East Palo Alto City Council April 26, 2022 Agenda Page 1 of 2
EAST PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION MEETING
April 26, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
EPA Government Center
2415 University Ave, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted in accordance with Assembly Bill 361. All members of the City Council will participate in the meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location available to the public.
Community members may provide comments by emailing [email protected] or using the “RAISE HAND” feature when the Mayor or City Clerk call for public comment. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.
Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85083171176
Or join by phone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+1 346 248 7799 or
+1 253 215 8782 or
+1 312 626 6799 or
+1 929 205 6099 or
+1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 850 8317 1176
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council April 26, 2022 Agenda Page 2 of 2
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
(Government Code Section 54957.7(a))
3. STUDY SESSION
1. Study Session on the Housing Element Update
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission hold a study session on the Housing Element update process.
4. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.
The City Council meeting packet may be reviewed by the public in the Library or the City Clerk's Office. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the front counter at the City Clerk's Office, 2ND Floor, City Hall, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 during normal business hours. Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.
East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office at (650) 853-3127 no less than 24 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.
DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
POSTED: April 22, 2022
ATTEST:
James Colin
Acting City Clerk
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Regular Meeting May 3, 2022 at 6:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting May 17, 2022 at 6:30 p.m.
Budget Meeting May 19, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.
EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 26, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Rachel Horst, Housing and Economic Development Manager Elena Lee, Planning Manager
Karen Camacho, Housing Project Manager
SUBJECT: Study Session on the Housing Element Update
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission hold a study session on the Housing Element update process.
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
The Housing Element Update Process
The Housing Element is an element in the City’s General Plan that requires a comprehensive update every eight years in conjunction with the release of a new Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or “RHNA.” The RHNA is a jurisdiction-level share of housing units, broken down by affordability category, required to meet the region’s need for additional housing.
The RHNA originates from the State Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), which is first distributed as a region-wide total to the state’s Councils of Government (in the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, or “ABAG/MTC”).1 ABAG/MTC then develops a methodology to distribute this total among all Bay Area jurisdictions. A full background on the methodology ABAG/MTC used to determine the Cycle 6 RHNA, which was 1 At the Council of Government level, it is called the Regional Housing Needs Determination, or RHND. The total RHND for the entire Bay Area region is 441,176.
3.1 Packet Pg. 3
based on proximity to jobs and transit and access to “high-opportunity areas,”2 can be found on their website.3
Table 2 shows the East Palo Alto RHNA 5 and RHNA 6, for comparison:
Table 2. East Palo Alto RHNA 5 and 6
East Palo
Alto RHNA
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
6 th Cycle 165 95 159 410 829
5 th Cycle 64 54 83 266 467
% increase 158% 76% 92% 54% 78%
Table 3 shows the City’s current progress towards RHNA 5:
RHNA Progress, 2015-Present
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Totals
RHNA
Deficit
Extremely Low (0% - 30%
AMI) 16 26 8 50 n/a
Very Low (31% - 49% AMI) 4 68 7 79 -65
Low (50% - 80% AMI) 24 2 3 6 35 19
Moderate (81% - 120% AMI) 1 5 1 2 2 6 17 66
Above Moderate (greater
than 120% AMI) 50 2 5 3 1 4 5 70 196
Total 91 7 5 4 9 103 32 251 216
Purpose and Components of the Housing Element
The City’s current (RHNA 5) Housing Element can be found on the City’s website.4 One of the primary objectives of the Housing Element is to demonstrate how a jurisdiction will meet or exceed its RHNA through identification of specific sites where new housing is most likely to be developed and the actions the City will take to encourage new housing production.
The Housing Element update also is intended to serve as an assessment of the City’s current housing needs, an evaluation of progress towards the prior Housing Element’s goals, and an opportunity to set new housing policy goals for the next eight-year period. As required by state law, including some recently adopted legislation in the years since RHNA 5, each jurisdiction’s Housing Element consists of several sections and follows the same general outline. The full list of Housing Element sections is shown below.
2 These are areas labelled High Resource or Highest Resource on the 2020 Opportunity Map produced by the Department and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
3 This report describes the RHNA process and final allocations to each jurisdiction:
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf 4 Please see: https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/2951/final_housing_element_2015.pdf
3.1 Packet Pg. 4
• Public Participation
• Review of Current Housing Element
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing/Assessment of Fair Housing • Affordable Housing Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate • Analysis of Governmental Constraints
• Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
• Sites Inventory
• Policies & Programs
The City is working with 21 Elements and its subcontractors, including Root Policy Research and EcoNorthwest, to conduct the requisite analyses and draft the individual sections of the Housing Element. Much of the housing data used in the Housing Element are provided by ABAG/MTC and can be accessed online.5
Update on Community Outreach and Feedback on the Housing Element The City conducted a range of outreach activities to encourage participation in the Housing Element process.
The City has participated in broader 21 Elements-led outreach efforts and held East Palo Altospecific presentations on the Housing Element. Since 2021, City staff has conducted two virtual Housing Element outreach meetings. Engagement activities that would typically be conducted in-person were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A third, in-person/hybrid Housing Element meeting will be held on May 5, 2022. City staff continues to work to find ways to reach more community members and seek their input on this process.
A summary of community engagement activities, including preliminary results from online surveys, can be found in Attachment 1.
Study Session Focus and Objectives
This study session will focus on the Sites Inventory and Policies and Programs sections of the Housing Element. Staff is seeking feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission on the content of these sections and the City’s overall approach to the Housing Element update. Discussion questions are provided here for reference and are also listed within the analysis and repeated at the bottom of the staff report.
Discussion Questions – Sites Inventory
1. What is the City Council’s/Planning Commission’s preference regarding planning for additional housing units beyond the minimum required (RHNA)?
2. Are there other areas of the City or specific strategies to encourage housing production that staff should focus on for the Sites Inventory analysis?
