1185 Mason Street, Suite A – San Francisco, CA 94123 – www.cityventures.com
Redwood Row Project
Inclusionary Housing Plan
This Inclusionary Housing Plan has been prepared by City Ventures in accordance with Chapter
17.31.070 Compliance procedures of the Cotati Municipal Code.
Property Information & Affordable Requirement: The 10.62 (±) acres of real property is located in the City of Cotati (“City”), County of Sonoma, and is recognizable as the eastern portion of vacant land in on Highway 116, in between Redwood Drive and Alder Avenue – (APNs: 046-286-017 through 046-286-020). The site is a pipeline project in the City’s 2023 Housing Element. Per the City’s affordable housing requirements in Chapter 17.31.020, pertaining to for-sale residential units, a project must provide at least 15% of the base density as affordable, 24 total, restricted for occupancy by moderate-(5% of base density, or 8 units), low-(5% of base density, or 8 units) and very low-income-(5% of base density, or 8 units) households. The project has proposed 134 market rate homes and 44 deed restricted affordable homes, or 28% of the base density.
The project is proposing to provide twenty units beyond the 24 required in the City’s municipal code, which is also 19 units above what the City anticipated in its 2023 Housing Element (City of Cotati Housing Element Update 2023-2031).
Density Bonus: The State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915) applies to housing developments that include on-site affordable units and offers benefits such as increased density, development incentives or concessions, waivers, and modified parking ratios. The property has a General Plan land use designation of “General Commercial” and is located in Cotati’s “Commercial, Gravenstein Corridor” (CG) zoning district (Cotati Muni. Code, § 17.20.030.B), both of which allow mixed-use residential development at a density of up to 15 dwelling units per acre. With a lot size of
10.62 acres, the base density is calculated as 160 units, rounded up per state law. By setting aside eight units for very low-income households (>5% of base density), the project qualifies for a 20% density bonus, allowing up to 192 units, and is also eligible for one incentive or concession, unlimited waivers, and the use of specified parking ratios. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subds. (d), (f)(2), (e)(1), (p).)
1185 Mason Street, Suite A – San Francisco, CA 94123 – www.cityventures.com
Density Bonus Benefits (Related to Affordable Housing):
City Ventures has requested a concession and waivers under SDBL to the City of Cotati’s municipal code. Subdivision (d) of the Government Code (Sec 65915) states that a qualifying applicant (this project qualifies in that ≥5% of the base units would be for rent at very-low income levels) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests as long as the incentives or concessions result in identifiable costs reductions consistent with subdivision (k). Subdivision (k) provides that concessions or incentives include regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). Subdivision (d) states that the city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence that the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. This requirement is further discussed in several HCD letters, including its 2022 letter to the City of Watsonville and its 2022 letter to the City of Manhattan Beach.
1185 Mason Street, Suite A – San Francisco, CA 94123 – www.cityventures.com
The concession and waivers City Ventures has requested under SDBL to the City of Cotati’s municipal code are as follows:
1185 Mason Street, Suite A – San Francisco, CA 94123 – www.cityventures.com
Affordable Housing Site Plan:
Affordability Breakdown:
Affordability Category Number of Units Percentage of Base Density Very Low (≤ 50% AMI) 8 5%
Low (51 - 80% AMI) 8 5%
Moderate (81 - 120% AMI) 28 17.5%
Totals: 44 Units 28%
1185 Mason Street, Suite A – San Francisco, CA 94123 – www.cityventures.com
Unit Summary of Affordable Building:
The following forty-four affordable units are being proposed as rental. One hundred and thirty-four market rate units in this project are proposed as for-sale, with the exception of 33 optional ADU’s on the ground floor of the market rate units; these ADU’s would be for-rent.
Bedroom Count Number of Units Unit Size (Square Feet) Percentage of Building 1 Bedroom 21 ± 550 48%
2 Bedroom 12 ± 850 27%
3 Bedroom 11 ± 1150 25%
Totals: 44 Units ± 33,350 TOTAL 100%
Building Permits and Improvement Plans:
City Ventures intends to proceed with design development and construction documents for all market rate and affordable units concurrently. Grading & infrastructure work on both parcels shall commence concurrently. City Ventures, or its affordable housing development partner, shall commence vertical construction of the affordable units prior to the final COO of the market rate units, and acknowledges that the improvement bonds will be held by the City until completion of construction of the inclusionary units. Further details of construction timing and bonds will be provided in the project’s inclusionary housing agreement.
