that buildable acreage for PD‐49 should take into account right of way dedications, tree protection easements, water‐related improvements, drainage capacity considerations, and other environmental site constraints. We specifically cited issues with the presence of jurisdictional waters and site drainage constraints. HCD did not raise PD‐49 specifically, but they did note that both estimates of unit capacity for sites on the Suitable Site Inventory must be adjusted to reflect land use controls and site improvements typical of residential developments at similar densities or affordability levels, and the accessibility and availability of site utilities including sewer, water, and dry utilities. (HCD, Jan. 13 Letter at pp. 5, 6); and that the gross and buildable acreage listed as the same for many sites were identical, even though buildable acreage should take into account environmental constraints. (HCD, Jan. 13 Letter at pp. 5, 6.). In the updated Housing Element, the City still lists the buildable acreage for PD‐49 parcels as the exact same as gross‐acreage for the parcels, meaning that the City continues to ignore or account for environmental constraints on the PD‐49 parcels.
 In our September 26, 2022 comment, we raised numerous issues with the City’s calculation of potential units from PA‐1 parcels, including that PA‐1 will not complete construction until 2039, which is outside of the 2031 cycle deadline. The City has not addressed this point in the updated Housing Element, and continues to rely on full buildout of the PA‐1 site to fulfill a large portion of its RHNA obligation.  In September 26, 2022 comment, we pointed out that the City is assuming 15% of all future developed units will be affordable to moderate income families. When combined with the assumption that 35% of units will be affordable to low income households, this becomes an assumption that 50% of units will be affordable. The City nominally includes further explanation in the updated Housing Element, but this explanation does not support its 35% figure‐ the City points out that a 2022 ordinance increased affordability requirement from 10 to 13%, and states that it is proposing further programs that will assist in the development of affordable housing.

Page 726 of 894 ends

3 Neither of these support an assumption of 35% low‐income and very low‐income housing going forward. The City did not include any further information supporting its assumption of 15% moderate‐income housing for all future developments.

Given these ongoing deficiencies in the updated Housing Element, we ask that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the amendment to the General Plan (GPA23‐001) and direct staff to remedy the deficiencies identified in this comment, our September 26, 2022 comment, and HCD’s January 13, 2023 letter.

Thank You,
Niran Somasundaram

Niran Somasundaram
Associate
Hanson Bridgett LLP

San Francisco | Sacramento | North Bay | East Bay | Los Angeles
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential and may be protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or email, and permanently delete all copies, electronic or other, you may have.

The foregoing applies even if this notice is embedded in a message that is forwarded or attached.

Page 727 of 894 ends

Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
SEAN R. MARCINIAK
E-MAIL [email protected]
NIRAN S. SOMASUNDARAM
E-MAIL [email protected]
March 13, 2023
Brentwood City Council
c/o Margaret Wimberly
City Clerk
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Comment on Item Number C.1.

Dear City Council:

Our law office represents Discovery Builders, Inc. and WCHB Development, LLC (collectively referred to herein as "Discovery Builders") in connection with the housing development project in the City of Brentwood (the "City") commonly known as the Bridle Gate Project Subdivision 9586 ("Bridle Gate" project). The Bridle Gate project, as currently proposed, consists of 286 single-family residences, including 29 units set aside for below-market-rate households.

We hereby submit comments on the City's third attempt to draft a Housing Element that complies with state law. While the adage "the third time's a charm" often rings true, such is not the case here.

By way of background, Discovery Builders submitted comments on the initial Public Review Draft of the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element ("First Draft Element") on September 26, 2022 (Attached hereto as Attachment 1, and incorporated into this comment). Discovery Builders specifically commented on the City's decision to exclude the Bridle Gate project site (Assessor Parcel Nos. 019-082-009 and 019-082-010) from Table B-8 of the Brentwood 6th Cycle Site Inventory (the "Suitable Sites Inventory"), and concerns Discovery Builders had, and continues to have, about the City's failure to consider important site constraints and development realities when calculating available housing capacity and proportion of affordable units on other sites it included in its Suitable Sites inventory. These other sites included parcels in the PA-1 Specific Plan Area and parcels zoned PD-49.