3. Does the City Council/Planning Commission have interest in adopting a new phase of ADU strategy to encourage ADU production in the next RHNA cycle? 5 Please see: https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/abag-housing-needs-data-pac/kets
3.1 Packet Pg. 5
Discussion Questions – Policies and Programs
4. What is City Council’s/Planning Commission’s feedback on the preliminary suggested goals and policies?
5. Does the City Council/Planning Commission have goals or policy areas that staff should include and further analyze in the draft Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element? Analysis
Part I - Overview of Sites Inventory and Discussion
The Housing Element Sites Inventory identifies parcels available and suitable for residential development and provides an estimate of a jurisdiction’s capacity to accommodate new housing units over the next eight years. Through the Sites Inventory analysis, the City must show that these sites collectively meet the RHNA at each income level.
The Housing Element includes all development types, from accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) to condominiums and large-scale apartment buildings. However, there is an emphasis on the development of rental multiple-family housing to accommodate larger numbers of units and targeted affordability levels.
A jurisdiction’s Sites Inventory analysis considers three main categories:
Pipeline Projects
active entitled/approved projects, projects with a building permit, projects still under construction on June 30, 2022, and projects likely to be approved by the time the Housing Element is approved
+
Vacant/Non-vacant Sites
sites that analysis demonstrates are “appropriate and available for residential development,” and that are likely to be developed over the next 8 years +
ADUs
= RHNA, plus additional 30% buffer6
As shown below, East Palo Alto has a significant number of units in the development pipeline.
Since many of these units will “count” towards the upcoming RHNA 6 cycle, the City will not be required to undertake a major rezoning effort to accommodate the new RHNA, unlike most other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.
While the RHNA may be largely met by this combination of pipeline units and potential sites in the Ravenswood Business District, these housing unit targets serve as a baseline, rather than a maximum. The City still is required to consider policies and programs that will facilitate new housing production over the next eight years. The City also may choose to set higher goals for affordable units and to consider potential sites accordingly.
RHNA 5 Sites Inventory and Progress
Past development patterns provide insight into what the future development potential may be 6 This “30% buffer” ensures that jurisdictions plan sufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA at all levels, as not all sites identified in the Sites Inventory will actually be developed during the 8-year period.
3.1 Packet Pg. 6
of vacant and underutilized parcels in East Palo Alto. In large part due to the Temporary Water Moratorium (Ordinance No. 399), in place from July 2016 to July 2018, multiple-family development, and housing development in general, experienced significant delays. In recent years, development interest has increased dramatically.
The RHNA 5 sites inventory included 79 sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA. It is worth noting that much of this development interest has occurred on parcels either not identified in the RHNA 5 Housing Element, or for which the zoning does not allow housing as a use, as in the Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Area (“RBD”). This likely reflects a variety of factors, such as changes in the housing market over an eight-year period, but also should inform the selection of sites for the next Sites Inventory.
Active and Completed Development Projects 2015-2022 (current) Two affordable housing developments have been built or are under active construction in East Palo Alto during the current RHNA cycle: Serenity Senior Apartments and Light Tree Apartments. When construction is completed, these projects will have resulted in 42 Extremely Low-Income units, 88 Very Low-Income units, and 2 Above-Moderate Income units, the majority of which will be counted towards RHNA 5.7
The remainder of additional units in the City have been single family homes or ADUs.8In total, the City has issued building permits for 41 single family homes and 57 ADUs since 2015. As of the publication of this staff report, there are currently 1 single family home and 6 ADU applications under review.
The table below shows where there is an active development project, and whether the site was included in the RHNA 5 Housing Element:
Active Development Projects and RHNA 5 Sites Inventory
Project Title RHNA 5
965 Weeks (136) Yes
Light Tree (91) No
1062 Runnymede (4) No
547 Runnymede (8) No
990 Garden (8) No
717 Donohoe (14) No
2340 Cooley (7) No
No address/063265300 (2) No
Maple Lane (4) No
1804 Bay Rd. (75) No
760 Weeks (10) Yes
Clarum University Corner (33) Yes
1201 Runnymede (32) Yes
1675 Bay Rd/4 Corners (180) No
7 Light Tree construction is occuring in phases. Some buildings will not receive a certificate of occupancy until after June 30, 2022, the “cutoff” date for RHNA 5.
8 The City’s progress towards meeting its RHNA 5 goals is documented in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report:
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/housing/page/2951/final_housing_element_2015.pdf
3.1 Packet Pg. 7
Woodland Park (445) No
EPA Waterfront (260) No
1103 Weeks (95) No
842 Green St (3) No
812 Green St (5) No
*Serenity Senior not shown, as construction was completed in 2017. It was not included in the RHNA 5 sites inventory.
**Numbers in parentheses are approximate unit totals. Unit totals on non-entitled projects are subject to change.
Sites Inventory Analysis Methodology for RHNA 6
When including a site in the Sites Inventory, a jurisdiction must provide key information about each site and estimate the number of units likely to be developed. The types of sites that a jurisdiction may include in their Sites Inventory include the following:
• Vacant sites9 zoned for residential use or mixed-use
• Non-vacant sites that can be re-developed with housing or at higher density (“underutilized sites”)
• Publicly-owned sites
The table below describes the required information that must be provided to HCD, along with a narrative section that provides justification for why each site is included:
Entry Description
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Size HCD considers the appropriate size range for lower-income housing to be sites that can support 50 to 150 units, or between .5 acres and 10 acres.
General Plan land use
designation
As identified in General Plan
Zoning designation Existing zoning, e.g., RMD-1
Allowable density
(minimum and maximum)
Density, or dwelling units per acre (“du/acre”), is based on existing zoning.
Development capacity Estimate the number of units likely to be built on the site.
Jurisdictions must justify these estimates and state their assumptions in the narrative section of the Housing Element.
See “capacity adjustment” below.
RHNA affordability levels Indicate which levels of affordability will be served by the site (lower-income, moderate, above-moderate). For lowerincome RHNA, default density of the site must be a minimum of 30 du/acre. HCD encourages jurisdictions to choose sites near transit, high-performing schools, jobs, amenities (e.g. parks, grocery stores, healthcare), with good infrastructure and no environmental mitigation needed.
Existing use If site is nonvacant, describe what is currently on the site. 9 A vacant site is a site without any houses, offices, buildings, or other significant improvements on it. Improvements are generally defined as development of the land (such as a paved parking lot, or income production improvements such as crops, high voltage power lines, oil-wells, etc.) or structures on a property that are permanent and add significantly to the value of the property.