Marketing Plan:
City Ventures and/or its affordable partner will work with the City on the marketing, lottery, and leasing of the affordable units. Marketing shall include, but not be limited to:
Running ads in the nearby papers:
o The Community Voice
o The Sonoma Index-Tribune
Flyer/Email sent to local schools and local civic services. o Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District
o City of Cotati Web Page
Web page specifically for the Cotati affordable housing program STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 15, 2022
Suzi Merriam
Community Development Director
City of Watsonville
250 Main Street
Watsonville, CA 95076
Dear Suzi Merriam:
RE: 482 & 484 Beck Street – Letter of Technical Assistance The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is aware that the City of Watsonville (City) is reviewing an application for a housing development project located at 482 & 484 Beck Street (Project). HCD received a request for technical assistance from the Project applicant on October 14, 2022. The applicant expressed concerns that some of the requirements included by the City in its pre-application response letter, dated October 10, 2022, were contrary to the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915). Specifically, the applicant disagreed with the City’s use of net acreage, rather than gross acreage, to calculate base density (and ultimately the density bonus) and the City’s requirement that the Project conform to (presumably all) R-1 Zoning District Regulations. The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance on this matter.
Background
HCD understands the Project proposes a 12-lot single family residential subdivision project to be located on an infill site. The Project would provide two for-sale units that would be affordable to moderate-income (MI) households and ten for-sale market rate units. The proposed Project utilizes the SDBL to achieve a density bonus of 15 percent (i.e., two units [rounded up]). The base density for the Project is ten units.1 1 1.159 gross acres multiplied by 7.99 dwelling units per acre (Low Density Residential [R-LD]) General Plan Land Use Designation) equals 10 units, rounded up. The General Plan density, rather than the Zoning Code density, applies per Government Code section 65915, subdivision (o)(5).
Suzi Merriam, Community Development Department
Gross Acreage vs. Net Acreage
The SDBL requires that base density calculations be performed using gross acreage, rather than net acreage. The distinction is made explicitly in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (f), by the appearance of the word “gross” in the first sentence. The word “gross” was added to the SDBL in 2016 by Assembly Bill 2501 (Chapter 758, Statutes of 2016). HCD recognizes that the City’s General Plan2 and Zoning Code3 call for the use of net acreage. However, the provisions of the SDBL supersede those of local governments in the event of a conflict. While there is no ambiguity in this case, HCD would like to further note that even if there were ambiguity, the SDBL contains a directive that it “be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (r)). The use of net acreage in the context of the Project would result in fewer housing units being produced because the area used for the access drive would be subtracted from the site area. HCD would also like to note that net acreage is typically less than gross acreage depending on a variety of potential site conditions beyond access drives. Examples include riparian areas, wetlands, steep slopes, easements, and any other condition that renders a portion of a site undevelopable.
Granting of Concessions and Development Standard Waivers The Project is entitled to one incentive/concession (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(2)(A)) and a potentially unlimited number of development standard waivers (Gov.
Code, § 65915, subd. (e)). A project that meets the eligibility requirements of the SDBL is entitled to a density bonus, incentives/concessions, development standard waivers, and limited parking ratios (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)). The City must grant (i.e., “shall approve”) the specific incentives/concessions requested by the applicant unless the City makes written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the incentive/concession would (1) not result in a cost reduction, (2) have a specific adverse impact on health or safety (as defined), or (3) be contrary to state or federal law (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)). The City is also strictly limited in denying requested development standard waivers, preventing it from applying any development standard that would physically preclude a project as proposed unless doing so would have a specific adverse impact on health or safety (as defined) which could not be mitigated (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)). The City bears the burden of proof for the denial of a requested incentive/concession (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4)). HCD reminds the City that appellate courts have established (and continue to affirm) that local agencies cannot lawfully redesign a qualifying SDBL project on the theory that if the project were configured differently, it would not need the requested incentives/concessions and waivers. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 2 City of Watsonville 2005 General Plan, Chapter 4 Land Use and Community Development, p. 52. 3 City of Watsonville Municipal Code §14-16.205 (Minimum net land area.) Suzi Merriam, Community Development Department
Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-47.) The City must consider the Project as proposed, inclusive of any requested concessions and waivers.