An updated version of the First Draft Element (the "Second Draft Element") was sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for review on October 17, 2022. On January 13, 2023, HCD determined that there were deficiencies in the Second Draft Element requiring substantial revisions for compliance with State Housing Element Law. (HCD January 13, 2023 Letter RE: City of Brentwood's 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element ("HCD Letter") at p. 1).

The City Council will now consider adopting a revised February 2023 Draft Housing Element (the "Third Draft Element"). While the City claims that its revisions are sufficient to bring its

Page 728 of 894 ends

Brentwood City Council
March 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

housing element into compliance with State Housing Element law, the Third Draft Element has not been reviewed, let alone approved, by HCD. In reality, the Third Draft Element suffers from the same deficiencies identified by Discovery Builders and HCD, and again fails to adequately explain or justify its continued exclusion of the Bridle Gate project site, and its 29 below-marketrate units, from its Suitable Sites Inventory. The Third Draft Element does not comply with State Housing Element law, and should not be adopted by the City Council until it is revised to address the outstanding concerns raised by HCD and further detailed in this letter. , Ultimately, only HCD can certify that the City's third attempt complies with State Housing Element Law, and the City should not jump the gun by adopting a still-deficient Housing Element.

I. HCD's comments on the Draft Element echo many of the deficiencies identified by Discovery Builders.

The HCD Letter includes a 15-page appendix listing changes that are "necessary to bring the City's housing element into compliance" with State Housing Element Law. HCD identifies the following issues, which mirror concerns expressed in Discovery Builders' September 26, 2022 comments:
• The HCD Letter cautions that the City's estimates of unit capacity for sites on the Suitable Site Inventory must be adjusted to reflect land use controls and site improvements typical of residential developments in the City, and the accessibility and availability of site utilities including sewer, water, and dry utilities. (HCD Letter at Appendix, pp. 5, 6). The HCD Letter also notes that the Second Draft Element claims that capacity assumptions were based on "buildable acreage," which purportedly discounts the acreage of residential sites for environmental constraints, infrastructure, and necessary site improvements. However, HCD observes that the gross and buildable acreage for many sites on the Suitable Sites Inventory are identical, demonstrating that the City has failed to apply any discount for site constraints. (Id.). • For sites in zones that allow non-residential uses, the HCD Letter states that the Second Draft Element must analyze the likelihood that residential units will actually be developed. In conducting this analysis, HCD reminds the City that it must consider the likelihood of nonresidential development. (HCD Letter at Appendix, p. 5). • The HCD Letter also notes that the Second Draft Element acknowledges that past performance on affordable housing construction within the City is limited, and cautions that the Second Draft Element must demonstrate what specific criteria, trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions regarding the proportion of affordable units in future projects. (HCD Letter at Appendix, p. 5).

Each of the above comments underscores the City's failure to produce a realistic site inventory — not a theoretical list that pencils out on paper in a vacuum. State law provides that a city must identify "vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level …." (Gov. Code, § 65583(a)(3), emph. added). The City cannot credibly claim to have a Housing Element that complies with State Housing Element law without a Third Draft Element that implements the corrections identified by HCD. As discussed further below, the Third Draft Element fails to do so.

Page 729 of 894 ends

Brentwood City Council
March 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

II. The Third Draft Element fails to correct key deficiencies identified by HCD.

The Third Draft Element continues to suffer from the shortcomings identified in both the HCD Letter and Discovery Builders' September 26, 2022 comments.