3.1 Packet Pg. 8
Publicly owned Any sites owned by City, County or federal government.
Site status Indicate whether the site is available or whether there is a pending project on it.
Infrastructure availability Address whether there are sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing
Development. If not, include a program in the Housing
Element that ensures access and availability to
infrastructure to accommodate development within the
planning period.
Environmental constraints To the extent the information is available, provide a general description of any known environmental or other features (e.g., presence of floodplains, protected wetlands, oak tree preserves, very high fire hazard severity zones) that have the potential to impact the development viability of the identified sites.
Included in prior Housing
Element(s)
If the site was used in a prior sites inventory, the jurisdiction must demonstrate why it is likely that the parcel will develop in the next RHNA cycle.
Capacity Adjustment
To determine a site’s realistic development capacity, a jurisdiction must adjust the maximum density based on several factors. The jurisdiction must decide what the adjustment factor (expressed as a percentage, from 1-100%) is, on a case-by-case basis, with a description of that “methodology” in the Housing Element. These are described in the table below.
Capacity Factor Description
Land Use Control and Site
Improvements
Consider the “cumulative effect” of development
standards that would limit the achievable density on a
site: maximum lot coverage, height, open space,
parking, on-site improvements, floor area ratio.
Realistic capacity of the
site
This should be based on local development trends,
market conditions, and availability of regulatory and
other incentives to build housing, especially where
there are competing uses (e.g. commercial).
Typical densities of
approved projects at
comparable sites
For lower-income RHNA, density compared to other
approved projects at similar affordability levels.
Infrastructure availability Account for any limitation as a result of availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.
Environmental constraints Account for any known environmental or other features that could limit development on the site.
Sites Inventory Analysis Inputs – Categories of Sites
The three main “inputs,” or categories of sites, in the Sites Inventory analysis are discussed below.
1. Including “Pipeline” Projects with Certificates of Occupancy after June 2022 in
3.1 Packet Pg. 9
Sites Inventory
Projects that have been issued a building permit, or that are still under construction on June 30, 2022, may be counted towards the jurisdiction’s site inventory and deducted from the RHNA. The “realistic development capacity” and other details of the site would be based on the actual project details, rather than assumptions as provided in the table above. If a project’s approval has expired, or for another reason the project is unlikely to proceed, the site may be placed on the vacant/non vacant sites list. In this case, the jurisdiction must use the methodology described above to estimate the potential of the site. It should be noted that there is overlap between pipeline or vacant/nonvacant sites, and jurisdictions should decide which assumptions are appropriate for each site.
2. Including New Nonvacant and Vacant Sites in Sites Inventory To complete their Sites Inventory, jurisdictions must look beyond their pipeline projects to evaluate opportunities for new housing over the next eight years, and most of them will list both vacant and nonvacant sites. Broadly speaking, these are sites that are considered “appropriate and available for residential use” because they meet the HCD criteria shown in the tables above.
The Sites Inventory may include sites that will be rezoned to allow for housing, provided that the jurisdiction outlines a “program” to accomplish the rezoning soon after the adoption of its Housing Element. In East Palo Alto, this category of sites-- those that are not zoned for housing and would therefore require a rezoning effort – is most likely to occur within the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan area, as discussed below in the section “Intersection with Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Update.” East Palo Alto contains 178 vacant parcels, of which 136 currently allow housing as a use. The City owns eight vacant sites; five of these allow housing as a use. Some of the vacant sites have active residential development proposals or entitled projects that have not commenced construction. Other, nonvacant sites that could be redeveloped for multifamily lower-income housing based on the parameters provided by HCD (e.g. appropriate parcel size, current use, and existing zoning) should also be considered to help meet the City’s RHNA.
Staff has compiled a preliminary list of sites for the Sites Inventory in Attachment 3. In most cases, these are sites where a developer has expressed interest in a housing or mixed-use project through conversations with staff or a pre-application, or where there remains some uncertainty about a project with a formal application. This list is for conversation purposes and does not comprise all potential vacant or non-vacant sites, nor does it reflect whether the sites have sufficient realistic development potential.
Discussion Question 1
What is the City Council’s/Planning Commission’s preference regarding planning for additional housing units beyond the minimum required (RHNA)? Sites Inventory Intersection with Ravenswood/4 Corners Specific Plan Update Beginning in 2020, East Palo Alto initiated an update to the Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan, also known as the Ravenswood Business District (or “RBD”) area, 350 acres of industrial, residential, commercial, and public uses. This interest in development provides an opportunity to further realize the goals of both the General Plan and the original RBD specific
3.1 Packet Pg. 10
plan for the City’s only Priority Development Area.
The City held multiple study sessions with Planning Commission and City Council and community meetings throughout 2021 and 2022. At the most recent RBD study session held on February 1, 2022,10 Raimi + Associates analyzed four types of sites to generate a high and low estimate of potential housing growth in the RBD over the next 15-20 years (the updated Plan horizon runs through 2040):
A. Pipeline sites, or sites that are entitled or under construction; B. Sites where zoning currently allows for housing and the site has a reasonable potential for redevelopment (the low-end estimate includes only vacant sites, while the high-end estimate is a combination of all vacant and half of the underutilized sites); C. Sites with an active development proposal on record with the Planning Division (but are not yet entitled); and
D. Sites where housing is not currently allowed by zoning but there are active development proposals for housing or other known development interest. There is some overlap between C and D.
From this analysis, the City Council directed staff to study the addition of up to 1,600 housing units in the area in the supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Supplemental EIR”) for the RBD. The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for Supplemental EIR is currently in its public review period and can be found on the City’s website.11 While new units associated with known projects and potential redevelopment sites can be “counted” for the RBD areas, the City must provide further justification to HCD for the development capacity of each of these sites. For example, HCD does not allow a State Density Bonus assumption and requires that a “default density” be used to estimate the number of units. Staff will conduct further analysis for each site before including it in the Sites Inventory worksheet required by HCD. This analysis will be site-specific and could result in fewer than 1,600 estimated units.
