CITY OF FOSTER CITY
AND
FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361) WHICH AUTHORIZES TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY.
THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID - 19 ON MARCH 4, 2020. THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEES. MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO BY JOINING THE
ZOOM MEETING
HTTPS://FOSTERCITY-ORG.ZOOM.US/J/89214862252 PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO
[email protected] WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City/District Meeting will be held via teleconference.
City Councilmembers/District Board and staff will attend in person or via teleconference.
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.
To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercity-org.zoom.us/j/89214862252
• To dial-in via phone:
1-669-900-6833 or
1-408-638-0968
And enter Webinar ID: 892 1486 2252
To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:
• During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees. Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment.
Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record
but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indicate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name (Recommended but not required)
Written public comments received by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided in their enti rety to 1 the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.
AGENDA
Wednesday, March 2, 2022 6:30 PM
SPECIAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Jon Froomin, Sanjay Gehani, Sam Hindi, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor Richa Awasthi
Planning Commissioners Evan Adams, Charlie Bronitsky, Nicolas Haddad, Ravi Jagtiani, and Chair Rick Wykoff
3. PUBLIC
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(a), members of the public wishing to address the Council may do so, and the comments shall be limited to the Special Meeting notice topic(s). Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people. Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people.
4. STUDY SESSION
4.1. Discussion on the Preparation of the Housing Element Update for the 2023-2031 Planning Period, Including:
Potential Housing Sites for Up to 1,896 New Housing Units Between 2023-2031; and
Potential Policy and Program Options for Further Study to Address Future Housing Needs
a) Staff Report
b) Action - By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction
5. ADJOURNMENT
2 The public is invited to attend.
Any attendee wishing special accommodations at the meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Department at (650) 286-3250 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council or EMID Board regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda packet was distributed will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk Department at City Hall located at 610 Foster City Boulevard during normal business hours and at the meeting.
City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:
LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
REPLAY next day at 1:00 pm (that week only)
REPLAY Saturday at 5:00 pm (only on Saturday the week the actual meeting occurs) 3 DATE: March 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chair and Members of the Foster City Planning Commission
VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Community Development Director Leslie Carmichael, Consulting Planner
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE FOR THE 2023-2031 PLANNING PERIOD,
INCLUDING: POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES FOR UP TO 1,896
NEW HOUSING UNITS BETWEEN 2023-2031; AND
POTENTIAL POLICY AND PROGRAM OPTIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY TO ADDRESS FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this Joint Study Session is to provide the Planning Commission and City Council with a progress update on the work on the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, to present a summary of state requirements for the Sites Inventory.
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission, by Minute Order, provide policy direction regarding sites to analyze further and include in the Draft Sites Inventory in the Public Review Draft Housing Element, and provide direction regarding policies and programs to analyze further and include in the Public Review Draft Housing Element.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is in the process of updating its Housing Element for the 2023-2031 4 planning period. The Housing Element is required to include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income level. Foster City’s RHNA is 1,896 units for 2023-2031. The updated Housing Element is required to be adopted by January 2023. Staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council feedback and direction on two critical aspects of the Housing Element Update to be included in the Public Review Draft Housing Element:
1. Sites to analyze further for potential inclusion in a Draft Sites Inventory; and
2. Draft policies and programs to be analyzed further for potential inclusion in the Housing Element.
Staff will take this direction and proceed to prepare the Public Review Draft Housing Element. The Public Review Draft Housing Element is required to be circulated for a minimum of thirty (30) days plus an additional ten (10) days to respond to comments to facilitate review by the public, Planning Commission, and City Council to determine which sites, policies, and programs to include in the Draft Housing Element submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their required 90-day review.
Following HCD’s review, the City will have an opportunity to make additional changes prior to adoption. (See additional discussion of the schedule below.)
BACKGROUND
California's Planning and Zoning Law (Govt Code §65000 et seq.) establishes a framework for local land use regulation. It requires that every city and county adopt a General Plan for its physical development. The plan must be comprehensive, long-term, and up-to-date. The General Plan is required to contain the following seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. California State Law recognizes that local government plays a vital role in developing affordable housing. In 1969, the state mandated that all California cities, towns, and counties must adequately plan for the housing needs of everyone in their communities. This state mandate is called the Housing Element (See Housing Element Fact Sheet).
Housing Elements are required to be updated every eight years. The due date for adoption of the Housing Element is January 31, 2023. 5 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
The RHNA process is the part of Housing Element Law used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those homes, each local government must plan for in its Housing Element. HCD provides a Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) to each region and each region develops a methodology to distribute the needs to the jurisdictions in the region. This process is repeated every eight years, and for this cycle (6th cycle), the Bay Area is planning for the period from 2023 to 2031 (See City’s webpage on RHNA/Plan Bay Area).
On November 22, 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) issued the proposed Final RHNA Plan, which includes adjustments to the final allocations for Contra Costa County and Pittsburg as a result of a partially granted appeal. Of the 28 appeals that ABAG received from Bay Area jurisdictions, the ABAG Administrative Committee partially granted the appeal for Contra Costa County because an area annexed to Pittsburg in 2018 was incorrectly included as part of unincorporated Contra Costa County in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint. As a result, 35 RHNA units were transferred to the City of Pittsburg and has been reflected in the Final RHNA Plan. This did not affect the allocations for any jurisdictions other than the County of Contra Costa and the City of Pittsburg.
The final RHNA for Bay Area jurisdictions was approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments in the Final RHNA Allocation Report on December 16, 2021 and approved by HCD, as stated in its approval letter dated January 12, 2022. Additional information on the process for developing the RHNA is available on the City’s webpage on RHNA/Plan Bay Area). Additional discussion of the RHNA is provided in the Analysis section below.
Housing Element Progress Update
The key components of the Housing Element and a progress update on them are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Housing Element Components Progress Update
Component Requirement Progress Update
Housing
Needs
Assessment
Examine demographic,
employment, and housing
trends and conditions; identify
Draft Housing Needs
Data Report presented
to Planning Commission
6 existing and projected housing
needs of the community with
attention paid to special
housing needs (e.g., large
families, persons with
disabilities).
on 7/15/21 (link to
meeting). Several
listening sessions have
been held (see list of
previous meetings
below). Housing
Preferences and
Priorities Survey posted
on 2/16/22. Deadline to
submit feedback is
3/21/22.
Evaluation of
past Housing
Element
Review the prior Housing
Element to measure progress in
implementing policies and
programs.
Draft Review of
Previous Housing
Element presented to
Planning Commission
on 7/15/21 (link to
meeting)
Housing Sites
Inventory
Identify locations of available
sites for housing development
or redevelopment to ensure
there is enough land zoned for
housing to meet the RHNA at
all income levels and potentially
rezone areas, if necessary.
Map-based community
engagement platform
published on 2/16/22.
Deadline to submit
feedback is 3/21/22.
Subject of 3/2/22 Joint
Study Session.
Affirmatively
Furthering
Fair Housing
(AFFH)
Facilitate deliberate action to
explicitly address, combat, and
relieve disparities resulting from
past patterns of segregation to
foster more inclusive
communities, in compliance
with Assembly Bill 686 (2018).
Administrative draft
AFFH report prepared
by 21 Elements will be
presented at a future
Study Session.
Constraints
Analysis
Analyze and recommend
remedies for existing and
potential governmental and
nongovernmental barriers to
housing development.
In progress with
assistance from 21
Elements.
Policies and
Programs
Establish housing policies and
programs to be carried out
Initial program/policy
options presented to
7 during the 2023-2031 planning
period to fulfill the identified
housing needs.
Planning Commission
on 7/15/21. Additional
policies/programs will
respond to needs
assessment and AFFH
analysis.
Subject of 3/2/22 Joint
Study Session.
Community
Engagement
Implement a robust community
engagement program, reaching
out to all economic segments of
the community plus traditionally
underrepresented groups.
Ongoing community
engagement through
City website, through
engagefostercity.org,
noticing, community
workshops, study
sessions.
Environmental
Impact Report
Analyze the potential
environmental impacts
associated with adoption and
implementation of proposed
Housing Element Update and
Safety Element Update
Notice of Preparation
(NOP) issued 1/26/22.
UPP selected as
environmental
consultant firm on
2/7/22.
Planning Commission
Scoping Meeting held
on 2/17/22. Draft EIR
due in late summer.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
As noted above, an EIR will be prepared for the Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to inform decision-makers and the public about the impacts of a proposed project prior to taking action on the project. To that end, a lead agency (in this case, the City of Foster City) is required to disclose a project’s potentially significant environmental effects to the community, decision makers and responsible agencies, identify and implement measures that will limit such detrimental impacts, and consider project alternatives.
The EIR will be a “program level” EIR rather than a “project level” EIR. A 8 program level EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of programs based on the level of specificity included. For program plans such as a Housing Element or Safety Element, the analysis will be at a more general level that does not analyze site-specific impacts. Site specific environmental impacts will be evaluated as part of the “project level” environmental assessment as part of the development review of each individual project. The EIR will analyze a wide range of issues, including transportation/traffic, public services and utilities, air quality, etc.
A Notice of Preparation was issued on January 26, 2022. The Planning Commission held a noticed Scoping Meeting on February 17, 2022. The Draft EIR will be circulated for public review and comment, tentatively scheduled for late July-August 2022.
Housing Element Update Schedule
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 215. This law makes a number of changes including stronger provisions regarding enforcement of California housing regulations and changes regarding Housing Element certification timing. AB 215 lengthens the time for HCD to complete the review of a Draft Housing Element but does not change the January 2023 submission deadline for jurisdictions. Specifically, before submitting a Housing Element to HCD, cities must post the document for at least 30 days and then must consider those comments for 10 days. Additionally, HCD now has 90 days to review and provide comments on the first Draft Housing Element submittal, compared to 60 days in previous cycles.
Cities can post the Housing Element for public review concurrent with Planning Commission and City Council review, ensuring that the full 40 days (30 days for public review; 10 days for responding to comments) are provided for during the Commission and Council review period. Still, at least 30 additional days will be needed for HCD’s review compared to what was previously planned. Staff is targeting to submit the draft Housing Element for HCD review by May 31, 2022. This would result in an HCD review period ending August 29, 2022.
State laws have also changed regarding consequences of not adopting the Housing Element and receiving HCD certification within 120 days of the January 31, 2023 deadline. AB 1398 provides two formal consequences for failing to adopt and receive HCD certification of a housing element within 120 days of the deadline (May 31, 2023):
9 All rezonings required to provide adequate sites must be accomplished within one year of the due date (January 31, 2024) rather than within three years plus 120 days of the due date.
If a housing element is adopted more than one year from the due date, HCD will not find it in compliance with state law until all necessary rezoning is adopted.
Several other regions of the State have had earlier submittal deadlines for their 6th Cycle Housing Elements. The HCD certification process is taking much longer than in previous cycles. For example, in the SCAG region (Southern California), their deadline for adoption was October 15, 2021 with the 120 day grace period ending February 12, 2022. As of February 16, 2022, only 6 of the 197 jurisdictions have received HCD certification of their housing elements letters (Housing Element Compliance Report, available on this page, HCD). Some jurisdictions are receiving multiple HCD review letters (Housing element review letters sent to jurisdictions, available on this page, HCD).
HCD has also adopted a policy that if a rezoning required to provide adequate sites for lower income housing (Lower income is used to refer to the combination of very low-income and low-income) is adopted after the housing element due date of January 31, 2023, it must provide for “by right” approval of housing development (By right means the jurisdiction shall not require: a conditional use permit, a planned unit development permit, or any other discretionary, local-government review or approval that would constitute a “project” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This does not preclude a jurisdiction from imposing objective design review standards. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 12). For this reason, staff is proposing to accomplish any required rezoning concurrently with or prior to the adoption of the Housing Element in order to preserve as much local control as possible over the design of any proposed development.
For more information, see Attachment 1, “Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element - Technical Memo”.
An updated timeline for preparation of the Housing Element Update is included in Table 2.
10 Incentives and Consequences
Previous staff reports dated September 21, 2020, May 3, 2021, and July 15, 2021 have provided information on the incentives and consequences related to having a certified Housing Element. A list of ten funding programs that either require Housing Element compliance or that incentivize greater coordination with housing planning are listed in Attachment 1, “Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element - Technical Memo.” Attachment 2, “New State Housing Unit Set to Enforce Local Housing Mandates” summarizes the potential consequences of a noncompliant housing element, including: legal suits and attorney fees, loss of permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval process for housing projects.
11 Community Engagement/Previous Meetings
City staff has recently launched an updated community engagement website for the Housing Element Update, including a combination of tools from Bang The Table and MapSocial, to provide opportunities for community engagement and feedback on the Housing Element Update. The new website is available here: https://engagefostercity.org/housing-element and automatically redirects from the main City website’s page for the Housing Element Update.
The new website includes links to:
Housing Preferences and Priorities Survey (closes March 21, 2022) Interactive Map with opportunities to provide feedback on sites (closes March 21, 2022)
Share your Foster City Housing Story
Link to subscribe to project updates
Background information on the Housing Element
Links to related documents and related websites
Links to agenda packets for previous meetings
During the Joint Study Session on March 2, 2022, staff will demonstrate how to take part in the survey and use the interactive map.