These deficiencies are especially apparent in the City's analysis of potential sites suitable for development of units affordable to moderate-income families. Pursuant to the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"), the City must provide 247 moderate income units in the 2023-2031 cycle. The Third Draft Element lists 336 moderate-income units in its Suitable Sites Inventory, consisting of 5 units from projects currently in the development pipeline, 34 units of projected ADU production, 68 units that the City assumes will be built on existing vacant parcels specifically within sub-area B of the Planned Development 49 ("PD-49"), and 229 units that the City assumes will be built in the Priority Area One ("PA-1") Specific Plan area. The City's calculation of units from parcels in PD-49 and PA-1, and the Cities assumption that 15 percent of units built on these parcels will be affordable to moderate-income households, suffer from the exact deficiencies identified in the HCD Letter.

This blueprint is not a realistic plan for meeting the City's affordable housing quota, as is explained in detail below. Until these deficiencies are addressed, the City Council should not adopt the Third Draft Element.

A. The City once again fails to provide a realistic capacity for parcels within subarea B of the PD-49 zone.

Discovery Builders' September 26, 2022 comments noted that calculated "buildable acreage" for the parcels with PD-49 failed to take into account right of way dedications, tree protection easements, water-related improvements, drainage capacity considerations, and other environmental site constraints. Specifically, Discovery Builders' September 26, 2022 comments cited issues with the presence of jurisdictional waters and site drainage constraints. HCD concurred in this analysis, noting that estimates of unit capacity for sites on the Suitable Site Inventory must be adjusted to reflect land use controls and site improvements typical of residential developments at similar densities or affordability levels, and the accessibility and availability of site utilities including sewer, water, and dry utilities. (HCD Letter at Appendix, pp. 5, 6). HCD specifically highlighted an analysis that listed identical gross and buildable acreage for certain sites as an example of the City failing to account for environmental constraints at potential residential sites. (Id.). In the Third Draft Element, the City continues to list a buildable acreage for the three PD-49 parcels that is identical to the listed gross-acreage for each parcel, meaning that the City once again does not account for the known environmental constraints on the PD-49 parcels. (Third Draft Element, Table B-8 at Rows 12-14). On this point, the City appears to have blatantly ignored HCD's comments.

Furthermore, as discussed in Discovery Builders' September 26, 2022 comments, sub-area B of PD-49 permits, as a matter of right, commercial and employment uses that include general retail sales, services uses, and professional and business offices. (Brentwood Municipal Code §

17.499.003(A)&(C)). The Third Draft Element contains no analysis of the likelihood that residential units will actually be developed on the site, as opposed to nonresidential development. The HCD Letter specifically notes that such analysis is required for the Third Draft Element to comply with State Housing Element law. (HCD Letter at Appendix, p. 5).

Page 730 of 894 ends

Brentwood City Council
March 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

B. The City once again fails to provide a realistic capacity for parcels within the PA1 sub-area B of the PD-49 Zone.

There are numerous issues with the City's calculation of capacity for the PA-1 site, which accounts for 1,526 of the 3,103 units included in the Suitable Sites Inventory, including 229 of the 336 moderate-income units.

First, the City appears to have increased the unit capacity estimate for the PA-1 site between the First Draft Element circulated for public comment in September 2022, and the Second Draft Element submitted to HCD in October 2022.

On Page B-7 of the First Draft Element, as attached to the August 30, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Agenda, the City states:

Total residential development included in the inventoroy [sic], across approximately 64 acres in the three land use designations identified in the [PA-1] Specific Plan, is projected to be 1,520 units.

However, on Page B-7 of the Second Draft Element submitted to HCD in October 2022, the City states:

Total residential development included in the inventory, across approximately 64 acres in the three land use designations identified in the [PA-1] Specific Plan, is projected to be 1,693 units.

The City provides no explanation for this increase.1
This unexplained increase adds additional color to the so-called "revisions" the City made to its analysis of the capacity of the PA-1 Area. The Third Draft Element notes that the Transit Village zone of the PA-1 area requires ground floor commercial on all multi-family residential projects.