Re-Zoning in the RBD for Housing
It should be noted that updating the RBD Specific Plan to accommodate housing also would require General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
City staff is working with 21 Elements and EcoNorthwest to model market feasibility in selected areas of the City, including the RBD, with potential changes to existing zoning standards.
Specifically, the model is evaluating the number of potential new units from a change in zoning on parcels identified at the February 1, 2022 meeting on the RBD. This analysis will support the City’s assumptions made about the housing development potential of these parcels if they are included in the Sites Inventory.
If the City amends zoning standards in the RBD to allow for additional housing production, staff recommends adopting additional parameters to ensure that affordable multiple-family projects 10 This item can be viewed at:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1487&MediaPosition=2303.755&ID=2087&CssClas s=
11 The SEIR will evaluate two scenarios for non-residential development consisting of 2.82 million square feet of office and Research and Development (R&D) and 3.35 million square feet, respectively. The SEIR will also evaluate two scenarios for residential development consisting of 1,350 residential units and 1,600 residential units, respectively. The NOP can be found at:
https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/12911/nop_rbd_sp_update.pdf
3.1 Packet Pg. 11
are feasible, such as: requiring residential development in mixed-use zones; requiring a minimum residential density on parcels included in the Sites Inventory; and instituting a jobshousing linkage requirement to produce more affordable housing units.
Staff will continue to work with 21 Elements and Raimi + Associates to coordinate these efforts as the Housing Element and RBD update processes move forward.
Discussion Question 2
Are there other areas of the City or specific strategies to encourage housing production that staff should focus on for the Sites Inventory analysis?
3. Including (Projected) ADUs in Sites Inventory
Jurisdictions may count ADU production towards their RHNA. The standard method is to estimate the number of ADUs that will be developed in the planning period, then distribute those estimated units into each of the income categories.
ABAG conducted an analysis of ADU affordability12 and concluded that in most jurisdictions, the following assumptions are generally applicable: 30% Very Low Income, 30% Low Income, 30% Moderate Income, and 10% Above Moderate Income.
Since 2019, the City has issued an average of 15.6 ADU permits per year.13 Based on the annual average since 2019,14 the City would project 125 ADUs being permitted over the eightyear planning period. Using ABAG’s survey data to distribute the projected units by income category produces the following estimates:
Income Category Percentages Totals
Very low 30% 38
Low 30% 37
Moderate 30% 37
Above moderate 10% 13
Summary of Pipeline against RHNA 6 Sites Inventory
A detailed table showing the City’s pipeline projects and unit totals compared to its RHNA 6 unit targets is provided in Attachment 2. For quick reference, the unit totals from the pipeline units in Attachment 2 are shown below.
Pipeline Units vs. RHNA 6
Affordability Level VLI LI MOD Above
MOD
Total
Total Pipeline (from
Attachment 2)
181 103 8 756 1048
12 This report is available at: http://www.21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draftadu-affordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file 13 The number of ADUs per year since 2019: 8 in 2019, 10 in 2020, 29 in 2021. 14 Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2019, when state law made it easier to construct the units.
3.1 Packet Pg. 12
RHNA 6 165 95 159 410 829
Units still needed -16 -8 151 -346 n/a
(A preliminary Sites Inventory list that incorporates both pipeline and potential vacant/nonvacant sites can be found in Attachment 3.)
If these pipeline projects are realized within the eight-year Housing Element period, and if housing development occurs within the RBD, it is likely that the City will meet and exceed the RHNA for all affordable categories aside from Moderate-Income units. The City therefore does not have an immediate need for a major rezoning effort. However, it should be noted that HCD requires jurisdictions to include a 30% “buffer” beyond the RHNA at each affordability level to ensure adequate planning for housing. It remains incumbent upon the City to consider where additional housing, and lower income housing in particular, may be sited over the next eight years.
Discussion Question 3
Does the City Council/Planning Commission have interest in adopting a new phase of ADU strategy to encourage ADU production in the next RHNA cycle? Other Considerations for Sites Inventory Analysis
Additional areas for consideration while developing the Sites Inventory are described below.
Infrastructure Availability
As discussed above, HCD requires that jurisdictions take into account infrastructure availability when evaluating each parcel for the Sites Inventory. Even for sites where there is known development interest or the zoning accommodates sufficiently dense housing, a further “capacity adjustment” based on infrastructure availability may be needed to estimate a realistic number of units for the site.
Infrastructure uncertainty has been documented in Housing Element APRs in recent years as a primary constraint to housing production in East Palo Alto, and it must also be accounted for in the new Housing Element. The City has made major strides to expand and reinforce its water capacity in recent years. However, a number of residential development projects, even after entitlement, have been delayed because the East Palo Alto Sanitary District (“EPASD”) has not provided a sewer connection.
Without a resolution with EPASD, East Palo Alto will continue to fall behind on the addition of much-needed housing units. The City is engaged in the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission (“SMCLAFCo”) Municipal Service Review (“MSR”) and sphere of influence update, which was released for public review on April 5, 2022.15 The MSR directly addresses the City’s RHNA and the need to plan for both new housing units and the municipal services and public facilities required to accommodate them. 15 The first public hearing on the MSR was held on April 20, 2022. The City Council will consider the staff recommendation to adopt a formal position on the Draft MSR at the May 3, 2022 City Council meeting. Please see the April 19, 2022 staff report for further information and Draft MSR:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=None&MeetingID=1807&MediaPosition=&ID=2205&CssClass=
3.1 Packet Pg. 13
Meeting the MOD, or “Missing Middle,” RHNA
Moderate-Income units are challenging for all jurisdictions to plan for. HCD’s suggested methodology for choosing adequate sites in the Sites Inventory is based on affordable housing projects for lower-income households. More “traditional” affordable housing sites, such as those that utilize tax credits, generally have an affordability range below 60% AMI.