The City has held a number of public meetings to discuss various aspects of the Housing Element Update. These meetings have been advertised in a variety of ways, including the Housing Element email ListServ, posted notices, newspaper notices, FCTV, Leo Ryan Park marquee, social media, City website, and City e-news. The list of public meetings is on the Housing Element Update website and listed at the end of this report with links to the meeting materials.
Staff provided an informational report to the City Council on November 1, 2021 regarding the in-person and virtual Community Workshops held on September 28 and 30, 2021. The compiled notes from the Community Workshops are included as Attachment 3 and also available here.
Staff has attached a letter from the Loma Prieta Sierra Club dated November 19, 2021 with their comments on the Housing Element Update (Attachment 4) and other public comments received as of February 24, 2022 (Attachment 5). 12 ANALYSIS
State law requires Housing Elements to include an inventory of land/sites suitable and available for residential development to meet the RHNA by income level. In the years since the previous Housing Element for the 2015- 2023 planning period was adopted, State laws have added requirements for information to be included in the Sites Inventory and for the analysis of each site. Included below is a summary of these requirements and how they apply to Foster City. This information is provided to assist the public, Planning Commission, and City Council in determining the sites to include in the Draft Sites Inventory for further analysis. The summary draws heavily from the “Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook” provided by HCD. References to the “HCD Site Guidebook” are provided at various points in this staff report.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
A description of the process for determining the RHNA is included in the Background section of this report. The RHNA for Foster City is provided in Table 3, below.
In order to better understand the income levels in the RHNA, Table 4 provides the 2021 income limits for the various income categories (2022 limits have not been released).
13 The State’s “No Net Loss” requirements (Government Code Section 65853) stipulate that a jurisdiction must provide sufficient sites at all times throughout the RHNA planning period. A jurisdiction can fall out of compliance if they take actions such as:
Reduce a site’s residential density
Approve development applications with fewer units on the site than identified in the Housing Element
Approve development applications with higher income units than stated in the Housing Element
HCD recommends providing a “buffer” of 15%-30% additional units, especially in the very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories, in order to avoid having to rezone additional sites to eliminate any shortfall resulting from development actions. For additional information on buffers, see Attachment 6, “Housing Element Site Inventories: Why Buffers and Excess Capacity Matter,” prepared by ABAG. More detailed information is provided in HCD’s Guidance Memo, “No Net Loss Law-Government Code Section 65863.”
Building the Sites Inventory
The Sites Inventory is a major component of the Housing Element and for a built-out city like Foster City, may be the most challenging part. The scope of new state law requirements for the analysis of sites makes it a complex undertaking. It is important to remember that the City’s responsibility is to identify sufficient sites that are appropriately zoned (or will be rezoned) to accommodate the RHNA – not to build the units or guarantee that the units will be built. Including sites in the Sites Inventory does not guarantee that the City will approve applications for a certain number of units on those sites.
14 As discussed below, providing a buffer is important in order to preserve the City’s ability to provide sufficient sites throughout the planning period (2023- 2031) even if a development application is approved at a lower density or not approved. Staff notes, however, that regardless of whether a site is in the Sites Inventory, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects. (See the HAA Technical Assistance Advisory prepared by HCD.)
Staff suggests that the Planning Commission and City Council provide direction on potential sites to include in the Draft Sites Inventory for additional analysis. The additional analysis will include review of the capacity and the ability to address the lower income RHNA using the criteria in the HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook (HCD Site Guidebook) . The sites will be included in the Public Review Draft Housing Element that will be circulated for public review in April 2022. The Planning Commission and City Council will have the ability to make additions and deletions from the Draft Sites Inventory before the Draft Housing Element is submitted to HCD for their review at the end of May 2022. Having more sites than needed in the Draft Sites Inventory will give the Planning Commission and City Council the ability to delete some sites and still have sufficient sites to meet the RHNA.
The Sites Inventory can include several categories of sites. The types of sites are listed below, followed by a summary of the requirements for all sites and the specific requirements for the various types of sites. References are made to the HCD Site Guidebook. Staff has summarized information for the following types of sites, following a summary of requirements for all sites:
Pipeline projects (units permitted or under construction but not completed as of June 30, 2022)
Pending Projects (projects that have submitted an application but are not yet approved)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
SB 9 units
Sites from the previous (5 th) cycle Housing Element
Non-vacant residentially zoned sites capable of additional development Non-vacant non-residentially zoned sites capable of residential or mixed-use development
Religious Facilities
Vacant sites
15 Requirements for All Sites
Infrastructure Availability. Parcels included in the sites inventory must have sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities available and accessible to support housing development. The Housing Element must describe existing or planned, water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and access to parcels on the sites inventory, distribution facilities, general plan programs or other mandatory program or plan to support housing development on the site. The Housing Element must include sufficient detail to determine whether the service levels of water delivery/treatment systems and sewer treatment facilities are sufficient and have the capacity to accommodate development on all identified sites. If infrastructure is not available, the Housing Element must include a program that ensures access and availability to infrastructure to accommodate development within the planning period. If this is not possible, the site is not suitable for inclusion in the sites inventory or in a program of action identifying a site for rezoning. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 7-8)
One of the critical infrastructure components in Foster City is the water supply. A Water Supply Assessment will be included in the EIR being prepared for the Housing Element Update and Safety Element Update.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). This means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The HCD Site Guidebook further states that for purposes of the sites inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, location disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty.
Instead, sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 8-9)
Default Density. The statute allows jurisdictions to use higher density as a proxy for lower income affordability, in other words – be able to skip detailed analysis of the economic feasibility of providing lower income units on a site if the site is zoned to accommodate a default density. Parcels must be zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing. Because San Mateo County is considered a 16 “metropolitan county”, the default density is at least 30 units per acre. “At least” means the density range allowed on the parcel must include the default density. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 13-14)
Size of Sites. Parcel sizes between 0.5 acres and 10 acres in size are considered to be able to accommodate development for lower incomes.
Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres or larger than 10 acres in size require additional analysis to demonstrate that they can accommodate the lower income RHNA. Otherwise, they can be used in the sites inventory to count toward the moderate or above-moderate RHNA. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 15- 17)
Realistic Capacity Analysis. The statute requires an analysis of the realistic capacity of each site. This can include:
1. use of minimum densities provided by the zoning of the parcel, or
2. utilize various factors to calculate realistic capacity and describe the methodology used including:
oTypical densities of existing or approved residential development at a similar affordability level
oCurrent or planned availability and accessibility of infrastructure oApplicable land use controls and site improvement requirements oAdjust for any areas that cannot be developed
The capacity calculation must be adjusted to reflect the realistic potential for residential development, including factors such as local or regional development trends, track records/past production trends for similar sites, and current or planned availability of infrastructure. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 19- 22)
Non-Vacant Sites. There are special considerations and analysis required to include non-vacant sites in the Sites Inventory. A non-vacant site is a site with any sort of existing use, including sites with structures, improvements, or income production. If the inventory identifies non-vacant sites to address a portion of the RHNA, the Housing Element must describe the realistic development potential of each site within the planning period (2023- 2031). The analysis must consider the extent that the non-vacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development, the jurisdiction’s past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing development on 17 the non-vacant sites. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 24)
If a jurisdiction relies on non-vacant sites for more than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA, the non-vacant site’s use is presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period. Due to the extreme scarcity of vacant land in Foster City, this provision will apply.
Examples of substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period include, but are not limited to:
The lease for the existing use expires early within the planning period; The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses; There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period;
The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period; or
The property owner provides a letter stating its intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 27)
Pipeline Projects
Units permitted or under construction but not yet completed as of June 30, 2022 will count toward the 2023-2031 RHNA. (See Attachment 7, “Pending, Approved and Under Construction Housing Projects”) The only residential units permitted or under construction at this time are in the Pilgrim Triton Phase C (Laguna Vista) development. The developer’s current construction timeline projects that all of the 22 Workforce Apartments and 41 of the 70 townhouses will be completed by June 30, 2022, leaving 29 townhouse units to count toward the 2023-2031 RHNA, all of which are above-moderate income. The final number will be confirmed as of June 30, 2022.
Question for Council and Commission: Should the 29 townhouse units in Laguna Vista be included as a Pipeline Project?
18 Pending Projects
Pending projects are generally those that have submitted an application but have not yet been approved. Jurisdictions may choose to credit sites with “pending projects” based on affordability and unit count as proposed but must demonstrate the units can be built within the remaining planning period.
Affordability must be based on the projected sales prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability. (See Attachment 7, “Pending, Approved and Under Construction Housing Projects”)
There are two pending project applications that the City could choose to include in this category:
1601 Beach Park Blvd. Townhomes: preliminary application submitted in 2019 for 32 townhouses at 1601 Beach Park Blvd. This development project would require a General Plan Amendment from Public/Semi- Public to Residential and a rezoning from PF, Public Facilities, to a residential zoning district.
Lantern Cove Redevelopment: preliminary application submitted in 2020 for 356 additional units.
Alternatively, the above two projects could be included instead as non-vacant residentially zoned sites as further discussed below.
Question for Council and Commission: Should the two projects - Sea Island Townhomes and Lantern Cove be included in the Draft Sites Inventory as Pending Projects for further analysis?
ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs)
ADUs and JADUs can be projected based on the recent trends of ADU development. Affordability can be determined based on surveys of existing ADUs or an analysis of market trends. The HCD Site Guidebook recommends using trends since January 2018 as well as trends and programs that promote ADU and JADU construction. Affordability can be estimated based on trends and/or surveys. (HCD Site Guidebook, p. 30-31).The number of ADUs permitted in recent years is shown in Table 5.
19 With a strong incentive program for ADUs, the City could support a projection for more than three ADUs per year. ABAG has done surveys of existing ADUs and prepared an analysis of the rent levels that can be applied to projections of ADUs. This information is presented in Attachment 8, “Draft Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units.” The report is currently under review by HCD. The report recommends affordability assumptions as shown in Table 6.
Questions for Council and Commission: Q.1. Based on these trends and new regulations that facilitate ADUs, should the City consider additional programs in the Housing Element to promote/incentivize ADUs?
Q.2. Does the Council and Commission agree with the projection of three (3) ADUs per year for a total of 24 ADUs over the eight-year period as shown in Table 6?
The HCD Sites Guidebook also recommends that the Housing Element should include a monitoring program that: a) tracks ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and b) commits to a review at the planning cycle mid- point to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved. Depending on the finding of that review, amendments to the Housing Element may be necessary.
SB 9 Units
There is no guidance in the HCD Site Guidebook for estimating production of units pursuant to SB 9. Given the average lot sizes in Foster City, it is unlikely SB 9 projects would yield significant numbers of new units.
Question for Council and Commission: Should SB 9 projected units be included in the Draft Sites Inventory?
20 Sites From the Previous (5th) Cycle Housing Element
Sites that were used in the previous Housing Element can be reused if certain requirements are met:
A program is included requiring rezoning to allow residential use “by right” at specified densities for projects that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower income households – OR –
If a site is rezoned to a higher density, it can be considered a “new” site (only if it was not utilized to accommodate a shortfall of sites to accommodate the previous RHNA).
Sites that were used in the previous Housing Element cycle but not yet redeveloped are shown in Table 7. The location of these sites is shown on the City’s Housing and Public Safety Update Map.
Per the requirements for reusing sites, these sites would need to be either: 1) rezoned to allow residential use “by right” at specified densities that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower income, or 2) to rezone them to a higher density.
As identified in Table 7, three (3) of the sites are zoned R-3, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence or R-3/PD, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence/Planned Development and two (2) of the sites are zoned R-4/PD, 21 High Density Multiple-Family Residence. The R-3 zoning allows a maximum density of 19.89 units per acre. Following the addition of minimum densities into the General Plan providing a range of 20-35 units per acre for the Apartment Residential designation, the R-3 zoning became technically inconsistent with the General Plan because it allows only 19.89 units per acre instead of 20 units per acre. Staff had previously sought HCD guidance on whether 19.89 units per acre could be rounded to be considered 20 units per acre and HCD’s response was it could not.
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) provides that when zoning is not consistent with the General Plan, the developer is entitled to comply with the General Plan and the jurisdiction may not require a rezoning.
The HAA Technical Assistance Advisory prepared by HCD states on pages 10-11:
“For various reasons, there is at times inconsistency between standards in a general plan and zoning standards. For example, a local government may have amended the general plan, but has not yet amended all of its municipal ordinances to assure vertical consistency. Recognizing this, the HAA clarifies that if the zoning standards and criteria are inconsistent with applicable, objective general plan standards, but the development project is consistent with the applicable objective general plan standards for the site, then the housing development project cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning. Further, if such an inconsistency exists, the local agency may not require rezoning prior to housing development project approval.”
Pursuant to the HAA, sites zoned R-3 are entitled to use the General Plan density of 35 units/acre because the R-3 allowed density of 19.89 is less than the minimum density of 20 units per acre included in the General Plan for Apartment Residential.