In order to account for this, the Third Draft Element assigns a residential development capacity of 75 percent on these Transit Village Sites, as opposed to the 100 percent capacity used in the Second Draft Element. (Third Draft Element at B-10). However, even after applying this limitation, the City includes 1,526 units from PA-1 in its Suitable Sites Inventory, an increase of six units when compared to the 1,520 units included in the City's First Draft Element. (Third Draft Element at Table B-1). In other words, while the Third Draft Element purports to account for potential commercial development in the PA-1 zone, the "revision" that the City implements is entirely offset by the unexplained 100 unit increase in PA-1 units between the First Draft Element and the Second Draft Element submitted to HCD. One gets the sense these 100 unexplained units are a horde of straw dummies.

1 The City adopted an amendment to PA-1 plan in October 2022, but that amendment did not increase maximum buildout units within the PA-1 area. In fact, the amendment decreased the number of maximum buildout units by one and reduced the amount of acreage designated for Multiple-Family Very-High Density Residential and Transit Village/Mixed Use. (See Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2018042064) at p. 6).

Page 731 of 894 ends

Brentwood City Council
March 13, 2023

Page 5 ends

Second, the City continues to ignore HCD's mandate to consider environmental constraints at potential residential sites. Similar to its analysis of parcels in PD-49, the City assumes that buildable acreage is identical to gross acreage for seven of the eleven PA-1 parcels included in the Suitable Sites Inventory. (Third Draft Element, Table B-8 at Rows 1-6; 10).

Lastly — and this point is both simple and critical— PA-1 will not complete construction until 2039, which is outside of the 2031 cycle deadline. The City has not addressed this point in the Third Draft Element, and continues to rely on full buildout of the PA-1 site to provide nearly half of the units included in its Suitable Sites Inventory.

C. The City once again fails to provide support for its assumptions of affordability.

The City continues to assume that 15 percent of all future units built in the City will be affordable to moderate-income families. (Third Draft Element at B-13). When combined with the assumption that 35 percent of units will be affordable to low-income households or very lowincome, this becomes an assumption that 50 percent of units will be affordable. (Third Draft Element at B-10).

The Third Draft Element does not include any information supporting its assumption of 15 percent moderate-income housing for all future developments.

The City nominally includes further explanation for its low-income affordability assumption in the Third Draft Element, but this explanation does not support its 35 percent figure. The City points out that a 2022 ordinance increased affordability requirement from 10 to 13 percent, and states that it is proposing further programs that will assist in the development of affordable housing. (Id.). Neither support an assumption of 35 percent low-income and very low-income housing going forward.

The HCD Letter specifically asks that the City demonstrate what specific criteria, trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions regarding the proportion of affordable units in future projects. (HCD Letter at Appendix, p. 5). The City has failed to do so, and cannot rely on an unsupported assumption that 50 percent of housing will be affordable, when only 13 percent affordability is required by law. History demonstrates that the City has been anemic in ensuring affordable units are built, and so reliance on a 50 percent contribution that has no local or regulatory backing asks reviewers to stretch their imaginations. State law prohibits this type of indulgence.

III. The City cannot justify leaving the Bridle Gate project site out of its Suitable Sites Inventory.

Given the City's continued failure to provide sufficient realistic capacity for moderate-income units in its Suitable Sites Inventory, The City’s continued refusal to include the Bridge Gate project site in the Third Draft Element's Suitable Sites Inventory defies all logic. Unlike PD-49 and PA-1,the Bridle Gate project is not hypothetical - the City has already held a CEQA scoping meeting for the project, which will include 29 units affordable to moderate-income families. The developer wants to build this project, and all the City need do is say "yes." The Revised Housing Element includes two explanations for the Bridle Gate project site's absence, but both explanations are factually inaccurate and fail to justify the City's decision.

Page 732 of 894 ends

Brentwood City CouncilFebruary 13, 2024

Brentwood City Council
February 13, 2024