Jurisdictions must find other ways to encourage this “missing middle” housing through targeted policies that incentivize this income level. Inclusionary Housing programs are one of these strategies but are insufficient to meet the RHNA. Staff is working with 21 Elements to learn from other San Mateo County jurisdictions for best strategies to include in the Housing Element, including the Policies and Programs section, as discussed in Part II below.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Jurisdictions must also incorporate Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”) into the Housing Element.16 This is a new requirement since RHNA 5 that was created by Assembly Bill 686 (“AB 686). According to AB 686, affirmatively furthering fair housing means to take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics” and is Federally mandated by the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
Some key findings relevant to East Palo Alto from the countywide Fair Housing Survey, created by Root Policy Research in collaboration with 21 Elements, are summarized in Attachment 1. In East Palo Alto, many of the inequities in housing affordability and availability are rooted in broader regional trends. AFFH may best be addressed in East Palo Alto through policies and programs; for example, policies that ensure that the type of housing planned for meets the needs of the community in terms of size and affordability, or a program that focuses on obtaining or maintaining homeownership as an anti-displacement measure.
Staff is working with Root Policy Research to draft the AFFH chapter and to develop the City’s Fair Action Plan.
Part II - Overview of Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Policies & Programs in the Housing Element Workplan
As part of the Housing Element, jurisdictions are required to address the identified housing needs by creating a Housing Element Workplan that consists of policy and programmatic changes to be implemented over the following eight years. The current Housing Element Workplan, which can be found in the Housing Element on the City’s website, is reported on each year in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report.
There are three levels to the structure of the Housing Element Workplan, each with more specificity: goals, which express the City’s intent to improve housing conditions or meet the housing need; policies, which “operationalize” the goals; and programs, which are measurable, discrete activities with dedicated funding and staffing that should be accomplished in a given timeframe. Below is an example from the City’s RHNA 5 Housing Element:
Goal 3.0 Available residential sites for the development of a range of housing 16 The HCD guidance memo is available at: Affirmatively_Furthering_Fair_Housing.pdf (ca.gov)
3.1 Packet Pg. 14
types and prices
Policy: Ensure adequate residential sites are zoned at appropriate densities and available for development in order to accommodate the range of housing types and prices needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Action 3.3 Ensure that 965 Weeks (Olson Property) is redeveloped as affordable housing. Complete an RFP and select a developer to build the housing for lower income households.
Timeframe: RFP completed in 2015 and construction completed in 2019.
Resources: Staff time and nonprofit resources.
Responsible agencies: Planning and Housing Division
Community Input on Policies and Programs
The Policies and Programs section of the Housing Element should be shaped by the community, in addition to the direction of the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Another important source of policies and programs is the RHNA 5 Housing Element Workplan.
A comprehensive review of the current Policies and Programs section allows staff to evaluate progress and to improve both the substance and the format of the Housing Element Workplan.
Staff is working with 21 Elements to complete this review and to develop new policies based on the identified housing needs, public input, and direction from City Council.
To collect public feedback on the City’s performance during RHNA, staff created a survey that is currently posted on the City’s website.17 Preliminary results of the online survey are shown in Attachment 1. Together with feedback received at the Housing Element community meetings, the responses to this survey will help staff to determine which existing goals, policies, and programs remain a priority, and which new ones have emerged over the last eight years.
In addition, 21 Elements has developed a customized tool for jurisdictions that suggests bestpractice policies based on the jurisdiction’s policy priorities, and all participating jurisdictions are collaborating through monthly meetings to refine their recommendations for this section of the Housing Element.
Preliminary Recommendations for Policies
Based on staff’s work thus far on the Sites Inventory analysis, Housing Needs Assessment, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing analysis, in addition, to community input, staff has developed a short list of recommended policies for the City Council to consider. These policies are based on what the City Council has expressed interest in previously, or they were developed in response to needs identified during staff’s analysis.
Staff’s overarching recommendations for the Policies & Programs, based on best practices and experience with RHNA 5, are as follows:
• Strive for fewer and more precise goals to focus the City’s housing work • Align policies with known gaps and housing needs
17 Visit the survey at: Housing Element Survey | City of East Palo Alto (cityofepa.org)
3.1 Packet Pg. 15
• Focus on “action” items that are achievable in short- and medium-term • Consider staff capacity and competing priorities
Staff began by reviewing the RHNA 5 Housing Element Workplan goals to draw key housing themes. The RHNA 5 Housing Element Goals are shown below:
i. Meet the RHNA & produce all housing types
ii. Link jobs + housing
iii. Available sites for the development of housing
iv. Reduced constraints & enhanced incentives for housing development v. Special needs housing
vi. Financial or policy assistance to low-income households vii. Increased homeownership opportunities
viii. Minimized tenant displacement
ix. Improved housing & neighborhood conditions
x. Fair Housing & decent, safe living environments for all xi. Implementation & use of housing policies
xii. Energy efficiency
Some of the most common themes for new Housing Element goals, based on preliminary input from the community and recent City Council meetings, maintain continuity with goals from the RHNA 5 Housing Element. These include:
• Improved housing & neighborhood conditions
• Deeper housing affordability
• More homeownership opportunities
• Reduced constraints to affordable housing
• Environmentally sustainable development
• Anti-displacement
Staff’s preliminary recommendations for the policy or program level are shown below. These should serve as a starting point for City Council discussion and an example to solicit feedback as staff draft this section of the Housing Element.
Policy or Program Rationale
A Overlay for nonprofit-owned properties
of a certain size that commit to building
100% affordable housing
Some nonprofit property owners, such
as faith communities, own sufficiently
large (and “underutilized”) parcels to
build affordable housing and have
interest in serving community need. With
an overlay, the City may reduce costs by
allowing projects of a certain scale.
B City-level streamlining for SB 9 projects SB 9 facilitates multiple units on parcels zoned single family. Duplexes, triplexes,
and ADUs can help to add “missing
middle” units to the housing stock.
C Encouraging ADU production ADUs address the “missing middle” problem and allow for additional units on
a variety of parcels. The City Council has
made ADUs a priority since 2018 and
may wish to update this strategy as a
3.1 Packet Pg. 16
Housing Element “program” to support
the City’s projections of ADU production
over the next 8 years.
D Temporary Use Permit for temporary
housing for unhoused individuals
City Council directed staff to develop a
“Master TUP” process, as described in
the April 5, 2022 staff report. Facilitating
temporary housing for unhoused
individuals helps to address the needs of
special populations, as required in the
Housing Element.
E Requiring minimum residential density
on Sites Inventory/Housing Opportunity
sites in the RBD
Different uses are allowed in the RBD.
Allowing residential as one of multiple
uses, e.g., office or R&D, does not
guarantee that housing units will be built
on a parcel.
F Waiving fees for affordable projects Analysis by 21 Elements partner firm EcoNorthwest found that waiving some
fees for affordable projects would
increase market feasibility for affordable
units citywide, in many cases more than
upzoning certain parcels.
G Reduced parking for affordable
projects
Analysis by 21 Elements partner firm
EcoNorthwest found that reducing
parking requirements for affordable
projects would increase market feasibility
for affordable units citywide, in many
cases more than upzoning certain
parcels.
Discussion Question 4
What is City Council’s/Planning Commission’s feedback on the preliminary suggested goals and policies?
Discussion Question 5
Does the City Council/Planning Commission have goals or policy areas that staff should include and further analyze in the draft Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element?
Discussion Questions Summary
Discussion Questions – Sites Inventory
1. What is the City Council’s/Planning Commission’s preference regarding planning for additional housing units beyond the minimum required (RHNA)?
2. Are there other areas of the City or specific strategies to encourage housing production that
3.1 Packet Pg. 17
staff should focus on for the Sites Inventory analysis?
3. Does the City Council/Planning Commission have interest in adopting a new phase of ADU strategy to encourage ADU production in the next RHNA cycle? Discussion Questions – Policies and Programs
4. What is City Council’s/Planning Commission’s feedback on the preliminary suggested goals and policies?
5. Does the City Council/Planning Commission have goals or policy areas that staff should include and further analyze in the draft Policies & Programs section of the Housing Element? Other Required Updates to the General Plan
Since the Housing Element is being updated, State law requires that the Safety Element and Environmental Justice (Health and Equity) Element of the General Plan also be updated. Staff is coordinating with 21 Elements and the County of San Mateo on the update of both of these elements, which will occur subsequent to adoption of the Housing Element.
Staff has also incorporated Environmental Justice Element themes into all of the Housing Element community meetings. For example, the February 24, 2022 Housing Element community meeting included an overview of environmental indicators and a presentation by the Stanford Future Bay Initiative. Some preliminary community feedback includes concerns and comments about environmental justice; these are highlighted in Attachment 1.
Next Steps
Status and Timeline of Housing Element Update
As noted above, the next Housing Element Community Meeting is scheduled for May 5. Staff will hold additional community meetings as capacity allows throughout the summer.
In parallel to community meetings, staff has begun drafting sections of the Housing Element with the support of 21 Elements, and analysis continues on key sections such as the Sites Inventory, Governmental Constraints, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and Policies and Programs sections. The full draft should be completed in late May to early June, followed by a monthlong public review period.
Staff anticipates further City Council and Planning Commission meetings in the summer and fall of 2022.
HCD requires 90 days to review the Housing Element draft. In order to turn around edits to the Housing Element and complete the final draft in time for submittal to HCD by the end of 2022, staff anticipates submitting the first draft to HCD in September.
HCD must approve the final Housing Element by January 2023.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this staff report. Staff has secured grant funds from HCD through the Local Early Action Planning Grant (“LEAP,” $150,000) and the Regional
3.1 Packet Pg. 18
Early Action Planning Grant (“REAP”, $70,000) programs. The full amount of LEAP funds the City’s participation in the 21 Elements Housing Element technical assistance program and related activities, such as staff time, community outreach, and CEQA. A portion of the City’s REAP funds are set aside for community outreach related to the Housing Element, Environmental Justice Element, and Safety Element updates.
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website.
Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
Attachments
1. Summary of Community Outreach
2. Pipeline Units vs. RHNA 6
3. Sites Inventory Preliminary List
3.1 Packet Pg. 19
Overview of Community Engagement for the Housing Element It is more important than ever to include as many voices as possible in the Housing Element. Housing Elements at their best can provide an opportunity for everyone to add their voice to the conversation. However, many people are too often left out of the process. Renters, workers, young families, youth, people of color, immigrants, refugees, non-English speakers, and people with disabilities are often unable to participate in outreach activities when scheduled, don’t know how to get involved, or don’t trust the process. The City is making efforts to address these barriers to participation.
To date, Housing and Planning Division staff has:
• Created a website and social media presence where community members can find the latest updates on the Housing Element and upcoming community meetings. o As of February 2022, the website has been visited more than 220 times, with more than 12% from mobile devices.
• Hosted virtual community meetings on the Housing Element on July 19, 2021 and on February 24, 2022.1
o The next community meeting will be held in-person and is tentatively scheduled for May 5, 2022, to increase access for residents that may not be able to join virtually. The focus of this third community meeting will be to receive input on the City’s policies and programs.
• Participated in introductory webinar in partnership with 21 Elements and the countywide “Let’s Talk Housing” initiative on May 6, 2021.2 • Conducted online surveys to receive further input on the Housing Element update. o A survey on Housing Element policies and programs, in English and Spanish, went live on February 24, 2022 and is available until May 6, 2022.
Preliminary survey results are summarized below.
o An online Jamboard tool also available to the public starting February 24, 2022 collects input on key questions related to the Housing Element.
Preliminary survey results are summarized below.
• Disseminated the San Mateo County Fair Housing Survey, available in English and Spanish, on the City website and social media. An overview of the results of the Fair Housing Survey and the City’s own Housing Element survey are provided below.
1 A recording of these virtual meetings can be found on the City's Housing webpage at https://www.cityofepa.org/housing/page/housing-element-update-1. Watch the July 19, 2021 meeting at https://www.cityofepa.org/youtu.be/KI7o9ejCmIo. Watch the February 24, 2022 meeting at https://vimeo.com/681972749 (in English) and https://vimeo.com/681972604 (in Spanish).
2 Learn more about the Let’s Talk Housing initiative at www.letstalkhousing.org
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) I. COUNTYWIDE FAIR HOUSING SURVEY – ROOT POLICY INSTITUTE Figure 1.
Resident Survey Sample Sizes by Jurisdictions and Selected Characteristics Note: Numbers do not aggregate either due to multiple responses or that respondents chose not to provide a response to all demographic and socioeconomic questions.
Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.
As shown in Figure 6a, residents in East Palo Alto experience several housing challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. The top housing challenges experienced in East Palo Alto compared to the county are not being able to afford to move due to the lack of affordable housing options, living in a household that is too small for their families, and needing assistance in taking care of themselves or their home, among other things. The challenge least experienced was living too far away from family/friends/community.
Figure 6a.
Top 10 Housing Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.
As shown in Figure 6b, residents in East Palo Alto experience affordability challenges at a higher rate than the county overall. The top affordability challenges experienced in East Palo Alto compared to the County are difficulty paying utility bills and being late on rent payments, and having bad credit or history of evictions and foreclosure that make it challenging to find a place to rent.
Figure 6b.
Top 5 Affordability Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.
As shown in Figure 6c, residents in East Palo Alto experience neighborhood challenges at a higher rate than the county. For instance, East Palo Alto residents experience neighborhood infrastructure issues (e.g. bad sidewalks, no lighting) more acutely than
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) county residents overall. In addition, East Palo Alto residents experience challenges with school quality, and are more likely to identify the lack of job opportunities in their neighborhoods.
Figure 6c.
Top 5 Neighborhood Challenges Experienced by Jurisdiction Source: Root Policy Research from the 2021-2022 21 Elements AFFH Resident Survey.
II. CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO POLICIES AND PROGRAMS PRELIMINARY
SURVEY RESULTS
Below is a summary of preliminary Policies and Programs survey results as of April 12, 2022:
GOAL 1: Sufficient numbers and varieties of housing units (houses, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments) needed to: meet the State’s mandate to replace affordable units/bedrooms demolished due to Redevelopment Agency action; address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Determination; and facilitate housing development for all incomes segments within East Palo Alto, including extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above-moderate income housing. 0% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #1 as “good”, 29% rate it as “OK”, 65% rate it as “poor”, and 6% don’t know and need more information.
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) GOAL 2: Balanced development that links housing to jobs. 6% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #2 as “good”, 35% rate it as “OK”, 53% rate it as “poor”, and 6% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 3: Available residential sites for the development of a range of housing types.
6% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #3 as “good”, 18% rate it as “OK”, 71% rate it as “poor”, and 6% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 4: Reduced constraints and enhanced incentives for housing development within the city, particularly in regards to affordable housing. 5% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #4 as “good”, 18% rate it as “OK”, 77% rate it as “poor”, and 0% don’t know and need more information.
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) GOAL 5: Adequate housing for special needs groups in the city, including seniors, physically challenged, HIV positive or living with AIDS, homeless, at-risk youth (leaving the foster care system), small and large families, veterans, farm workers, people with developmental disabilities, and female headed households. 7% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #5 as “good”, 29% rate it as “OK”, 41% rate it as “poor”, and 23% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 6: Financial and policy assistance for low- and moderate-income households to ease housing cost burden and overcrowding. 5% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #6 as “good”, 18% rate it as “OK”, 65% rate it as “poor”, and 12% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 7: Increased homeownership opportunities for income-qualified households (focused on existing residents and workers in East Palo Alto).
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) 0% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #7 as “good”, 5% rate it as “OK”, 78% rate it as “poor”, and 17% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 8: Minimized Displacement of Renters.
18% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #8 as “good”, 23% rate it as “OK”, 47% rate it as “poor”, and 12% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 9: Improved Housing and Neighborhood Conditions in East Palo Alto. 0% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #9 as “good”, 17% rate it as “OK”, 83% rate it as “poor”, and 0% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 10: Decent, safe living environments for City residents regardless of age, gender, race, color, ancestry, national origin, familial status, marital status, sexual preference, religion, disability, language, or any other arbitrary factor.
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) 17% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #10 as “good”, 33% rate it as “OK”, 44% rate it as “poor”, and 6% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 11: Implemented housing policies and broad participation in associated programs.
6% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #11 as “good”, 18% rate it as “OK”, 53% rate it as “poor”, and 23% don’t know and need more information.
GOAL 12: Increased energy efficiency in existing and new housing development, in part as a means of reducing housing cost.
0% of respondents rate the City’s performance on Goal #12 as “good”, 39% rate it as “OK”, 44% rate it as “poor”, and 17% don’t know and need more information.
Level of Importance of Goals
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Based on preliminary survey results, a majority of respondents indicated Goal #9:
Improved Housing and Neighborhood Conditions (83.3%), and Goal #4: Reduced Constraints and Enhanced Incentives for Housing Development, Particularly in Regards to Affordable Housing (55.6%), to be the most important.
Ideas for New Goals
Respondents also provided ideas for new policy goals, including:
• Addressing sewer company issues that have prevented affordable housing development
• Protecting green space and wildlife habitat on the Westside; more trees • More solar power and energy efficiency
• More parking
• Finding a solution that benefits both tenants and landlords • Enforcing existing housing code and habitability laws III. CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO JAMBOARD PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS Below is a summary of preliminary Jamboard survey results on housing and environmental concerns, as of April 12, 2022. These may be included in the Housing Element and in the Environmental Justice Element:
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Respondents raised the following environmental concerns:
• Flooding
• Wildfires
• Air quality
• Sea level rise
• Water and air pollution
• Rising temperatures
Respondents raised the following environmental considerations when zoning for new housing:
• Flood and fire mitigation
• Getting solar power on the grid
• Building away from flood zones and the bay front
• Urban greening
• Reducing vehicle miles traveled
Respondents identified the following types of housing they want to see:
• Mixed-use developments
• Developments that create access to resources
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) • Sustainable, mixed-use, affordable, resilient, and transient-oriented housing (SMART housing)
• Ownership units/single family housing
• Duplexes and/or cottages
• Housing for middle income residents
• Housing with supportive services/group homes
• Multi-family rental housing for families; units for single people • Mixed-density neighborhoods
• More deeply affordable units
Respondents identified the following locations and sites they want to see explored:
• School district
• Bayshore Road north of University Avenue
• Sites that allow for community gardens to increase food access • Single-family neighborhoods in high-opportunity areas • Transient-oriented sites to increase accessibility for people with disabilities or special needs populations
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Summary of Community Outreach (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Pipeline Projects in East Palo Alto vs. RHNA 6
Project Description Address Very
Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
Woodland Apartment
Expansion / Euclid
Improvements
Proposed 605 multifamily units2001 Manhattan
Avenue 89 0 0 445 534
Four Corners
Proposed mixed use
with 180 units
residential
1675 Bay Road 36 0 0 144 180
965 Weeks Street 136 affordable housing
multi-family project 965 Weeks Street 42 93 0 1 136
1804 Bay Rd. 75-unit mixed use
project 1804 Bay Rd. 10 0 0 65 75
Clarum University
Corner
33-unit mixed use
project
2331 University
Avenue 0 4 3 26 33
1201 Runnymede 32 multi-family units 1201 Runnymede
Street 3 0 3 26 32
717 Donohoe Proposed 14-unit
condominium project 717 Donohoe Street 0 1 1 12 14
760 Weeks 10-unit condominium
project 760 Weeks Street 0 1 1 8 10
990 Garden Proposed 8-unit
subdivision 990 Garden St. 1 1 0 6 8
547 Runnymede
Street
Proposed 8-unit
condominium project 547 Runnymede St. 0 1 0 7 8
2340 Cooley Proposed 7-unit
subdivision 2340 Cooley Avenue 0 1 0 6 7
120-126 Maple Lane Proposed 4-unit
subdivision 120-126 Maple Lane 0 0 0 4 4
1062 Runnymede St. Proposed 4-unit
subdivision 1062 Runnymede St. 0 0 0 4 4
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Pipeline Units vs. RHNA 6 (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) No address/APN
063265300
Two-unit subdivision
with one deedrestricted ADUno address 0 1 0 2 3
Total 181 103 8 756 1048
RHNA 6 165 95 159 410 829
Units still needed -16 -8 151 -346 n/a
*Note: Projects may be moved between Pipeline and Vacant Nonvacant categories based on project status when the Sites Inventory analysis is completed. Projects with pending approval and more certainty of development early in the RHNA 6 cycle are most likely to remain on the Pipeline list. ** Some unit estimates are based on the Inclusionary Housing requirement for the project and are subject to change.
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Pipeline Units vs. RHNA 6 (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Preliminary Sites Inventory List for RHNA 6 Housing Element Pipeline Sites
Project Description Status RHNA 5
Pipeline Euclid
Improvements/Woodland
Park
605-unit rental
development with
TBD affordable units
Entitled No
Pipeline 4 Corners Mixed-use project
with 180 units and
TBD affordable units
Under
Review
No
Pipeline 965 Weeks Street 136-unit affordable
project
Entitled Yes
Pipeline 1804 Bay Rd. 75-unit rental
development with
10 affordable units
SB 35 Zoning
Clearance
No
Pipeline Clarum University Corner 33-unit
condominium
project with 7
affordable units
Entitled Yes
Pipeline 1201 Runnymede 32-unit
condominium
project with 6
affordable units
Entitled Yes
Pipeline 717 Donahoe 14-unit
condominium
project with 4
affordable units
Under
Review
No
Pipeline 760 Weeks St. 10-unit
condominium
project with 2
affordable units
SB 35 Zoning
Clearance
Yes
Pipeline 990 Garden 8-unit single family
subdivision with 2
affordable units
Under
Review
No
Pipeline 547 Runnymede 8-unit condominium
project with 1
affordable unit
Under
Review
No
Pipeline 2340 Cooley 7-unit condominium
project with 1
affordable unit
Under
Review
No
3.1.c
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Sites Inventory Preliminary List (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Pipeline Maple Lane 4-unit subdivision Under
Review
No
Pipeline 1062 Runnymede 4-unit subdivision Under
Review
No
Pipeline No address/APN 063265300 2-unit subdivision
with one deedrestricted ADU
Entitled No
Vacant/Nonvacant Sites
Vacant EPA Waterfront Mixed-use project
with 260 units and
TBD affordable units
Under
Review
No
Vacant Harvest the Landing
Housing Offsite (1103
Weeks)
95-unit off-site
affordable project
Under
Review
No
Non-Vacant 812 Green St. 5-unit subdivision Under
Review
No
Non-Vacant 842 Green St. 3-unit subdivision Under
Review
No
Non-Vacant 801 Donohoe 12-18-unit
multifamily
Conceptual No
Vacant 1010 Runnymede 10-unit single family
subdivision
Conceptual No
Non-Vacant 755 Schembri Ln. 6-unit subdivision Conceptual No Non-Vacant 807 E. Bayshore Mixed-use proposal
in preapplication
phase
Conceptual No
Vacant 851 Weeks St. Multifamily
development
interest
Conceptual Yes
Vacant/Public
Owned
2415 University Ave. County-owned
Government Center
currently under
study; some
potential for housing
Conceptual No
Vacant/Public
Owned
Bay Rd./APN 063090080 Ravenswood School
District site planned
for teacher
affordable housing
Conceptual No
3.1.c
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Sites Inventory Preliminary List (2220 : Housing Element Study Session) Non-Vacant 2212 University Ave. Multi-family
development
interest
Conceptual No
NonVacant/Public
Owned
2277 University Ave. City-owned parcel to
be exchanged with
County for 2216
Beech St. and
developed as
housing
Conceptual Yes
Non-Vacant Multiple potential “change”
parcels identified in RBD
analysis
Housing a permitted
use with some
potential for
redevelopment
n/a No
Vacant Multiple “Pulgas East”
parcels identified in RBD
analysis
Housing not a
permitted use;
would require
rezoning
n/a No
Vacant “South of Weeks” parcel
identified in RBD analysis
Housing not a
permitted use;
would require
rezoning
n/a No
ADUs Citywide n/a No
Notes:
*”Conceptual” means 1.) developer interest or preapplication, but no formal application submitted; or 2.) a publicly-owned site where the intent is to build affordable housing.
**Sites in green indicate that they are in the RBD area. Note that 1103 Weeks (Harvest off-site) and EPA Waterfront projects are included in preliminary sites inventory rather than counted as pipeline projects, since they would require rezoning to allow for housing.
3.1.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Sites Inventory Preliminary List (2220 : Housing Element Study Session)