The City could consider zoning amendments to address this to by:
amending the R-3 zoning designation to increase the allowed density to at least 20 units per acre, and/or
rezone the sites to be reused to R-4
Amending the R-3 zoning to be consistent with the General Plan minimum density is needed so that the City has the ability to designate some properties 22 for lower allowed density than the R-4 District. Rezoning the R-3 sites in the Sites Inventory to R-4 would have the added advantage of meeting the default density requirements and eliminate the need for a detailed analysis of the ability of the sites to provide lower income units. These sites have been previously analyzed in the 2015-2021 Housing Element and deemed to be suitable for additional units due to their size, location, and surroundings.
Questions for Council and Commission:
Q.1. Should some or all of the previous Housing Element sites be included in the draft Sites Inventory for further analysis? Q.2. Should an implementation program be included in the draft Housing Element to amend the R-3 zoning to allow a minimum of 20 or 25 units per acre?
Q.3. Should an implementation program be included in the draft Housing Element to rezone the three (3) previous Housing Element sites that are zoned R-3 to R-4?
Non-vacant residentially zoned sites
In addition to the previous Housing Element sites, the City can also choose to include other non-vacant residentially zoned sites. Given the difficulties of aggregating and redeveloping ownership units, this leaves other apartment developments as the most likely candidates in this category. The list of apartment developments in Table 8 includes all apartment developments in the City except:
Sites discussed above as “previously used sites” from the previous Housing Element: Harbor Cove, Beach Cove, Franciscan, Sand Cove, The Lagoons, Shadow Cove
Sites discussed above as Pending Projects: 1601 Beach Park Blvd.
Townhomes and Lantern Cove
Site already developed with 100% affordable housing: Alma Point and Metro Senior Apartments
Sites developed after 2000 are likely too new to be making significant investments in redevelopment: 100 Grand, Marlin Cove, Miramar, Triton, Plaza.
Apartment sites less than two acres in size are less likely to be able to redevelop without adverse impacts to the adjacent neighbors: Beach Park, Beachwalk, Kula Kai, Sandcastle, Sandpiper
23 The location of these sites is shown on the City’s Housing and Public Safety Update Map.
Equity Residential, the property owner of Schooner Bay and Lantern Cove Apartments, has discussed potential redevelopment of both of their properties and has submitted a preliminary application for redevelopment of a portion of the Lantern Cove site. This is an indication that redevelopment of existing apartment properties is potentially economically feasible.
Question for Council and Commission: Should some or all of the apartment sites listed in Table 8 above be included in the Draft Site Inventory for further analysis?
Non-vacant non-residentially zoned sites
Based on the requirements for inclusion of non-vacant sites in the Sites Inventory, the following are examples of potential types of non-vacant sites that could be included (religious facilities are discussed separately below):
Shopping centers
Commercial buildings
Office buildings
24 Research and Industrial/Light Industrial buildings (most of which are north of SR 92)
Staff has participated in several meetings with HCD regarding their criteria for review of site inventories. Developer interest in redeveloping a site is a good indicator of potential, especially if economic feasibility information can be disclosed. With respect to retail sites, HCD cautions that long term leases and/or major tenants that are national chains can preclude redevelopment of retail sites. Conversion of office development to housing is happening in some parts of the Bay Area.
The owner of 5A Rent-a-Space has contacted staff to discuss potential redevelopment of the property at 1221 E. Hillsdale Blvd. This site was included in the 2001 Housing Element as a potential housing site for 138-179 units at 27-35 units per acre). In the past, staff has also received inquiries from prospective developers regarding potential residential use at the OSH site.
Questions for Council and Commission: Based on the information available to date, which of the following sites as shown in Table 9 below be included or excluded in the Draft Sites Inventory for additional analysis? Please indicate whether these should be analyzed as mixed use sites or solely residential sites.
25 The location of these sites is shown on the City’s Housing and Public Safety Update Map.
Religious Facilities
In 2020, the State adopted AB 1851 that makes it easier for faith-based organizations to build housing on their properties with reduced parking. There are some faith-based organizations in Foster City with parking lots that could potentially provide housing sites, but the sites are relatively small. Analysis to determine feasibility is likely to require a substantial amount of time for a small number of units.
26 Question for Council and Commission: Should any faith-based sites be included in the Draft Sites Inventory or should they be considered only if the faith-based organization proposes redevelopment?
Vacant sites
As discussed above, HCD’s definition of a vacant site is one with no improvements or economic use. The list of vacant sites in Foster City is very short, including:
Marina site: not zoned for housing, in a Special Flood Hazard Area outside the levee, with significant environmental/sensitive habitat issues.
Edgewater Blvd. right-of-way extension through Schooner Bay: this right-of-way was originally intended to connect Edgewater Blvd. to Island Drive in Redwood Shores. That potential connection has since been removed from the General Plan. It is currently landscaped with turf and a pedestrian path. The site is approximately 1.3 acres in size.
Estimated capacity is 46 units.
Fire Station #2 site on Hawksbury Lane between Edgewater Blvd. and Thatcher Ln.: currently landscaped with turf, trees and shrubs. The site is 7,546 square feet. This site has been designated for potential use as a future fire station.
Question for Council and Commission: Which of the above identified sites (if any) should be included in the Draft Site Inventory for further analysis?
Draft Sites Inventory List
As discussed above, the Draft Sites Inventory list would provide direction to staff to do additional analysis of the sites, consistent with the HCD guidance, for further review by the public, Planning Commission and City Council before the Draft Housing Element is submitted to HCD for review. Staff will consider all the community feedback that has been received from the Community Workshops, online survey, online mapping feedback, and other public comments to be posted on the Housing Element Update webpage and provided at the April Joint Study Session (to be scheduled).
Based on the discussion above, the sites discussed for inclusion in the Draft Sites Inventory List are contained in Table 10. A more detailed spreadsheet of the sites is available on the City’s new website: engagefostercity.org/housing- 27 element . The location of these sites is shown on the City’s Housing and Public Safety Update Map.
Question for Council and Commission: Which of the sites identified in Table 10 should be included in the Draft Sites Inventory for further analysis? Should any other sites be included or excluded from this list?
Note that the “Estimated Additional Site Capacity” is a very rough estimate based on acreage and rough density assumptions and is subject to change resulting from the more detailed analysis required by the HCD Sites Guidebook.
Table 10:Potential Sites for Inclusion in the Draft Sites Inventory Draft Policies and Programs Staff has been working with 21 Elements to 28 develop a list of potential new policies/programs for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Most of the existing policies and programs in the current Housing Element would be continued, except for programs that have been completed. Staff is seeking Council/Commission feedback on the policies/programs identified below, specifically whether to provide additional analysis of them in the Public Review Draft. Additional policies and programs may also develop from the other work still in progress on constraints and AFFH. Staff notes that HCD’s guidance requires specific targets and metrics for each program. Suggested Policy/Program options for consideration are contained in Table 11.
29 30
31 FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
The Housing Element Update supports the City Council’s Value/Priority Area under “Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy” which is to protect, maintain, and enhance our community character through thoughtful planning as well as “City Council Operations and Improved Community Engagement” where the City Council operates at the highest level of civil 32 discourse, encouraging resident encouragement and full transparency. The Community Engagement portion of the Housing Element Update is part of the City’s ongoing commitment to its Vision to “Create a sustainable Foster City through smart, inclusive, and efficient actions to enhance our quality of place for current and future generations” and to its Mission to use “community engagement and data to make decisions and measure progress based on economic, social and environmental factors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element -Technical Memo, prepared by Goldfarb and Lipman, LLC, 2/14/2022
Attachment 2 - New State Housing Unit Set to Enforce Local Housing Mandates, ABAG, October 2021
Attachment 3 - Compiled Notes from Two Community Workshops Attachment 4 - Letter from Loma Prieta Sierra Club, dated November 19, 2021
Attachment 5 - Public Comments received as of February 24, 2022 Attachment 6 - Housing Site Inventories: Why Buffers and Excess Capacity Matter, ABAG, October 2021
Attachment 7 - Pending, Approved and Under Construction Housing Projects, 21 Elements, 2/14/22
Attachment 8 - DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units, ABAG, 9/8/2021
Linked documents:
Housing Element Fact Sheet
RHNA/Plan Bay Area Webpage
Final RHNA Allocation Report on December 16, 2021
HCD approval letter to ABAG dated 1/12/22
AB 215
AB 1398
Housing Element Compliance Report
Housing Element Review Letters
Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook-Government Code Section 65583.2, HCD, June 20, 2020
33 Housing Element Update website
Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update map No Net Loss Law – Government Code Section 65863, HCD, October 2, 2019
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory, HCD, September 15, 2020
Past Meeting Materials:
October 7, 2019 City Council Meeting (RHNA and subregion) September 21, 2020 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Special Meeting
March 24, 2021 City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting
April 13, 2021 Countywide Community Meeting Summary
April 14, 2021 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Special Meeting
April 22, 2021 Countywide Community Meeting
June 7, 2021 City Council Meeting (RHNA appeal)
July 15, 2021 Planning Commission Study Session (Needs and policies)
September 27, 2021 21 Elements Countywide Listening Session #1 (Fair Housing)
Compiled Feedback for September 28 and 30, 2021 Community Workshops (virtual and in person)
October-December 2021 21 Elements 4-part Let’s Talk Housing Webinar Summary
October 18, 2021 21 Elements Countywide Listening Session #2 (Housing Advocates) Summary
November 1, 2021 21 Elements Countywide Listening Session #3 (Builders/Developers) Summary
November 1, 2021 City Council Meeting – Report on Community Workshops
December 13, 2021 City Council (RFP for EIR)
February 7, 2022 City Council Meeting (Award EIR contract) February 17, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting (EIR Scoping) 34 Consequences of Late Adoption of the Housing Element Technical Memo
Prepared by Goldfarb and Lipman, LLC
2/14/2022
AB 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2020) amended the provisions of state housing element law related to consequences of adopting a housing element after the due date – January 31, 2023 in the nine counties that are members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). To understand the new rules, it may be helpful to compare them with those adopted in the last housing element cycle, the fifth cycle, with housing elements due in January 2015.
Fifth Cycle Rules. In the fifth cycle, if compliant housing elements were not adopted by 120 days after the due date, the city or county was then required to prepare a new housing element every four years, rather than every eight years. Those communities that adopted housing elements more than 120 days after the due date were required to adopt a mid-cycle housing element in 2019.
Cities and counties tended to view the 120-day period as a “safe harbor” that allowed housing elements to be adopted within that period without consequences.
New Sixth Cycle Rules. AB 1398 has eliminated any requirement for a four-year housing element once the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found a community’s sixth cycle housing element in conformance with state law. (Government Code § 65588(e)(4)(A).) Instead, there are two formal consequences for failing to adopt and receive HCD certification of a housing element within 120 days of the deadline:
• If the housing element is not adopted and found by HCD to be in conformance with state law within 120 days of the due date, then all rezoning required to provide adequate sites must be accomplished within one year of the du e date (by January 31, 2024 for Bay Area jurisdictions), rather than within three years plus 120 days of the due date. (§ 65588(e)(4)(C)(i).)
Because HCD has 60 days to review an adopted housing element (§ 65585(h)), any community desiring to have three years to adopt the necessary zoning must adopt a compliant housing element within 60 days of the due date, or by April 1, 2023
• If a housing element is adopted more than one year from the due date, HCD will not find it in compliance with state law until all necessary rezoning is adopted. (§ 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).)
HCD has also adopted a policy relating to completing rezoning by the due date for the housing element:
• If zoning required to provide adequate sites for lower income housing is adopted after the housing element due date of January 31, 2023, it must provide for “by right” approval.
35 “By right” approval means that a housing project that does not require a subdivision (a rental project) and that contains 20 percent lower income housing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No discretionary approvals can be required except design review based on objective standards. (§ 65583.2(i)).
Other Potential Consequences. Once the due date passes without adoption of a housing element, the content of the housing element may no longer comply with state law. At that point, a community could conceivably be sued for lack of compliance with state law. However, in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, the due date for Housing Elements, October 15, 2021, has passed, and most jurisdictions are still working with HCD to receive certification. As of February 1, 2022, we are not aware of any litigation filed challenging a late housing element.
Consequences of Late Adoption or Not Completing Rezoning
Decertification of the Housing Element and Action by 1the Attorney General. HCD may review any failure to act by a city or county, including any failure to adopt promised rezonings, and send the jurisdiction a Notice of Violation with up to 30 days to respond. If the city or county does not respond satisfactorily, HCD may revoke its findings that the Housing Element conforms with state law and may then notify the Attorney General that the locality is out of compliance with state law. The Attorney General may then elect to file suit challenging the Housing Element. (§ 65585(i)-(k).)
Limitations on Denial of Certain Housing Projects. The Housing Accountability Act requires that certain findings be made to deny a project with 20 percent lower-income units. Although such a project can usually be denied if it is inconsistent with both the land use element and zoning ordinance, it cannot be denied for those reasons if the Housing Element is inconsistent with state law or if the project is proposed on a site shown to be suitable for affordable housing in the Housing Element and consistent with the density in the Housing Element, even if the rezoning has not yet been completed. (§ 65589.5(d)(5).)
Similarly, if rezoning has not been completed on time, a project containing 49 percent affordable units that is proposed on a site proposed to be rezoned must be reviewed “by right” and approved unless the community can find that the project would result in a “specific adverse impact” that cannot be mitigated. (§ 65583(g).)
It is also important to remember that if the General Plan and zoning are inconsistent, the Housing Accountability Act requires cities to follow the General Plan (§ 65589.5(j)(4).) Consequently, once a housing element has been adopted specifying the allowed density of a site, in some cases a housing project consistent with that density may be able to proceed without a rezoning.
1 While this memo is primarily concerned with consequences of not adopting a Housing Element or rezoning on time on time, HCD has the right to revoke Housing Element certification for other reasons as well, including failure to complete policies or programs.
36 Appendix - Funding Tied to Housing Elements
Funding programs that require a local jurisdiction’s housing element compliance include:
• Community Development Block Grant Program
• Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
• Local Housing Trust Fund Program
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program • Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program
• Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant Program
State funding programs that incentivize greater coordination with housing planning, include:
• Local Partnership Program : Projects are evaluated on how they advance housing element goals.
• Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program : Projects must document how transit ridership growth is supported by housing policies including evidence of compliance with state- required housing plans.
• Active Transportation Program : Infrastructure projects must address their potential to support existing and planned housing, and planning projects must be consistent with local housing policies.
• Solutions for Congested Corridors Program : Projects must address how they support infill development, which may include identifying housing element policies that streamline multifamily housing development.
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Applications receive points for housing element compliance.
37 October 2021
New State Housing Unit
Set to Enforce Local
Housing Mandates
“ A housing element is no longer a paper
exercise – it’s a contract with the state of
housing commitments for eight years, and
the Housing Accountability Unit will hold
jurisdictions to those commitments,” said
Megan Kirkeby, deputy director for
housing policy, California Housing and
Community Development department in
an October 2021 press release.
Local governments have much to lose if they fail to bring their housing elements into compliance with state requirements.
With a staff of 25 in its new Housing Accountability Unit, California’s Housing and Community Development (HCD)
department is resourced and ready to enforce state mandates on local housing plans and policies. In April 2021 guidance to cities and counties, HCD stated that it is authorized to “review any action or failure to act by a local government (that it finds) inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions to not comply with state law.” Noncompliant housing elements could also impact local general plans, as they are a required part of these foundational blueprints for land use planning.
Localities that fail to comply are subject to a range of penalties, including:
Legal Suits and Attorney Fees: Local governments
with noncompliant housing elements are vulnerable to
litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, and HCD. If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees
paid to its own attorneys.
Potential consequences of
lawsuits include: mandatory
compliance within 120 days, suspension of local control on building matters, and court approval of housing developments.
Loss of Permitting Authority: Courts have
authority to oversee local government residential and
nonresidential permit processes to bring the jurisdiction’s General Plan and housing element into substantial compliance with state law. The court may suspend the locality’s authority to issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals – giving local governments a strong incentive to bring their housing element into compliance.
Financial Penalties: Local governments are subject
to court-issued judgments directing jurisdictions to bring a housing element into substantial compliance with state housing element law. If a jurisdiction’s housing element continues to be found out of compliance, courts can fine jurisdictions up to $100,000 per month, and if they are not paid, multiply that by a factor of six.
Court Receivership: Courts may appoint an agent with
all powers necessary to remedy identified housing element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance with housing element law.
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process:
Proposed developments in localities that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their allocation of the regional housing need are now subject to less rigorous “ministerial” approvals in order to hasten the production of housing and bring a jurisdiction into compliance with its state-determined housing need allocation.
OVER ▼
38 Housing Laws in the News
Following are links to a sampling of recent
news coverage documenting the risks and
challenges faced by cities and counties in the
new housing arena:
State can sue:
• In the face of unprecedented housing crisis, California takes action to hold cities accountable for standing in the way of housing https:/ /www.gov.ca.gov/2019/01/25/
housing-accountability/
• Huntington Beach loses housing case with state of
California https:/ /web.archive.org/web/20210203030515/ https:/www.latimes.com/ socal/daily-pilot/news/
story/2021-02-02/huntington-beach-loses-housing-case-
with-state-of-california
• State may revoke Encinitas’s compliance status
with California housing law https:/ /www.
sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/
encinitas/ story/2020-02-14/ state-revokes-encinitass-
compliance-status-with-california-housing-law
• Under pressure from state, Simi reverses opposition
to proposed 278-unit apartment complex https:/ /www.
vcstar.com/ story/news/local/communities/ simi-
valley/2020/02/08/ apartments-low-income-housing-
simi-valley-california/ 4679587002/
Developers can sue:
• Holland & Knight First in California to Win Lawsuit
Under New State Housing Law https:/ /www.hklaw.com/
en/news/pressreleases/2020/05/holland-knight-first-in-
california-to-win-lawsuit-new-housing-law
• Developer Sues Millbrae Over Proposed Housing at
Historic El Rancho Inn https:/ / sanfrancisco.cbslocal. com/2021/06/03/developer-sues-millbrae-over-
proposed-housing-at-historic-el-rancho-inn/
Third parties can sue:
• Controversial V allco project can continue under SB 35, judge rules https:/ / sanjosespotlight.com/controversial- vallco-project-can-continue-under-sb-35-judge-rules/
• City of Coronado sued over failing to comply with state law allowing expedited approval for accessory dwelling
units https:/ /www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/
story/2021-01-21/coronado-sued-over-allegedly-denying-
granny-flats
• Los Altos drops appeal to court-approved housing
development https:/ /www.mv-voice.com/
news/2020/09/08/los-altos-drops-appeal-to-block-five-
story-downtown-housing-project
• City takes step that could expand housing on the W estside https:/ /www.sfpublicpress.org/city-takes-step-that-
could-expand-housing-on-the-westside/
• Court upholds state’s authority to intervene in San
Mateo housing development https:/ /web.archive.org/
web/20210914225205/https:/www.mercurynews.
com/2021/09/14/this-san-mateo-legal-ruling-has-big-
implications-for-the-state-housing-crisis/
Individuals can sue:
• Clovis loses legal challenge, will be forced to zone and plan for low-income housing https:/ /www.fresnobee.com/ news/local/ article251227789.html
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Grants
• SB 1 Planning Grants
• CalHOME Program Grants
• Infill Infrastructure Grants
• Pro-Housing Design funding
• Local Housing Trust Funds
• Regional Transportation Funds
(such as MTC’s OneBayArea Grants)
Conversely, an HCD-certified housing element brings with it eligibility for numerous state and regional funding sources, including:
mtc graphics.pb – 10.20.21
39 COMPILED NOTES FROM THE TWO (2) COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
1. What are most important aspects Foster City should consider in planning for state-mandated approximately 1,896 homes?
Zoom Community Workshop on September 28,
2021
In-person Community Workshop on September
30, 2021
#1 Leslie’s Breakout Room #1 Leslie’s Table
• We’re going to have to give something up to
build these units. So, it poses the question,
what are we willing to give up?
• Something important to consider where we
allocate housing: what are we doing to not
give up our green space? Green space is
important given the importance of climate
change.
• If we lose green space: we might lose
opportunities that green spaces provide. Such
as opportunities for children at parks.
• Building near the coast, near the levee, is an
important thing to consider, especially if
people build on the golf course. We may run
into issues where you can only build so high.
• Protected wetlands are also important to
consider.
• Building near coast can interfere with the
existing wind conditions.
• Important to consider fulfilling the water
needs of new developments. How do we
supply water for those types of residences?
• Foster City has a limited amount of space. We
don’t have as much buildable land compared
to the neighboring cities.
• Traffic access to the city is also important to
consider. 2 ways to get in and out of the city.
May not be enough.
• Providing more traffic access to the city is
important to consider if more houses are
built.
• It is important to maintain the culture of
foster city. We value the green space and
existing amenities. It is important to maintain
the family culture.
• We are a suburb. We should maintain a
suburban culture. We shouldn’t force suburbs
to become large cities.
• It is important to maintain walkability
• Important to optimize the diversity of people
that can stay in the city.
• Foster City is getting away from its original
culture.
• “We have a lot of young complainers”
• Sacramento is imposing its standards on
Foster City.
• It is important to be specific when using
terms like character.
• Infrastructure cannot support the increase of
population in Foster City.
• We are an island. We have limited space.
• Foster City is built out.
• If we have to add housing do we go out or do
we up?
o Go out build on the edge, we lose
green space, the community doesn’t
want that.
• People move here because they want a
suburban family friendly walkable city.
• As we add more homes, what do we need to
do to add infrastructure.
• People moved here because they wanted
more space per person.
• Things can change: we rehabilitate existing
land. We can change without changing the
core value of what foster city is.
• Is there any way we can use existing houses,
renting out empty rooms, can we use those
spare rooms to contribute to the RHNA units?
40 • We need to ensure that houses/units that are
built actually go to sensitive target groups.
Not just investors, where investors buy
houses and keep them empty.
#2 Marlene’s Breakout Room #2 Marlene’s Table
• Greater infrastructure – transportation,
schools, utilities
o There is a lot of talk about the
housing itself but we need other
supporting facilities within the city;
especially because of our city’s
geography
• Quality of life
o We have such beautiful parks and
recreation areas and would hate to
see those taken for housing
• Transport/Access in the city
o We are land-locked with the bay on 3
sides of us so we only have 1-2 ways
in/out of the city making
transportation in emergencies
challenging
o Increase in traffic, no real transport
accessible to people commuting into
the city for jobs, entrance and exit
into the city is a problem
o Public transport is a mess; Housing
needs to go hand in hand with policy
on public transport to bring people
into the city; getting people from
where they live to where they work
• Loss of jobs
o Adding units may take away jobs
located in the city, which alters our
tax base
• Affordability / access for workers in the city
o Rents have come down in the city as a
result of the pandemic; able to be
closer to worksite in Foster City and
reduce cars on the road commuting;
affordable housing in the city has
benefitted her family
• Infrastructure: schools, traffic, safety, roads
• Sustainability: water
• Character: master planned community, on an
island, “quality of life,” “lifestyle”
• Housing affordability and meeting
inclusionary development requirements
• Striking balance between affordable units and
market-rate units, and using creative
financing strategies to make affordable
housing development pencil out for
developers
• What are the incentives for meeting the
RHNA goals? Why isn’t state doing more to
work with developers to help cities meet
their goals?
• Maintaining the progress that FC has seen
over the past 50 years, and continuing to
show leadership on housing growth that has
been demonstrated
• Difficulties of meeting state mandate with
limited local funding following dissolution of
redevelopment agencies
• Keep up fight against the state
• Opportunities to convert commercial
buildings to housing
• Want “smart growth”
• Slow down and wait to see impacts of
ongoing development before planning more?
Did it accomplish intended goals?
41 o We should not be scared of density
because we can solve the issue of the
amount of housing if we do it
properly; opportunity to keep our
amenities in the city; should have
policies to consolidate buildings;
possibility of policy making with the
state
# 3 Monica’s Breakout Room # 3 Monica’s Table
• Questions: location of new homes and how
will you deal with traffic, recreational areas,
library, public services?
• Choosing housing near to transit and placing
new housing in that area
• Plan for inclusive housing: deeply affordable
housing (people with disabilities relying on
Social Security Income)
• Wider range of affordable housing
(deeply affordable housing for vulnerable
groups and folks with disabilities)
• Traffic, sharing recreational areas, library,
public services (sharing these)
• Think about future of transit/housing
demand (i.e., how will transit needs shift)
• Constraints
o Preserve parks
o “Quiet, peaceful, enjoyment” -->
relation to original city plan’s
projected density
▪ How does current population
density relate to existing city
plan
o Water, parks, and sewage facilities
o Evacuation routes
o Traffic +2
▪ Improved transit capacity to
match new housing (diverse
mobility options)
▪ Decouple from automobile
use
▪ Increased traffic over the
bridge
o Land prices + developments cost
o Foster City already oversaturated
with housing
• Affordability
o Price points are inaccessible
(particularly for purchase)
o 20% affordable allocation does not
seem like enough
o Very Low Income to Moderate renters
can’t afford current market rents (+1)
o Hotel project should be residential
instead (+4)
#4 Carla’s Breakout Room #4 Carla’s Table
• Sustainability
• Accessibility
• Walkability
• Reliable and fast buses, safer
• Safety
o Emergency services
42 • Traffic
o Increased traffic around the parks
and golf courses, losing important
open space and recreation
o Few routes to enter and exit foster
city, traffic is so bad so increasing the
number of residents will only
exacerbate the issue
• Vacant businesses and apartments
o Building more housing could be
underutilized
• Safety and Education
o Want to maintain the essence of
community with children and family
• Mixed use housing
o Want for new and current residents
to have places to recreate close by
and provide services for ALL residents
• Design
o Want to maintain high quality of
design that exists in Foster City
o Levee breach, evacuation routes,
congestion in traffic for evacuation
routes
• Traffic
o Transportation issues AND
evacuation routes
o Freeway exits vs. local traffic
circulation
• Transit- affordable transportation
• Infrastructure- sewers, water
o No more luxury units- affordable not
even necessarily low income
o seniors and those with fixed income
• Density to support mass transportation
#5 Sofia’s Breakout Room
• High density housing with good access to
either freeway or public transit +1
• San Mateo Transit – more transit service
needed +1
• Not good job with Low Income/Very Low
Income housing. Are developers going to be
invested/interested in building that
allocation? +1
• Concern about why the City is in a reactive
mode (vs. front-end decision-making)
• Who do we want community to be
welcoming in 5-10 years? (targeting existing
residents, people who grew up here and
would like to move back or stay, incoming
residents)
• Drop-off for longtime residents and/or
people who grew up here
• Redevelopment at Lantern Cove – Edgewater
and Port Royal = nightmare coming and
going, disobeying stop signs/rolling stops
43 • Can targets be enforced? How/should the
city make these distinctions? (e.g., what does
housing for “young people” look like?)
#6 Daisy’s Breakout Room
• Infrastructure: Water, sewer, schools and
traffic.
• Geographic limitations: The city is 4 sq. mi,
surrounded by the Bay with a unique
character and limited room for growth
beyond into open spaces/parks.
• Costs: Some residents hoped that the costs
brought by additional development could be
offset by employers to achieve more
equitable cost sharing. They suggested
additional development fees could be a way
to address infrastructure issues. But it was
also noted that there is a need to balance
those costs to businesses in the effort to
remain competitive in the local economy.
#7 Brandi’s Breakout Room
• Traffic infrastructure
• Impacts to water access
o Not enough water for more housing
demand, as well as, police, fire dept
needs for increase in people. Also
potential sewage issues, like San
Mateo is facing
• Space availability
• Options for current spaces to add multi-units
in a current lot
o How would it impact neighborhood or
private residences? No more space in
Foster City.
• State does not make distinction between a
house and a unit and how many people per
unit
o Potentially 4 people in a unit and now
4 cars…more need for parking
• Affordability
• Schools
o Families moving in with students do
we have enough classrooms
44 2. When you think of the needs for improvement in the existing housing stock in Foster City, what comes to mind?
Zoom Community Workshop on September 28,
2021
In-person Community Workshop on September
30, 2021
#1 Leslie’s Breakout Room #1 Leslie’s Table
• We need to consider who we’re building the
housing for? What price points will be built?
It appears moderate and lower moderate-
income housing is needed.
• What are we willing to give up to make up for
lack of housing for specific housing
demographics?
• It is going to be difficult to address low and
extremely low when the market is growing
exponentially. Affordable housing needs to
be subsidized. The state has not helped us
with this topic. Who’s going to pay for the
kids to go to school? Who’s going to pay for
the infrastructure of the city? There’s a
myriad of questions that haven’t been
answered by the state in terms of how they
will fund these improvements.
• Building affordable housing will be expensive.
The state is pushing us too hard.
• No comments
#2 Marlene’s Breakout Room #2 Marlene’s Table
• Aesthetically pleasing
o Disappointed with aesthetics of
housing near El Camino, looks like
prisons; would like to see more
creativity in how the buildings/homes
look
• Sustainability
• Don’t want to stop building, but want growth
in a fashion that respects local character
# 3 Monica’s Breakout Room #3 Monica’s Table
• Looking towards cities like Palo Alto (bonuses
for affordable housing)
• Rezone commercial areas to mixed use
• Designed to fit as many people as possible—
looks tacky.
• Other notes:
o More of townhouse style, more
variety
o Question: are there limitations on
how buildings can be because
thinking about new building feels
• No comments
45 kind of limited. In order to get new
units can go higher
o Is there a height limit for residential
buildings? (Question)
Question: Is establishing the affordable housing
overlay zone part of this process?
#4 Carla’s Breakout Room #4 Carla’s Table
• Challenging to construct or develop.
o Can the city be more flexible in
building requirements?
• Not much land left to build on.
• Less high density
o Restrict heights in more residential
areas.
• Changes character of the city
• Earthquake or natural disaster
Not many ways to get out of FC during a
disaster. Limited exits out of city. Is there a
disaster plan?
• Affordable housing
o Lower income AND affordable units
• Senior Housing
• Vacancy rates- residents would like to know,
not a fair arrangement of affordable, vacancy
taxes
• Also, want to know vacancy rate for office
buildings, should some be rezoned and
converted to housing
• Underutilized commercial and office space
#5 Sofia’s Breakout Room
• Affordability – more low income housing
• Existing neighborhoods need code
enforcement
• New housing along El Camino is not
affordable enough
#6 Daisy’s Breakout Room
• Old apartments that could be redeveloped to
achieve higher density.
• Infrastructure: does it have the capacity to
accommodate additional growth?
• Building housing vertically, rather than
expanding into open space.
• Housing mix: apartments and condos vs.
single-family homes and trying to preserve
the appropriate balance.
#7 Brandi’s Breakout Room
• Develop or add more units to existing
multifamily developments
o Want to avoid limiting amenities;
restaurants, parks, etc.
• Insufficient space for development
o Foster city does not have the
infrastructure to support more
46 development of office and residential
spaces
• Utilize existing low-density retail for mixed
use development
o Mixed use can benefit both residents
and businesses
3. What type of housing would you prefer in FC when planning for state-mandated 1,896 homes?
Zoom Community Workshop on September 28,
2021
In-person Community Workshop on September
30, 2021
#1 Leslie’s Breakout Room #1 Leslie’s Table
• I think we’re limited to high rise structures
because we don’t have space for anything
else.
• How do these ADU’s affect planned unit
developments?
• What is our ratio of rental to ownership: is it
roughly 50/50 or 60/40?
• Renting out existing housing stock, finding a
way to get RHNA credit for “home-shares”
o HIP
• It is important to ensure that if we do that
“home-shares” method, that we get RHNA
credits.
• We need to have a different housing options
depending on life situation. A mix going
forward.
• Investors are purchasing single family units in
multi family units in southern California.
• Only way to hit RHNA goal is high density
housing.
• Developers are going to come in and buy the
single family houses and turn them into multi
family houses.
o We need to preserve the
neighborhoods we have.
• If we have multi unit housing, we need to
ensure that the type of building matches the
neighborhood.
• We need to preserve the neighborhoods we
have.
• Make better use of existing residences and
neighborhoods.
• Has the city contacted large companies to see
if they can help build housing?
47 • Do we really need to pack people in on the
peninsula? Especially given that people are
working from home.
• We need to give essential workers the option
to live here.
• Not everyone agrees with the RHNA
numbers.
• There are foster city residents that disagree
with the Foster City RHNA allocation number
of 1,896.
• Some question the data behind the needs
assessment.
#2 Marlene’s Breakout Room #2 Marlene’s Table
• Townhomes
o Most suitable if trying to keep with
look and character of our community
o Not sure if it is realistic with our
numbers
• Apartments
• Apartments might be a more affordable type
of housing for young professionals
• Occupied owner condominiums
• Better than big developments where housing
is rented out because people are more
invested in taking care of it
• Workforce housing
#3 Monica’s Breakout Room #3 Monica’s Table
• Townhouse style homes, apartments, mixed
use
• Always in favor for more stories, more units,
higher densities make developers more likely
to include affordable
• Conversion of nonresidential uses +2
o Conversion of existing, underutilized
development (e.g. offices like IBM) to
condos
o Parking centers, parking lots
o Would create better jobs/housing
match
• ADUs to supplement RHNA +3
o Not the most effective or guaranteed
to meet RHNA ##s
o Lack of knowledge/education about
ADU feasibility
• Apartment buildings might help get numbers,
but would be scary to see that
o Foster Square (five or six stories might
be nice)
o Using wood/cross-lam/innovative or
green technology
48 • Townhomes/Condos +1
• Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex might be successful
for your needs
• Workforce housing
• Mixed-Use
• Interest in adding height to existing two-
stories/upzoning +2
#4 Carla’s Breakout Room # Carla’s Table
• Mixed Use
• Existing residents are already lacking
amenities, more housing requires more retail;
goods and services
• Workforce, affordable housing
• Higher density housing
• Housing to job ratio
o population per density of
o Concern for schools
• Conversion of commercial space to
multifamily housing, office space -
repurposing
o Height limits
• Density
#5 Sofia’s Breakout Room
• Condos +1
o Good start to build equity
o Increased pride/ownership in
community
o Existing ones are quite old, more
expensive +1 (must be more
affordable)
• Seeing lots of high-rise rentals coming out
• Buildings that aren’t so ugly (not
distinguishable from others in the Bay area)
#6 Daisy’s Breakout Room
• Transit-oriented development
#7 Brandi’s Breakout Room
• Not many buses that leave FC. No transit in
place for FC
o Doesn’t work for FC
o Essential workers concerned about
transit options.
• Would like to see more developed areas. Add
to high-rise buildings.
o Enjoy community spaces, seeing
neighbors.
o Add a bar possibly because city is
sleepy.
• Traffic
49 o With more people working from
home, traffic won’t be as much of a
problem.
4. Where would be most appropriate places to accommodate state- mandated 1,896 homes in Foster City?
Zoom Community Workshop on September 28,
2021
In-person Community Workshop on September
30, 2021
#1 Leslie’s Breakout Room #1 Leslie’s Table
• Certainly not the golf course. Golf course too
far out from the city. 1.1 miles from the main
city area.
• You’re required by California law to not
restrict access to water.
• Building on the golf course will be hard. It’s
very cold. Lots of wind. There’s no wind
shelter.
• With covid19, the bigger push towards a
hybrid workplace, is there anything the city
can do when considering places that are
being built for offices? People aren’t going to
the office as much. Maybe the city can
consider these locations.
• You don’t want to build housing so far out of
the city that they’re not part of the city.
• The amenities in this town need to be built
up. Especially if we’re going to grow the city.
• We don’t have a lot of shopping centers in
the city.
• If you’re going to bring 1800 units to the city,
what does that mean for the schools? We
need to make sure that all these topics are
discussed.
• What is going to happen post covid? We have
learned to use zoom. Are businesses going to
recognize that they don’t have to have their
employees in at the same time? Businesses
don’t have to incur those office expenses.
Given this, is this going to lessen the amount
of space businesses take up? Will this reduce
the amount of office/business space?
• Business properties
• Office parks that are being underutilized.
• Mixed use, shopping at bottom, housing on
top.
• Osh can be a good option for some units.
o This area already has taller buildings.
• We need to look at some of the older housing
buildings, office parks, and consider those as
housing options.
• North of 92 may be an option? Northwest of
92. o This area is not city owned.
• Mixed use near the Safeway could work
• The new buildings need to match the existing
neighborhood character. You can’t have a tall
building put in an area with single story
homes. This is not acceptable.
• It is important to consider parking when
placing new housing.
• Gilead should be responsible for housing
some of its work force.
• Maybe consider probing these large
companies, asking how many more people do
they plan on hiring?
50 • For example: Facebook is going to continue
with the hybrid structure for the indefinite
future.
• It’s important to consider office sites. Turning
office to housing may be an option.
• How do we feel about building more housing
on existing housing sites? This could work.
• When you build up, there is a concern about
displacing people. The displacement is a
concern.
• On the OSH property, that property is owned
by ace. They have no desire to resell that.
#2 Marlene’s Breakout Room #2 Marlene’s Table
• Doing a comprehensive assessment to best
understand what is FC’s growth capacity
• Potentially improving diminishing assets
• Edgewater
• Private property north of 92
• Building up on existing developments
#3 Monica’s Breakout Room #3 Monica’s Table
• Near community amenities like grocery stores
o Access for folks without cars
• Convert parks to housing or public shared
space to other uses?
• Add more parks for the people coming in!
• Other notes:
o Add more housing to existing projects
o Community has changed a lot—not in
a way that is liked
• Intensifying residential uses in existing
neighborhoods (e.g., more
duplexes/triplexes)
• focus on homeless (underutilized places of
faith)
• Mix of opinions (would not be open to
changing zoning)
• Along thoroughfares (with changes to ROW to
accommodate mass transit)
• Closer to freeway (near Costo/OSH)
• Private property along the slough? Seems like
a mixed bag of interest or thoughts…
#4 Carla’s Breakout Room #4 Carla’s Table
• Orchard Supply
o Underutilized
• Strip malls
o Opportunity for mixed use exists at all
current retail locations in Foster City
• Edgewater Shopping Center
o The property owners are responsible
for development on site
• Adding more floors to underutilized
multifamily units
• density from 2 to 4
• Bayside, orchard supply hardware
• Lucky shopping center- mixed use
• Parkside towers
• Visa offices—
• Business licensing
• ADU- some chunk can be met
• SB 9&10, subdividing
51 • NOT green spaces, golf courses or parks
• Gas station as potential site
#5 Sofia’s Breakout Room
• Keep parks +1
o The parks make Foster City special
• Close to freeways and public transit
• Keep golf course +1
o Golf course is well-used recreation for
all (esp. seniors)
• Reevaluate hotel site across from Costco
o May be better for high-density
housing to meet mandate
#6 Daisy’s Breakout Room
No comments
#7 Brandi’s Breakout Room
• A lot of restaurants went away due to
building housing.
• Charter square had restaurants and now a
school
• Homes on pillars for homes on Beach Park
• Looking at adding homes to Lantern Cove and
Schooner Bay
• Impacts traffic. Possibly build a bridge to
Redwood Shores.
5. What concerns do you have about housing in Foster City? Zoom Community Workshop on September 28,
2021
In-person Community Workshop on September
30, 2021
#1 Leslie’s Breakout Room #1 Leslie’s Table
No comments No comments
#2 Marlene’s breakout room #2 Marlene’s table
• Was not clear in marketing material/past
meetings etc. that this is just a “plan”.
• Hotel across from Costco could’ve been
used as more housing.
• Density and the challenges that can
present in emergency response
#3 Monica’s Breakout Room #3 Monica’s Table
• City should be partner in development of
units (e.g., mixed-income housing with City
supplementing finances using any remaining
budget)
o Buy up both market- and affordable
units and subsidize at a profit
• Workforce housing
52 • Liquefaction/soils, piers, concrete for taller
buildings
o May want to set a height cap to
reduce risks
o Cost of increased height is prohibitive
(does not achieve affordability)
#4 Carla’s Breakout Room #4 Carla’s Table
• Message from the participant in the chat
o I have to go, but I support
repurposing vacant office space for
housing and increasing height and
density limits to preserve open space,
using CLT for cheaper midrise
buildings, eliminating parking
requirements or even imposing
maximums to lay the groundwork for
high quality bus/shuttle service or car
share. The world will be different by
2050 so lets be creative
o The community, parks, safety, and
good schools are what the
community members value most.
• Sea level rise
• Public facilities are under utilized, city or
county owned
• wanting to maintain parking requirements
while still increasing transit opportunities
• Stacked parking ? parking garages needed
• Ferry service for mass transit
• Increasing density, pay attention to increasing
public accessibility to water
#5 Sofia’s Breakout Room
• Concerned about high-density housing near
residential (there are some condos/two-
story) – particularly around Lantern Cove
• CC and PC d/n work in best interest of Foster
City +1
o Concern about decisionmakers not
listening to community members
o Concern about vote held on housing
at the golf course
#6 Daisy’s Breakout Room
• Need for additional police and firefighters
• School quality and capacity
• Responsiveness from the state Legislature to
local concerns
#7 Brandi’s Breakout Room
No comments
53 sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 3
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
November 19, 2021
City of Foster City
610 Foster City Blvd
Foster City, CA 94404
Mayor and City Council of Foster City
Via: [email protected]
Planning Commission Chair
Via: [email protected]
Community Development Director, Marlene Subhashini
Via: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
(Please forward the attached Sierra Club letter to the Housing Element Project Manager)
Subject: General Plan Revisions - Housing Element
The Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter advocates on land use issues in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
Currently, all cities in California are required to update their current Housing Element to meet the new 2023 - 2031 RHNA requirements. This is an impactful process, and we offer the following comments and observations for your consideration.
1. Cities are contributing to an imbalance between jobs and housing that is unsustainable.
We recognize the new RHNA goals are much higher than the previous RHNA goals and most cities are struggling to see how to meet these higher goals; however, as this process is unfolding, many cities are also simultaneously approving large office and R&D developments within their jurisdiction which will bring thousands of new jobs into the community without considering the impact of those jobs on the new RHNA goals and the city's existing jobs/housing balance.
2. Jobs/Housing Fit: Cities are not providing for a sustainable "jobs/housing fit" within their city.
An unsustainable jobs/housing fit means that the majority of homes within the city are not affordable to the majority of employees who work in the city, and conversely, the jobs in the city do not pay enough to cover the cost of housing in the city. This causes difficulty in hiring and retaining employees, higher worker costs, more traffic congestion, more air pollution, less time with family, and less time participating in community recreational activities and events.
3. Many cities are not coordinating plans for new commercial development with their Housing Element.
54 sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 2 of 3 Cities are not coordinating the expected number of new jobs with the expected number of new housing units that will be needed to house those new employees and the impact those new jobs will have on city-wide housing prices, housing availability, and income inequality.
4. RHNA numbers are not reflecting the anticipated housing need in relation to the real numbers of jobs that each city is approving.
Despite large increases in the RHNA goals, the disconnect is so vast that, even if the city were to fully meet it's 2023-31 RHNA goals, it could still be far short of a sustainable jobs/housing balance.
5. Probability of development: “p(dev)"
While “Probability of Development” for each lot is a required part of a Housing Element, many cities are not considering and documenting the probability [ "p(dev)”] that those lots can in-fact be developed.
6. Commercial development proposals should be required to specify anticipated number of jobs created.
If commercial developers do not include an estimate of number of jobs expected in their proposed development, the city staff should
a) Use a rule of thumb1 to estimate the number of jobs and the potential impact on the city's overall jobs / housing ratio.
b) Add this to a running total of the cumulative number of jobs and housing in the city, using a consistently updated excel sheet or equivalent data record in order to track the balance. c) Evaluate what impact those jobs will have on the projections in the Housing Element.
7. Sea level rise and wildfires should be a consideration in the Housing Element.
Sea Level Rise and wildfires have increasingly serious financial consequences for taxpayers. The new Housing Element should either not allow or discourage permanent housing in areas highly vulnerable to flooding, potential inundation from ground water rise, and wildfires.
Below we note some ways to maintain a jobs / housing balance. a) Require developers of large commercial projects to actually provide the number of housing units needed either on-site or off-site to balance the jobs generated by their development. b) This can be in partnership with a for-profit or non-profit housing developer or be built by the commercial developer itself.
c) Increase current commercial impact fees as they are not sufficient to meet this need. d) Require the needed housing to be built simultaneous with building the commercial development.
e) Change some commercial zoning to residential zoning or mixed-use/housing.
55 sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 3 of 3 Summary
• The 2023-31 RHNA goals do not reflect the real anticipated housing needs in many cities based on the real numbers of commercial development and jobs that each city has in its pipeline and is expected to approve during the new RHNA time frame.
• The goal of the Housing Element needs to be aligned with the actual number of jobs in the development pipeline, not just the RHNA numbers.
• The Housing Element should, in addition, include a “jobs/housing fit” goal, not just numerical jobs:housing balance.
• If cities approve zoning changes that are not likely to produce any real new development, those revisions should not count toward the new RHNA goals.
We recognize that this Housing Element is particularly challenging and are very appreciative of the effort that the city is putting into it. Therefore, we offer this only in the hope that this information may serve to be useful in your process.
Respectfully Yours,
Gita Dev, FAIA, Co-Chair
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: Chair and Members of the Foster City Planning Commission Mayor and Members of the City Council of Foster City
James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
1 Rule of Thumb: Per our research, a good rule of thumb is a new office building will generate about one job per every 150 square feet of floor space and a new R&D or Biotech campus will generate about one job per 300 to 400 square feet of floor space. These jobs will in turn require a jobs/housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per housing unit or less to maintain a sustainable jobs / housing balance. Note:
Calculating the jobs/housing ratio based only on office and R&D square footage covers the housing needed for those new jobs, but does not factor in the multiplier effect where each new office and R&D worker, creates more jobs for the lower income service workers who support that new employee (e.g., grocery clerk, Amazon driver, restaurant worker, etc.). A method of calculating this multiplier effect should also be built into the Housing Element as each office project approved simultaneously creates demand for additional low income and affordable level housing.
56 1
Leslie Carmichael
From: Leslie Carmichael
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 3:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Marlene Subhashini
Subject: RE: Lantern Cove re-Development – NO!
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Du Mee:
Thank you for your comments regarding potential redevelopment of Lantern Cove. Specifically, you have expressed your opposition to the redevelopment of Lantern Cove and that the City should explore other potential sites for housing.
There will be a Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update including potential housing sites on March 2, 2022 at 6:30 pm. The agenda materials for this will be posted on this page by the end of the week: https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes. We will forward your comments to the Planning Commission and City Council.
The City has also launched a new webpage for the Housing Element Update including the opportunity to provide comments about specific sites on a map: https://engagefostercity.org/housing-element
There has been some information circulating in the community that the redevelopment of Lantern Cove is on the City Council agenda for March 7, 2022. I would like to clarify that the purpose of the March 7 meeting is not to discuss the redevelopment of the Lantern Cove project or any project for that matter. On March 7, the City Council is scheduled to review three items related to inclusionary housing and the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District, including:
1. New Chapter 17.90 containing standards for the City’s long-standing 20% inclusionary housing policy, such as the percentages for different income levels, length of time for affordability restrictions, alternatives to providing on-site below market rate units, etc.;
2. New Chapter 17.92 containing a different set of inclusionary housing percentages available in the AHO, proposed to include lower levels of affordability in exchange for a lower total rate of 15%; and
3. Zoning Map amendment to add the AHO zoning to specific sites.
Additionally, I'd like to clarify that adding Lantern Cove to the list of AHOZ sites does not mean that the City is approving additional density or units. The City has had an inclusionary requirement (provision of affordable/Below Market Rate units) and an AHOZ program in its current Housing Element in place for many years. The AHOZ is implementation of the Housing Element program and a policy-level discussion on the inclusionary requirement percentages if and when property owners decide to redevelop their sites. The AHOZ 57 2
provides an optional set of inclusionary percentages that provide lower levels of affordability in exchange for a lower total inclusionary requirement. If and when the property owner of Lantern Cove decides to move forward with their project, there will be opportunities for community input.
For additional clarity, the chart below demonstrates the allowable number of units at Lantern Cove based on their development rights under the existing General Plan and if it's included in the AHOZ. As seen in the table below, there is no change in the total number of units triggered by the AHOZ. The only difference is the breakdown of affordable units required (City's inclusionary vs. AHOZ). Under current conditions, they already have a development right to increase to 588 units, not taking into account additional densities allowed by State Law as part of Density Bonus Law. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any additional questions.
Existing Conditions
(Total size of the site
- 16.8 acres)
No. of units allowed under
current General Plan (35 units
per acre)
No. of units allowed under
current General Plan and
Proposed Inclusionary
Ordinance
No. of units allowed under current
General Plan and Proposed AHOZ
Combining District
Total number of
units 232 588 (35 units x 16.8 acres) 588 (No change) 588 (No change) % of Below
market rate
units
0 20% of any net new units
Breakdown of affordability
levels:
% of very low, low and
moderate negotiated on a
case-by-case basis
20% of any net new units:
Breakdown of affordability
levels:
10% very low
5% low
5% moderate
15% of any net new units
Breakdown of affordability levels:
4% extremely low
4% very low
7% low
Regards,
Leslie
Leslie Carmichael
URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, INC.
388 17th Street, Suite 230
Oakland, CA 94612
650.468.7890
[email protected]
58 3
From: Charles du Mee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Sanjay Gehani-Councilmember <[email protected]>; Richa Awasthi-Mayor <[email protected]>; Jon Froomin-Vice Mayor <[email protected]>; Sam Hindi-Councilmember <[email protected]>; Patrick Sullivan- Councilmember <[email protected]>; Foster City Public Comment <[email protected]>; Yelena Cappello <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Yelena Cappello <[email protected]>; Priscilla Schaus <[email protected]>; Laurie Rith <[email protected]>; Rob Lasky <[email protected]>; Aaron Siu <[email protected]>; Austin Walsh <[email protected]> Subject: Lantern Cove re-Development – NO!
To the FC Mayor and Council Members,
Regarding the proposal for the re-development of Lantern Cove Apartments.
We have written to you before. We are homeowners next door to the Lantern Cove Apartments. While we understand the need for an increase in affordable housing, Lantern Cove is not the right place for expansion.
New housing should be near to an entrance/exit to Foster City, so the increase in traffic can be absorbed.
Lantern Cove is about as far from an exit/entrance to Foster City as possible. This would increase the traffic and affect safety not just in this neighborhood, but in all neighborhoods between here and an entrance/exit to Foster City.
This would include Port Royal Avenue, Beach Park Blvd., Polaris Ave. behind Foster City School and Boothbay Ave., among others, where there are a lot of children and cyclists.
There seem to be far better locations for this in Foster City, such as near the Mariners Point Golf Center, almost empty office space on the corner of Edgewater/Metro Center Blvd., the corner of Foster City Blvd. and Metro Center Blvd., E. 3rd Ave and Lincoln Center Drive, New Foster City Park/Bridgeview Park off Beach Park Blvd., and a lot of parking lots that could be converted off Foster City Blvd. in front of City Hall to the PJCC, which is near facilities, shopping and public transportation, to name a few. There are other open areas, such as by Sea Cloud Park, but which also maybe too far from an entrance/exit to Foster City.
A novel idea: The open area by the Foster City Sign trail: You could design buildings in the shape of FOSTER CITY – 10 buildings - which could be seen from space!
We, and all of our neighbors, are strongly opposed to expansion at the Lantern Cove location.
Thank you for your service to the City of Foster City.
Sincerely,
Charles and Linda du Mée
18 Coral Lane
Foster City, CA 94404
59 1
Leslie Carmichael
From: Leslie Carmichael
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 7:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Monica Ly; Marlene Subhashini
Subject: RE: 🔷 Lantern Cove and/or Schooner Bay Apartment Homes Complexes ~ Proposal to Tear Down buildings & build new Housing
Dear Ms. Schwab-
Thank you for your comments regarding potential redevelopment of Schooner Bay and Lantern Cove.
Specifically, you have expressed your opposition to the redevelopment of Schooner Bay and Lantern Cove. We also thank you for your comment that you couldn’t place your comments on the online map. We have asked our IT people to check on this.
There will be a Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss the Housing Element Update including potential housing sites on March 2, 2022 at 6:30 pm. The agenda materials for this will be posted on this page by the end of the week: https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes. We will forward your comments to the Planning Commission and City Council.
There has been some information circulating in the community that the redevelopment of Lantern Cove is on the City Council agenda for March 7, 2022. I would like to clarify that the purpose of the March 7 meeting is not to discuss the redevelopment of the Lantern Cove project or any project for that matter. On March 7, the City Council is scheduled to review three items related to inclusionary housing and the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Combining District, including:
1. New Chapter 17.90 containing standards for the City’s long-standing 20% inclusionary housing policy, such as the percentages for different income levels, length of time for affordability restrictions, alternatives to providing on-site below market rate units, etc.;
2. New Chapter 17.92 containing a different set of inclusionary housing percentages available in the AHO, proposed to include lower levels of affordability in exchange for a lower total rate of 15%; and
3. Zoning Map amendment to add the AHO zoning to specific sites.
Additionally, I'd like to clarify that adding Lantern Cove to the list of AHOZ sites does not mean that the City is approving additional density or units. The City has had an inclusionary requirement (provision of affordable/Below Market Rate units) and an AHOZ program in its current Housing Element in place for many years. The AHOZ is implementation of the Housing Element program and a policy-level discussion on the inclusionary requirement percentages if and when property owners decide to redevelop their sites. The AHOZ provides an optional set of inclusionary percentages that provide lower levels of affordability in exchange for a lower total inclusionary requirement. If and when the property owner of Lantern Cove decides to move forward with their project, there will be opportunities for community input. 60 2
For additional clarity, the chart below demonstrates the allowable number of units at Lantern Cove based on their development rights under the existing General Plan and if it's included in the AHOZ. As seen in the table below, there is no change in the total number of units triggered by the AHOZ. The only difference is the breakdown of affordable units required (City's inclusionary vs. AHOZ). Under current conditions, they already have a development right to increase to 588 units, not taking into account additional densities allowed by State Law as part of Density Bonus Law. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any additional questions.
Existing Conditions
(Total size of the site
- 16.8 acres)
No. of units allowed under
current General Plan (35 units
per acre)
No. of units allowed under
current General Plan and
Proposed Inclusionary
Ordinance
No. of units allowed under current
General Plan and Proposed AHOZ
Combining District
Total number of
units 232 588 (35 units x 16.8 acres) 588 (No change) 588 (No change) % of Below
market rate
units
0 20% of any net new units
Breakdown of affordability
levels:
% of very low, low and
moderate negotiated on a
case-by-case basis
20% of any net new units:
Breakdown of affordability
levels:
10% very low
5% low
5% moderate
15% of any net new units
Breakdown of affordability le
4% extremely low
4% very low
7% low
Regards,
Leslie
Leslie Carmichael
URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, INC.
388 17th Street, Suite 230
Oakland, CA 94612
650.468.7890
[email protected]
From: Helen Schwab <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 5:52 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Marlene Subhashini <[email protected]> Subject: කඛ Lantern Cove and/or Schooner Bay Apartment Homes Complexes ~ Proposal to Tear Down buildings & build new Housing
61 3
Good evening,
Thank you for your recent return phone call to me. It was much appreciated where we discussed there are no current plans to redevelop the Schooner Bay property at the end of Edgewater.
I have since looked at the City's housing plan/ development map that seems to include the Schooner Bay property for redevelopment, even though Equity Residential has not submitted plans regarding same.
I tried to make a comment objecting to this on the City's new interactive map, but was unable to do so, even though I was signed in. I also could not see anyone else's comments.
Please accept my comments and objections on these proposals as set forth below, since I could not get them to the City's website.
To the City's Planning Committee & the Foster City, City Council:
"Please stop any housing projects aimed at destroying/redeveloping the communities at Schooner Bay or Lantern Cove where thousands of residents stand to be displaced by tearing down many apartment buildings at both locations. The beauty of these living areas already accommodates multiple family housing buildings, but still affords green spaces and a high quality of life. Traffic; safety; years of construction; displacement of many hundreds of residents; and significant increases in water usage when our area is in extreme drought, are all primary issues of great importance.
"The same analysis that is under consideration for Lantern Cove changes to that community, applies to prospective similar changes at Schooner Bay where hundreds more residents would be displaced; significantly increased traffic, huge water usage increases, years of construction, negative impacts on children and other residents would be the same result.
"Equity Residential owns both Lantern Cove & Schooner Bay properties. We all live in Foster City for the quality of life here, not because anyone desires a more densely populated city with residents living in concrete boxes stacked on top of one another to accommodate a 25% increase in population. Foster City has already built too many of these stacked apartment buildings. Any further dense population plans should only be considered near the commercial centers in Foster City (e.g., Orchard Supply area) and not in well established residential neighborhoods here (such as Sea Cloud; Schooner Bay; Port Royal; Alden Crossing; Lantern Cove; Sea Colony; Williams Landing.)
There are hundreds of residents objecting to these plans for the same reasons as service forth herein above."
Thank you,
Helen S.
Schooner Bay Resident
62 Housing Element Site Inventories: Why Buffers and Excess Capacity Matter
No Net Loss Requirements
The No Net Loss Requirements Law (Government Code
§ 65863) ensures that assumptions jurisdictions make
in Housing Element site inventories match what is
actually built. A jurisdiction's Housing Element must
identify adequate sites to accommodate its regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA) at all income levels. A jurisdiction must make sure it maintains sites that can accommodate both the overall number of units
projected and the number of units at each income
level.
Unless jurisdictions have more sites in their Housing
Element inventory than the minimum required, they
may fall out of compliance if they:
1. Reduce a site’s residential density.
2. Approve development applications with fewer
units on the site than identified in the Housing
Element.
3. Approve development applications with higher
income units than stated in the Housing
Element.
Process
When development proposals are received,
jurisdictions must compare the proposal for that site to the assumptions in the Housing Element. If the
proposal has fewer units, or different affordability
assumptions, jurisdictions must demonstrate:
• Buffer - That their Housing Element has enough
of a buffer that there are still available sites to
meet the RHNA.
1 20 DUA for suburban jurisdictions; 30 DUA for
jurisdictions in a metropolitan county.
• Higher than expected units - Other
developments identified in the Housing
Element came in above the assumptions in the
Housing Element.
• Developments on sites not in the Housing
Element - Sites not identified in the Housing
Element are moving forward with housing.
If none of the above are true, jurisdictions within 180 days after approval of the new development must:
• Identify other sites- Identify other sites that are
eligible based on the criteria for Housing
Element site inventories that created the
shortfall.
• Rezone – Identify other sites that may require
rezoning to accommodate the shortfall
The RHNA Buffer
To reduce the likelihood of having to rezone, it is a best practice to have 15 to 30+ percent more units listed in the inventory than are required to meet a jurisdiction’s RHNA. This is especially important for the moderate,
low and very low-income categories.
HCD allows jurisdictions to use zoned density as a
proxy for lower income, as long as certain statutory
requirements are met. These include counting sites
zoned at a minimum of 20 or 30 units per acre as
affordable, depending on jurisdictional size
1. This is
called the default density. While this is helpful in
getting a certified Housing Element, it is likely that
some sites that were considered affordable in the
63 inventory based on zoned densities will not produce
enough (or any) affordable housing. In this case, the
buffer provides jurisdictions with the flexibility to use other sites to make up the difference. For example:
In the Housing Element, a jurisdiction listed a
one-acre site, zoned at 30 units per acre. The
jurisdiction assumed, for Housing Element
purposes, all 30 units were affordable.
A few years after the adopting the Housing
Element, the jurisdiction gets a proposal for 30
units on the site, but only five of those units are
affordable.
Unless the jurisdiction had a buffer, there would
be a shortfall of 25 affordable units, and the
jurisdiction would need to rezone or show
additional capacity somewhere else.
The need for a buffer or extra sites is most likely to
arise in affordable units, because of the default
density. However, jurisdictions could run into problems with market-rate units if developments come in at
lower densities than anticipated. For example:
A jurisdiction listed a two-acre site, zoned at 15
units per acre, for a total of 30 above moderate
units. If the actual development is 20 units,
there would be a shortfall of 10 above
moderate units.
If both examples happened, the jurisdiction would
remain in compliance for above moderate because the
shortfall of 10 is more than offset by the 25 extra from the first scenario. However, they would still need to
make up the 25 low and very low units on another site
or through rezoning.
A jurisdiction can provide a RHNA buffer in several
ways. The most common is including more sites than
necessary in the inventory. Other ways to buffer are to be conservative about the capacities of sites in the
inventory, be conservative in estimating affordable
units on sites (especially those zoned at default
densities or above) or rezoning sites to a density above what is needed to accommodate the allocation.
While it is important to be realistic about what can
feasibly be built on the inventory sites, these buffers give jurisdictions needed flexibility over the planning horizon to stay in compliance with state law, since
many factors affect development trends and decisions.
Helpful Links
• HCD No Net Loss Law Government Code §
65863 Memo
• HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook
(Government Code § 65583.2)
October 2021
64 2/19/2022
PENDING, APPROVED AND UNDER
CONSTRUCTION HOUSING PROJECTS
Summary of Pipeline Projects
This memo summarizes how pending, approved, or under construction projects factor into the Housing Element’s site inventory.
Approved Projects and Projects Under Construction
Approved housing projects and those under construction can be counted in a jurisdiction’s site inventory and deducted from the RHNA based on the actual affordability and unit count of the development. They should be listed individually, with notes, and then summarized in a table, for example:
Very
Low
Income
Low Income Moderate Above
Moderate
RHNA 100 100 100 100
Pipeline projects 0 10 0 20
Remaining RHNA to be met
through ADUs or
Vacant/Nonvacant Sites
100 100 - 10 = 90 100 100- 20 = 80
To count these projects in the site inventory, they:
1. Must be approved or under construction – Has been approved, has been issued a building permit, or is still under construction on June 30, 2022.
2. Must be an active project – The project is active and is expected to be built within the planning period (by January 2031). If the approval has expired, or for another reason the project is unlikely to proceed, place the site on the vacant/non vacant sites list.
3. Must not be completed before the start of the projection period – The project cannot receive its certificate of occupancy or final inspection or be reported as a completed project (to either the Department of Commerce or California Department of Finance) before June 30, 2022.
Pipeline Projects* Non-Pipeline Projects
1. Project with building permit 1. Certificate of occupancy before June 30th, 2022
2. Project under construction
3. Approved projects
2. Projects with approvals that are likely never to start construction (Potentially count in vacant/nonvacant
inventory)
3. Projects reported to the Department of Commerce or
DOF as completed projects
* Assumes project will not receive certificate of occupancy or final inspection before June 30th, 2022.
65 2/19/2022
Pending/Under Review Projects
Pending projects are generally those that have already submitted either an SB 330 preliminary application or a formal application, but have not been approved yet. If it appears likely that the project will be approved by the time the housing element is approved, an agency may want to list them as pipeline projects and deduct them from the RHNA. Otherwise, it may be best to place them on the vacant/non vacant sites list. If the application is controversial, it would be best to place the site on the vacant/non vacant sites list. In either case, the application can provide evidence of the site’s capacity for housing development.
There is no hard and fast rule for classifying pending/under review projects as pipeline or in the vacant/nonvacant inventory, and jurisdictions should decide what assumptions they want to make.
Pending/Under Review Projects
Count as Pipeline Projects Potentially Count in Sites Inventory (Vacant/Nonvacant)
1. Project with complete application or in
hearings
2. Project likely to be approved before
housing element adopted
1. Controversial project
2. Conversations with developers
3. Likely to be approved after housing
element adopted
Calculating Units and Affordability Levels
Jurisdictions must use details from the actual proposal or approved project when reporting pipeline projects in their Housing Element. For example, if a jurisdiction has received an application for 30 units on a site and elects to include the proposal as a pipeline project, it must report that number in the site inventory. Jurisdictions cannot use default densities, theoretical capacity, zoning allowances or similar measures to show a site’s capacity.
Jurisdictions must also use the affordability based on the proposal. If the project specifies the affordability level or rents or sales prices, use those. If the project has an inclusionary housing requirement or provides affordable units to receive a density bonus, count those units based on the affordability level that is required. If there is no information on the rents or sales prices or the affordability level, estimate it based on comparable projects.
Example: A city has approved an application for a one-acre site that include 50 rental units (40 market rate and 10 low income). Rental units in the city rent for above moderate income prices. The zoning allows 100 units per acre. The city must report 40 above moderate income units and 10 affordable units on its sites inventory.
Jurisdictions are not required to use proposed units and affordability until the project is approved and may use default densities to estimate affordability levels before approval. However, if a site is estimated to be 100 percent affordable to lower income households in the site inventory, but an application is proposed that is only 20 percent affordable, when the project is approved the jurisdiction will need to make “no net loss” findings and have an adequate buffer in the inventory to make up for the reduction 66 2/19/2022
in lower income units. For that reason, jurisdictions may want to be more conservative and use the actual proposal affordability assumptions.
Housing Elements and Annual Progress Reports (APRs)
Depending on the timing, projects could be included in a RHNA 5 APR and a RHNA 6 Housing Element.
APRs measure the date building permits are issued. (Technically, it also measures other benchmarks, but the building permit data is tracked most closely and used for SB 35). Housing Elements primarily use the date of the certificate of occupancy. A building permit could be issued for a project in RHNA 5 and reported in the APR, but if it is still under construction after June 30, 2022, it can be included as a pipeline project in RHNA 6.
Helpful Links
• HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook: pg. 5 (Government Code § 65583.2) • ABAG Training, Housing Inventory Deep Dive Webinar: Minute 11:00 67 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
A report and recommendations for RHNA 6
Prepared by the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team with Funding from REAP 9/8/2021
1. Overview
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are independent homes on a residential property with their own cooking and sanitation facilities and outside access. They can either be part of or attached to the primary dwelling or can be free standing/detached from the primary dwelling. Given their smaller size, typically between 400-1000 square feet (Source: Implementing the Backyard Revolution), they frequently offer a housing option that is more affordable by design. They also offer infill development opportunities in existing neighborhoods and a potential supplemental income source for homeowners. Similar are Junior ADUs (JADUs), which are even smaller living units enclosed within a single-family structure. JADUs have independent cooking facilities and outside access, however they may share sanitation facilities with the primary home. Both have become an increasingly popular housing type in recent years.
Recent California legislation has facilitated policy changes at the local level that encourage ADU development by streamlining the permitting process and shortening approval timelines. State law requires jurisdictions to allow at least one ADU and JADU per residential lot. These legislative and policy changes have increased ADU development across many California communities.
In 2020, the Center for Community Innovation at the
University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley)
undertook a comprehensive, statewide survey of ADUs,
resulting in a document entitled “Implementing the
Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU
Homeowners”, released on April 22, 2021. This memo
uses and extends that research, providing a foundation
that Bay Area jurisdictions may build upon as they
consider ADU affordability levels while developing their Housing Element sites inventory analyses. This report’s affordability research has been reviewed by the
California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). While they have not formally
accepted it, in initial conversations they did not raise objections to the conclusions. Give HCD’s workload, it is unlikely we will receive additional guidance.
Figure 1: Affordability of ADUs
68 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
Figure 1 presents a summary of ADU affordability and Table 1 presents a recommendation for assumptions for Housing Elements. See the main body of the report for more information on methodology and assumptions.
We are recommending a conservative interpretation that assumes more moderate and above moderate ADUs than the research found. These assumptions represent a floor for most jurisdictions. If the market conditions in a particular jurisdiction warrant higher assumptions, then additional analysis can be provided to HCD for consideration.
Table 1: Affordability Recommendations for ADUs for Housing Elements Income Recommendation
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 30%
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 30%
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 30%
Above Moderate Income (120+ AMI) 10%
Notes: AMI = Area Median Income. See below for more information on assumptions.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Concerns
Although ADUs are often affordable, jurisdictions should be cautious about relying on them too heavily because of fair housing concerns. Many ADUs are affordable to lower and moderate income households because they are rented to family and friends of the homeowners. If minorities are underrepresented among homeowners, the families and potentially friends of the homeowners will be primarily white. Therefore, relying too heavily on ADUs could inadvertently exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion. Additionally, ADUs often do not serve large families, another important fair housing concern. Conversely, ADUs accomplish an important fair housing goal by adding new homes in parts of the city that are more likely to be areas of opportunity.
Jurisdictions with fair housing concerns may want to use more conservative assumptions based on open market rentals, excluding units made available to family and friends, as summarized below:
Table 1: Affordability Recommendations for ADUs for Jurisdictions with Fair Housing Concerns Income Recommendation
Very Low Income 5%
Low Income 30%
Moderate Income 50%
Above Moderate Income 15%
69 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
3 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
Further Outreach and Data
Although HCD has reviewed this memo and believes the conclusions are generally accurate, it is still important for jurisdictions to ensure the information reflects local conditions. As part of ground truthing the conclusions, jurisdictions should provide opportunity for the stakeholders to comment on any assumptions, including affordability assumptions based on this memo.
2. UC Berkeley Survey
In the Fall and Winter of 2020, the University of California at Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation, in collaboration with Baird + Driskell Community Planning, conducted a statewide survey of homeowners who had constructed ADUs in 2018 or 20191. Over 15,000 postcards were mailed to households directing them to an online survey. The overall response rate was approximately 5%, but Bay Area response rates were higher, up to 15% in some counties. In total, 387 ADU owners from the Bay Area completed they survey, with 245 of those units available on the long term rental market.
Key takeaways include:
• Just under 20% of Bay Area ADUs are made available at no cost to the tenant. • An additional 16% are rented to friends or family, presumably at a discounted rent, though the survey did not ask.
• Market-rate ADUs tend to rent at prices affordable to low and moderate income households in most markets.
3. Methodology
ABAG further analyzed the raw data from the UC Berkeley survey, because the authors of Implementing the Backyard Revolution did not present their results according to income categories (e.g. very low income, low income, etc.).
This ABAG summary uses the affordability calculator published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (link) to define maximum income levels. HCD defines an affordable unit as one where a household pays 30 percent or less of their annual pre-tax income on housing.
The definition of affordable rents shifts with income category (Low, Very Low, etc.), household size/unit size, and geography. The income categories are as follows: Very Low = under 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), Low Income = 50-60% AMI, Moderate = 60-110% AMI.2
1 A summary is available here - http://www.aducalifornia.org/implementing-the-backyard-revolution/ 2 Please note, these assumptions are more conservative than is typically used, but match HCD’s recommendations. 70 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
4 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
Because some counties have different median incomes, the results are adjusted accordingly. 2020 AMIs were used because the survey was completed in 2020.
Additionally, ABAG made the following assumptions regarding persons per unit, which matched HCD’s recommendations:
• Studios 1 person
• 1 Bedrooms 2 people
• 2 Bedrooms 3 people
• 3 Bedrooms 4 people
See the following document for information on HCD’s assumptions. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/affordability- calculator-2020.xlsx
4. Summary of ADU Use
Table 2, below, shows the usage of ADUs. Because this report concerns affordability of available dwelling units, those not available for rent (short term rentals, home office and other) are excluded from further analysis.
Table 3. Usage of Accessory Dwelling Units
Region
Friend/
Family
Rental
Family -
No Rent
Long Term
Rental
(Open
Market)
Short
Term
Rental
Home
Office Other
East Bay 12% 19% 27% 2% 14% 27%
Peninsula 16% 18% 28% 4% 14% 20%
North Bay 13% 16% 33% 2% 8% 28%
Bay Total (9 Counties) 14% 18% 29% 3% 13% 24%
Statewide Total 16% 19% 30% 2% 12% 21%
Other includes homeowners who live in the ADU, needs repairs, empty, used as extra bedroom, etc. The response rate in San Francisco was too low for meaningful comparison so it is not presented separately, but is included in the Bay Area total. East Bay includes Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Peninsula includes San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, North Bay includes Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties.
71 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
5 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
5. Affordability of ADUs
Rental Data
The analysis found that many ADUs are made available to family members, often at no rent.
The survey did not query the rent of family/friend rentals, only asking if rent was charged.
Of those ADUs available on the open market (not rented to family or friends), most charged rents between $1,200 and $2,200, as shown in in Figure 2.
Assigning ADUs to Income Categories
This report’s affordability analysis has two parts:
1. Market Rate ADUs: Those not rented to friends or family; and
2. Discount Rate ADUs: Those rented to family or friends for discounted or no rent Market Rate ADUs
Market rate ADUs were usually affordable to low or moderate income households, based on the methodology identified above. Depending on the part of the region, the ABAG analysis found:
• Very Low Income: 0-7% of market rate units were affordable to very low income • Low Income: 15-44% of market rate units were affordable to low income • Moderate income: 40-70% of market rate units were affordable to moderate income households.
• Above moderate: 9-15% of market rate units were affordable to above moderate income households.
10%
31%
25%
15%
8% 10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
$700 - $1200 $1201 - $1700 $1701 - $2200 $2201 - $2700 $2701 - $3200 $3200+ Figure 2. Average Monthly Rent
72 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
6 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
The data is summarized in the chart below.
Table 4. Affordability of Market Rate Units
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
East Bay 0% 15% 70% 15%
Peninsula 6% 31% 48% 15%
North Bay 7% 44% 40% 9%
This chart only shows ADUs rented on the open market. The response rate in San Francisco was too low for meaningful comparison so it is excluded from this analysis.
Discount Rate ADUs
Based on previous HCD precedent, this analysis uses actual rents to determine affordability.
The occupant’s relationship to the owner is secondary, the relevant factor is the rent charged. (Please note the potential fair housing concerns that can arise from this approach). Specifically, this analysis assigns units made available to family or friends available at no rent as very low income. Additionally, this analysis assigns units rented to family or friends as low income3.
Combined Market and Affordable ADUs
Table 5, below, combines the information for discounted and market rate ADUs.
The response rate in San Francisco was too low for meaningful comparison so it is not presented separately, but is included in the Bay Area total.
3 The survey did not ask the rent of units that were rented to family members.
Table 5. Usage of No Rent/Discount Rent ADUs and Affordability - Combined Region
Friend/
Family
Rental
Family -
No Rent
Very Low
Income
Rents
Low Income
Rents
Moderate
Income
Rents
Above Mod.
Income
Rents
East Bay 20% 33% 0% 7% 33% 7%
Peninsula 24% 28% 3% 15% 23% 7%
North Bay 20% 25% 4% 24% 22% 5%
Bay Total (9
Counties) 22% 28% 2% 14% 26% 7%
State-Wide Total 24% 28% 1% 9% 23% 14%
73 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
7 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
Assigning the family/friends ADUs to income categories produces the following results:
This chart combines ADUs made available for free with Very Low Income and ADUs available for a discount with the Low Income category. The response rate in San Francisco was too low for meaningful comparison so it is not presented as its own line, but is included in the SF Bay Are Total.
Figure 2 shows affordability levels for the region. It is a graphical representation of the Bay Area as a whole.
Table 6. Affordability Including Family/Friends Rentals Region
Very Low
Income
Rents
Low
Income
Rents
Moderate
Income
Rents
Above Mod.
Income
Rents
East Bay 33% 27% 33% 7%
Peninsula 31% 39% 23% 7%
North Bay 29% 44% 22% 5%
Bay Total (9 Counties) 30% 36% 26% 7%
Statewide Total 29% 33% 23% 14%
Figure 2: Results shown for 9-county Bay Area. “Very low” rents include units available to family or friends at no cost. “Low” rents include discounted family rentals.
74 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
8 DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units
6. Additional Research and Considerations
In general, ADUs are affordable for several reasons:
• Many units are available for no or low cost rent to family members or friends.
Additionally, a smaller number of owners intentionally rent their ADUs below market because they believe affordable housing is important. Source: Implementing the Backyard Revolution
• ADUs tend to be fewer square feet than units in apartment buildings after controlling for bedroom size, which results in lower prices. Source: Wegmann & Chapple (2012) • ADU owners tend to prefer their choice of tenant versus maximizing rent. Additionally, they will often not significantly raise rents once they have a tenant they like. Source:
Baird + Driskell homeowner focus groups.
• ADU owners often do not know the value of their unit so they may underprice it unintentionally. Source: Baird + Driskell homeowner focus groups.
A number of other studies have found that many ADUs are used as housing for friends or family for free or very low cost, consistent with the UC Berkeley Report. A selection of these are outlined below:
• A 2012 UC Berkeley publication entitled “Scaling up Secondary Unit Production in the East Bay” indicates that approximately half of all secondary dwelling units are available for no rent.
4 • A 2018 report entitled “Jumpstarting the market for ADUs” surveyed ADUs in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver and found that approximately 17% of ADUs were occupied by a friend or family member for free.5
• A 2014 analysis entitled “Accessory dwelling units in Portland, Oregon: evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU owners” found that “18% of Portland ADUs are occupied for free or extremely low cost.”
6 7. Notes
This report was funded by the Regional Early Action Grant, which the state legislature provided to ABAG and other council of governments. Analysis was conducted by Baird + Driskell Community Planning.
Please contact Josh Abrams, [email protected] for more information.
4https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/scaling_up_secondary_unit_production_in_the_ea st_bay.pdf?width=1200&height=800&iframe=true
5 http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_report_4.18.pdf 6 https://accessorydwellings.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/adusurveyinterpret.pdf 75