Conclusion
HCD respects the challenges inherent in infill development, especially on unusually shaped sites surrounded by existing development. The City should be pragmatic in its consideration of the proposed Project. Given the long narrow shape of the Project site, it is likely that a considerable number of development standards will need to be modified or eliminated to facilitate the 12-lot subdivision. HCD would also like to remind the City that HCD has enforcement authority over the SDBL, among other state housing laws.
Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions and inactions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j)).
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
September 1, 2022
Mayor Steve Napolitano
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Montgomery
Council Members Joseph Franklin, Suzanne Hadley, and Hildy Stern City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Mayor Steve Napolitano, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Montgomery, and Council Members Joseph Franklin, Suzanne Hadley, and Hildy Stern:
RE: City of Manhattan Beach, Highrose El Porto Multifamily Residential Development – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands that the City of Manhattan Beach (City) City Council will soon be hearing an appeal of the Planning Commission’s upholding of the approval of the Highrose El Porto Multifamily Residential Development (Project) located at 401 Rosecrans Avenue (APN: 4137-001-031) and 3770 Highland Avenue (APN: 4137-001-027). The purpose of this letter is to express HCD’s support of the Project and to provide notice to the City that denying the Project may result in the violation of one or more of the state housing laws described in this letter.
HCD understands the Project proposes 79 units, including 73 market-rate units and 6 units affordable to very low-income (VLI) households. The project utilizes State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (Gov. Code, § 65915) to achieve a 35-percent density bonus and is facilitated by several SDBL incentives/concessions and development standard waivers.
As described in the March 29, 2022, Director-approved permit, the Project qualifies for “streamlined, administrative, non-discretionary Precise Development Plan review, which subjects all components of the application to a ministerial review process.”1 Additionally, the Project has been verified by the City to be consistent with the General Plan, applicable physical development standards (except as lawfully modified via SDBL concessions and waivers), the Subdivision Map Act, and the certified Manhattan Beach 1 Tai, Carrie. Permit Approving Precise Development Plan and Related Entitlements, March 29, 2022, p 2.
Mayor Steve Napolitano, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Montgomery, and Council Members Joseph Franklin, Suzanne Hadley, and Hildy Stern
Local Coastal Program (LCP).2 The City determined that as a ministerial project, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA3 (i.e., no environmental review is required).
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)
A project that meets the eligibility requirements of the SDBL is entitled to a density bonus, incentives/concessions, development standard waivers, and limited parking ratios (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b)). The City must grant (i.e., “shall approve”) the specific incentives/concessions requested by the applicant unless the City makes written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the incentive/concession would (1) not result in a cost reduction, (2) have a specific adverse impact on health or safety (as defined), or (3) be contrary to state or federal law (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)). The City is also strictly limited in denying requested development standard waivers, preventing it from applying any development standard that would physically preclude the Project as proposed unless doing so would have a specific adverse impact on health or safety (as defined) which could not be mitigated (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)). The City bears the burden of proof for the denial of a requested incentive/concession (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4)).
Chapter A.94 (Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Incentive Program) of the City’s LCP incorporates the SDBL. The LCP provides that “[p]recise development plans are intended to encourage the development of affordable housing through a streamlined permitting process. Projects that qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Chapter A.94 shall be eligible for an administrative non-discretionary precise development plan” (MBLCP A.84.010).
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The Project meets the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)). A “housing development project” that meets all objective standards (except those lawfully modified via SDBL concessions and waivers) may only be denied or approved at a lower density if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)). The HAA also contains language pertaining to legal procedures and penalties.
2 Tai, Carrie. Memorandum re: Planning Commission Consideration of Project Appeal, June 8, 2022. 3 California Public Resources Code, § 21080.
Mayor Steve Napolitano, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Montgomery, and Council Members Joseph Franklin, Suzanne Hadley, and Hildy Stern
Housing Element Site Inventory
A review of City’s Draft Housing Element dated August 12, 2022, includes a description of the Project in Section 5 (Planned, Approved, and Prospective Projects) of Appendix E (Sites Analysis and Inventory). The Project is described as providing 79 units, including 73 above moderate-income units and six lower-income units, which is consistent with the Project about which the appeal is being heard by the City Council. This suggests that the City is prepared to permit the Project as proposed.
Conclusion
The State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. HCD encourages the City Council to approve the Project by upholding the Director’s (and subsequently, the Planning Commission’s) approval of the Project. The City Council should remain mindful of the City’s obligations under the SDBL and HAA as it considers the appeal. HCD would also like to remind the City that HCD has enforcement authority over the SDBL and HAA, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions and inactions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).) If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief