ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis (1) Program 16.
Mandatory Replacement of
On-Site Units.
• Section 19.
• Section 40.
• 18.90.030: Development standards
and requirements applicable to all
residential districts.
• 18.235.060: Action and findings by
approval authority – Discretionary
design review.
Pursuant to Government Code 65583.2(g)(3), housing elements must include a program, and policy independent of the housing element, requiring the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in Density Bonus Law (Government Code
§65915(c)(3).) State law requires replacement units for sites identified in the inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years (from the date the application for development was submitted) have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and:
• Were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-income, or
• Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power, or
• Occupied by low or very low-income households.
The proposed amendments would implement Program 16 by requiring a housing development project involving demolition of residential units to comply with Government Code §66300 (i.e., replace the residential units). The proposed amendments would apply to housing developments, and therefore, serves as a wider- ranging requirement for the replacement of existing
low-income units on any existing residential site, including sites within a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District, that is redeveloped.
(2) Program 17.
Develop and Refine
Objective Design Standards
Consistent with State Law
to Provide a Predictable
Basis to Review Housing
Projects.
• Section 1.
• Section 20.
• Section 23.
• Section 26.
• Also see Exhibit
“A” (attached to the
Staff Report) to the
draft Resolution,
which captures the
changes to the
City’s various
design guidelines.
• 17.20.620: Lot combinations.
• Table 18.90.040: R-1 and R-2
District Development Standards.
• 18.110.030: Small lot residential
developments.
• 18.153.040: Standards for detached
accessory structures.
To address the housing shortage, recent State legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330, requires projects to be reviewed against objective standards. Generally, objective standards include a broad set of standards to regulate development, including “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards.” Specifically, Government Code §§ 65913.4 and 66300(a)(7) define ODS to mean “a design standards that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.
More importantly, objective standards are the only basis the City may use to deny or reduce the density of certain eligible projects. Notwithstanding existing codes and guidelines that are found within our ordinances and guideline documents, we may not enforce these standards, and so this action specifies which existing standards can be applied to housing developments.
In response to Program 17, Staff has amended the City’s various Design Guidelines (e.g., Citywide Design Guidelines; Multifamily Design Guidelines; etc.) to refine existing design rules to the extent the rules could be revised or restated to be objective—without the potential implication that the change may be viewed as a more restrictive requirement. The proposed amendments do not include a complete re-write or overhaul of the City’s existing design guidelines. Instead, the proposed changes are intended to identify any existing objective rules and standards and bring them to the forefront as the enforceable review standard. As such, the restated Objective Design Standards (ODS) serve as minimum architectural and site design requirements for housing projects, including the residential component of a mixed-use development. In some cases, the ODS supplement the development standards of the City’s Planning and Zoning Ordinance and further the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s General Plan, which encourages the highest level of design quality. The
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis guideline documents remain as applicable to non-housing developments, and to continue to convey overall intent of the development type.
Where State law requires that the design of a project be reviewed only against objective standards, the proposed ODS will serve as the standards for design review. Ministerial design review will be processed by Planning Staff per the design review procedures set forth in FMC Chapter 18.235, Design Review Permits.
Meanwhile, if a project that would be eligible for ministerial design review does not meet one or more of the ODS, and the applicant wishes to propose an alternative design, the applicant may elect to go through the discretionary design review process also described in FMC Chapter 18.235. In such instances, the subject project will be reviewed for conformance with the City’s applicable design guidelines and any other requirement for the project site. Discretionary design review may only be approved if the findings specified in FMC §18.235.060, Action and findings by approval authority – Discretionary design review, are made. (3) Program 18.
Develop Objective Findings
for Residential Projects.
• Section 40. • 18.235.060: Action and findings by
approval authority – Discretionary
design review.
In relation to Program 17, which requires implementation of objective standards for housing development projects, Program 18 requires the City to develop findings that can be applied to housing development projects that comply with the City’s objective standards, but that also include a project component (e.g., subdivision) that requires discretionary action (e.g., tentative tract map approval). The proposed amendments to FMC §18.235.060 add a finding to the discretionary design review section for objectively compliant housing developments that require more or more discretionary entitlements. (4) Program 32.
Expand Homeownership
Opportunities within
Existing Highest Resource
Neighborhoods.
• Section 22.
• Section 33.
• Table 18.90.080: Allowed Land
Uses and Permit Requirements for
Residential Zoning Districts.
• 18.190.007: Two Unit
Developments and Urban Lot
Splits.
Senate Bill (SB) 9, titled the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, went into effect in 2022. The bill added Government Code §§ 65851.21 (“Two Unit Developments) and 66411.7 (Urban Lot Splits) and amended Government Code §66452.6 (Subdivision Map Act). The bill has two major components: 1) the right to develop more than one home on a single-family residential lot; and 2) the right to subdivide a single-family residential lot. If certain criteria are met, SB 9 requires local jurisdictions to ministerially approve Two Unit Developments and Urban Lot Splits.
SB 9 was adopted to minimize the restrictions and limitations of traditional single-family zoning by allowing additional housing units on single-family lots and/or allowing for single-family lots to be split into two parcels with additional residential units constructed on each lot. This law allows by right, two residential units per lot of at least 800 square feet that could be conveyed (sold separately). Under SB 9, new units and subdivisions need not comply with the City’s “standard” development regulations for the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Planned Districts that allow for single-family homes. Effectively, the law limits the City’s ability to regulate these developments and prohibits a discretionary review process for qualified projects.
However, the City does have the ability to apply certain objective standards to development and subdivisions allowed by SB 9, so long as the objective standards do not preclude two 800 square foot units.
The proposed amendments develop a local ordinance implementing SB 9 to create more homeownership opportunities within existing neighborhoods. The assumption is SB 9 units would be located on smaller lots, and therefore, they would be more affordable by nature than standard single-family dwellings. To facilitate development of these “affordable by design” units, the City has created a webpage to provide technical assistance for developments under SB 9.
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis (5) Program 34.
Eliminate Parking
Requirements in TOD
Areas.
• Section 10.
• Section 12.
• Section 16.
• Section 25.
• Section 31.
• Section 32.
• 18.43.070: Requirements for all
property.
• 18.43.130: Parking Standards.
• Table 18.47.080: Required Site
Development Standards for D
District Place-Type Zones.
• 18.152.070: Parking.
• 18.183.020: When off-street
parking is required.
• Table 18.183.030: Required
Parking Spaces.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, codified as Government Code §65863.2, went into effect this year (2023).
Generally, AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is within one-half mile of a “public transit,” with certain exceptions, as captured in the proposed amendments. A development project, for purposes of this statute, includes any project requiring a discretionary entitlement or building permit to allow the construction, reconstruction, alteration, addition, or change of use of a structure or land. However, AB 2097 specifies that the parking reductions do not apply to a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn or other transient lodging except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Health and Safety Code §50519. Furthermore, the parking reductions do not apply to employee parking for an event center, or publicly accessible commercial parking, that is not obligated to specific use, in a contractual agreement with a public agency executed before January 1, 2023.
The proposed amendments update various zoning districts (i.e., City Center, Downtown, TOD,) and the City’s parking ordinance, Chapter 18.183, with the intent of implementing the provisions of AB 2097. The proposed amendments are also informed by discussions with the City’s Transportation Staff. For example, Transportation Staff used the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) latest (2022) City of Fremont commute to work mode split data available to estimate the parking demand rate for event center employees and other workers.
(6) Program 36.
Update Mixed-Use Zoning
Standards
• Section 13. • 18.45.040: Mixed-use development
requirements.
During the community engagement sessions for the Housing Element update, developers expressed that ground-floor retail requirements require substantial subsidy to construct. The City’s current mixed-use standards are difficult to understand and apply to non-standard sites. As such, Program 36 requires the City to update its mixed-use standards to enhance clarity and promote active corridors, chiefly regarding provision of commercial space.
The proposed zoning text amendment are intended to clarify the minimum amount of commercial space and depth required, removing any subjectivity, as it applies to mixed-use developments. Additionally, the amendments promote the production of on-site affordable housing units by formally recognizing that the otherwise required minimum amount of commercial space can be reduced or waived for a mixed-use development project that qualifies for a concession pursuant to the City’s Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives ordinance. Furthermore, the proposed amendments are consistent with Senate Bill 330 in that the changes do not reduce the density or intensity of residential development permitted on mixed-use sites.
(7) Program 37.
Update Zoning to Reflect
Intensity Permitted Under
SB 478.
• Section 21.
• Section 37.
• 18.90.050: Additional development
standards and design guidelines
applicable to R-3 districts.
• 18.190.522: Small-scale
multifamily housing developments.
In recent years, the California legislature has found some success in facilitating the development of small- scale housing, particularly accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The result has been a significant increase in the uptake of ADUs across the state, and Fremont is no exception. As noted in the City’s 2022 Annual Progress Report, Staff issued building permits for 149 ADUs in 2022, nearly twice as many from 2021 (77). The 2021 legislative session looked to build on the progress of facilitating smaller, “less controversial” housing development.
Known as the “Housing Opportunity Act,” Senate Bill (SB 478) went into effect in 2022 and aims to ensure that overly restrictive land use requirements do not stymie the production of small-scale development.
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis Specifically, SB 478 adds Government Code §65913.11 and prohibits the City from imposing a floor area ratio (FAR) standard that is less than 1.0 on a housing development project that consists of three to seven units, or less than 1.25 on a housing development project that consists of eight to ten units. FAR is defined as the ratio of a building’s total floor area in relation to the size of the lot the building sits on. For example, a project with a FAR of 1 can construct a:
• A single-story building that occupies the entire lot (100%); • A two-story building that occupies occupy half of the lot (50%); or • A four-story building that occupies a quarter of the lot (25%).
The law also prohibits the City from imposing lot coverage requirements that would physically preclude a housing development project from achieving these FARs and denying a housing development project located on an existing legal parcel solely on the basis that the lot area of the proposed lot does not meet the City’s requirements for minimum lot size [Government Code §65913.11(a)(3)]. Projects eligible under the provisions of SB 478 must be in multifamily residential zones or mixed-use zones. The law is intended to stop local agencies from using minimum lot size and FARs to frustrate multifamily housing development and allow builders to pay for smaller pieces of land to develop multifamily housing for the “missing middle.”
SB 478 could have important implications for the creation of “missing middle” (i.e., three to ten units) housing by allowing more flexibility in the size and shape of new small-scale multifamily development, as well as expanding where in Fremont such housing could be built. However, the City does not rely on FAR and minimum lot size alone to limit the size and type of residential development. Other requirements such as setbacks, building height, density, emergency vehicle access, stormwater management, and parking all impact the feasibility of a housing development, particularly smaller-scale projects. Furthermore, most of Fremont’s zoning district do not use FAR to control building size for residential development. Therefore, SB 478 would not have a major impact to the City’s existing regulations because there a limited number of districts (C-O, C- N, MX, TC-P, and TC-T) where FAR serves as development standard for multifamily residential projects. To comply with this bill, the proposed amendments add a new section to Chapter 18.190, Special Provisions Applying to Miscellaneous Uses, to establish regulations for qualifying projects under the provisions of Government Code §65913.11.
(8) Program 44.
By Right Approval of
Projects with 20%
Affordable Units.
• Section 24.
• Section 39.
• 18.137: Housing Element Sites
Inventory
• 18.235.020: Approval required.
Program 44 calls for implementing the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 1397. AB 1397 amends Government Code §§ 65580, 65583, and 65583.2.2 by making several revisions to the site inventory analysis requirements of Housing Element Law. Generally, AB 1397 requires stronger justification when nonvacant sites are used to meet housing needs, particularly for lower income housing, requires by right housing when sites are included in more than one housing element, and adds conditions around size of sites, among others.
In response to Program 44, the proposed amendments add a “Housing Element Sites Inventory” (HESI) overlay to the City’s Planning and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed overlay strictly applies to sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element that were previously identified (“recycled sites”) in the City’s prior Housing Elements (4th and 5th cycles). The HESI Overlay allows “by-right” development for housing developments that include 20-percent of the project units affordable to lower income households. The application of the requirement cannot be used to further constrain the development of housing. As such,
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis housing developments that do not contain the requisite 20 percent would still be allowed to be developed according to the underlying (base) zoning but would not be eligible for “by right” processing. (9) Program 45.
Update Zoning to be
Consistent with State
Density Bonus Law.
• Section 27.
• Section 28.
• Section 29.
• Section 30.
• 18.165.020: Definitions
• 18.165.030: Calculation of
residential density bonus and
number of incentives and
concessions.
• 18.165.075: Modified parking
standards.
• 18.165.090: Application
requirements and review.
The State Density Bonus Law (DBL), codified in Government Code §65915 et seq., was enacted in 1979 and encourages developers to incorporate affordable units within a residential project in exchange for density bonuses and relief from other base development standards. Density bonus is an important program to incentivize the development of affordable housing units in mixed-income projects, and to help the City meet its regional housing needs goals.
The City’s density bonus and affordable housing incentives are codified in Chapter 18.165 of the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC), and the Chapter was last updated in 2021. Since then, more changes in State law have occurred. The proposed amendments are intended to incorporate the following bills that went into effect after the last 2021 update.
AB 2334. Assembly Bill (AB) 2334 amends State Density Bonus Law to include several changes and clarifications, including expanding the locations where significant concessions are provided for 100-percent affordable housing developments to include very low vehicle travel areas, an update to the definition of maximum allowable residential density, a change to the resident age requirement to allow for the elimination of parking, and a clarification regarding the maximum rent levels in 100-percent affordable projects.
AB 1551. AB 1551 reinstated AB 1934, which created the framework for a development bonus for commercial developments which expired in 2022. Under this law, if a local government agrees, a non- residential development may obtain additional non-residential floor area or other development incentives. The required affordability can be satisfied through an agreement for partnered housing with an affordable housing developer pursuant to the requirements of pursuant to Government Code §65915.7. Local governments must agree to the terms of the affordability agreement to approve a commercial bonus. AB 1551 extended the provisions of AB 1934 until January 1, 2028, without making any changes.
AB 682. AB 682 amends the DBL by adding “shared housing building” as a new category. Pursuant to AB 682, a “shared housing building” is defined in Government Code §65915(o)(6) as a residential or mixed-use structure, with five or more “shared housing units” and one or more common kitchens and dining areas designed for permanent residence of more than 30 days by its tenants. A “shared housing unit” means one or more habitable rooms not contained within another dwelling unit, that includes a bathroom, sink, refrigerator, and microwave within the unit, and complies with the definition of “guestroom” per the California Building Code. This change allows shared housing buildings to be built in areas where density bonus projects are permitted and to receive incentives and density bonuses under the DBL. AB 682 allows for a shared housing building to include ground floor commercial uses (if otherwise permitted) as well as dwelling units that are not shared housing units. Non-shared housing units are limited to no more than 25-percent of the floor area of the shared housing building.
(10) Program 46.
Offer Additional Flexibility
• Section 10.
• Section 17.
• 18.43.070: Requirements for all
property.
During the community engagement sessions for the Housing Element update, affordable housing developers shared their challenges in satisfying the City’s current private open space standards. Program 46 requires the City to provide flexible private open space standards to benefit affordable housing projects. By reducing the
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis in Satisfying Open Space
Requirements.
• Section 21. • 18.47.090: Other required
conditions.
• 18.90.050: Additional development
standards and design guidelines
applicable to R-3 districts.
amount of private open space required, flexible standards may make it more financially feasible for developers to build affordable housing. This can lead to an increase in the overall supply of affordable housing, which is especially important in areas with high housing costs such as Fremont.
The proposed amendments are intended to provide developers with more freedom to design affordable housing projects that meet the needs of their residents and community. Under the proposed changes, developers can choose to provide less private open space and more public open space, or to provide more compact and efficient unit layouts.
(11) Program 69. Address
Zoning Barriers to Create
Housing Opportunities for
People with Disabilities
• Section 2.
• Section 4.
• Section 6.
• Section 7.
• Section 8.
• Section 11.
• Section 14.
• Section 15.
• Section 18.
• Section 22.
• Section 36.
• Section 41.
• 18.25.213: “Assisted living
facility.”
• 18.25.1060: “Family”
• 18.25.2408: “Residential care
facilities” (currently, “Residential
care facilities for the elderly”).
• 18.25.2410: “Residential care
facilities, special.”
• 18.25.2601: “Single housekeeping
unit.”
• Table 18.43.120: Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in City Center
Zones.
• Table 18.45.060-1: Commercial
and Mixed Uses
• Table 18.47.050: Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in Place-Type
Zones.
• Table 18.49.040(a): Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in WSI District
Planning Areas.
Residential Care Facilities. The State Legislatures sees residential care facilities (i.e., shared living residences; group homes) as an important type of housing for persons with disabilities. Over the years, State law has progressed to help persons with disabilities live in deinstitutionalized settings that facilitate integration into local communities. Residential care facilities are intended to support individualized needs and provide flexible and affordable housing options for their residents.
The proposed amendments are informed by HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022.
The zoning text amendments are intended to help the City comply with its obligations under state laws, including the Planning and Zoning Law, Housing Element Law, affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) provisions, Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)— collectively, State housing laws. The proposed amendments are intended to help fulfill the City’s obligations to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing, and thereby, alleviate confusion over potential violation of fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.
Definition of a “Family.” The proposed change in the definition of family is intended to be consistent with the California Health and Safety Code, the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the California Supreme Court decision (i.e., City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980)). The proposed amendments are designed to expand the definition and avoid conflict with State law.
Spacing Requirements. Spacing requirements restrict group homes from locating within a specific distance of other group homes. The Legislature has repeatedly rejected attempts to impose spacing requirements on recovery residences. For instance, as recently as 2018, the Legislature declined to adopt SB 786, a bill that would have imposed a 300-foot spacing requirement on recovery residences. The legislative history shows that the State considered the lack of clear data showing that this spacing requirement would benefit persons recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. The Legislature also considered concerns that this spacing requirement would discriminate on the basis of disability, impede opening new recovery residences, reduce access to much needed recovery and treatment services, and stigmatize recovery residences and their occupants. As such, the proposed amendments avoid imposing spacing requirements that extend beyond those specified in California Health and Safety Code §1267.9.
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis • Table 18.90.080: Allowed Land
Uses and Permit Requirements for
Residential Zoning Districts.
• 18.190.465: Residential care
facilities.
• 18.265.070: Action and findings by
approval authority – Other
requirements.
(12) Program 74.
Address Zoning Barriers for
Low-Barrier Housing
Navigation Centers and
Emergency Shelters.
• Section 3.
• Section 5.
• Section 11.
• Section 14.
• Section 15.
• Section 18.
• Section 22.
• Section 34.
• Section 35.
• 18.25.1030: “Emergency shelters.”
• 18.25.1793: “Low-barrier
navigation centers (LBNC).”
• Table 18.43.120: Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in City Center
Zones.
• Table 18.45.060-1: Commercial
and Mixed Uses
• Table 18.47.050: Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in Place-Type
Zones.
• Table 18.49.040(a): Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in WSI District
Planning Areas.
• Table 18.90.080: Allowed Land
Uses and Permit Requirements for
Residential Zoning Districts.
• 18.190.150: Emergency shelters.
• 18.190.295: Low-Barrier
Navigation Centers (LBNC)
Low-Barrier Navigation Centers The proposed amendments are intended to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 101, which was part of the 2019 legislative season that resulted in the passage of nearly two-dozen housing- related bills to address California’s affordable housing crisis. AB 101, whose provisions are codified in Government Code §65660 et seq., creates a special category of homeless shelters called “Low-barrier Navigation Centers” (LBNC), the development of which is a “use by right” in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. As defined in Government Code §65583.2, “use by right” means that the development is ministerially approved through a streamlined process and exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Consistent with state law, the proposed amendments recognize LBNC as a unique from of homeless shelters in that LBNC are a housing first, low-low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing while providing temporary living facilities and connecting individuals to basic resources and services such as income, public benefits, and health services. In concert with state law, the proposed amendments aim to remove legal challenges to the establishment of LBNC and establish a process to review applications for LBNC within 30 days of receipt and to act (approve or deny) within 60 days of receiving a complete application.
Emergency Shelters. Assembly Bill (AB) 139, passed in 2019 and better known as the “Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019, required local agencies to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed by-right, without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. AB 2339, which went into effect earlier this year, provides that the sites identified for emergency shelters must be in residential areas or are otherwise suitable, thus prohibiting local governments from situating emergency shelters in industrial zones or other areas disconnected from services. AB 2339 also aims to ease constraints on the development of emergency shelters by requiring that any development standards applied to emergency shelters be “objective.” Furthermore, emergency shelters are defined by State law as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person;” however, AB 2339 expands the definition of emergency shelters to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows emergency shelters by-right only in the Service Industrial (I-S) zoning district and allows emergency shelters in other non-industrial zoning districts (e.g., R-3; MX; TC-P)
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis subject to a conditional use permit. The proposed amendments are intended to comply with State law by ensuring that emergency shelters can be processed ministerially in zones that allow residential uses.
Additionally, consistent with Government Code §65583(a)(4)(A)(ii), the proposed amendments clarify the parking requirements for emergency shelters to only accommodate the staff working in emergency shelters.
Lastly, the proposed amendments update the City’s definition of “emergency shelters” to capture the expanded definition provided by AB 2339.
(13) Program 76.
Remove Zoning Barriers
for Supportive and
Transitional Housing.
• Section 9.
• Section 15.
• Section 38.
• Section 39.
• 18.25.2860: “Target population.”
• Table 18.47.050: Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in Place-Type
Zones.
• 18.190.527: Supportive and
transitional housing.
• 18.235.020: Approval required.
Supportive and transitional housing are types of affordable and special needs housing linked to supportive services (i.e., social services). These housing types and accompanying services are designed to help the “target population,” which includes persons (e.g., adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, homeless people, etc.) with low incomes and one or more disabilities (e.g., mental illness, substance abuse, chronic health condition, etc.), find stable housing and live fuller lives. State law defines supportive and transitional housing as follows:
• “Supportive Housing” means housing with no limit on the length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on-site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live, and when possible, work in the community.
• “Transitional Housing” means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.
Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance treats supportive and transitional housing as a residential use and permits such housing development projects in zones where residential and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones where multifamily uses are permitted. By doing so, the City’s current regulations for supportive and transitional housing comply with State law to a substantial degree. Changes to the existing supportive and transitional housing regulations are proposed for the following reasons:
1) Correct FMC Table 18.47.050 to state that supportive and transitional housing are in fact a permitted use in the D-E (Downtown Edge Zone).
2) Implement AB 2162, which requires local agencies to consider supportive and transitional housing a residential use of a property and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In addition, the law mandates a streamlined approval process for qualifying supportive and transitional housing projects by providing a ministerial approval process, removing the requirement for CEQA analysis, and removing the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit or other, similar discretionary entitlements.
3) Restructure and reorganize FMC §18.190.527 to clarify the requirements of Government Code §65650 – §65656, Supportive Housing.
ATTACHMENT D
Program Implementation – Analysis Matrix
Program Ordinance Reference FMC Reference Proposed Text Amendment – Analysis (14) Program 91.
Audit Warm Springs
Innovation District for
General Plan and Zoning
Consistency
• Section 18. • Table 18.49.040(a): Permitted,
Conditionally Permitted, and
Prohibited Uses in WSI District
Planning Areas.
The Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan (“Community Plan”) was adopted to advance the goals of the General Plan and serve as the roadmap to guide development of a 21st century district over the next 20 years. The Community Plan envisions a variety of uses that are mixed and mingled to create a sustainable, transit-oriented innovation ecosystem. The innovation district covers 880 acres and is divided into 10 planning areas. The Community Plan estimates 20,000 jobs and 4,000 housing units to be added to Warm Springs/South Fremont at full buildout. Many of the housing units have been built, including affordable units, with more to be constructed over the next several years.
After the City’s adoption of the 2014 Community Plan, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 330, commonly known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA), into law. In September 2021, SB 8 was also signed into law, extending the HCA. Under these State laws, local agencies are restricted in the use of ordinances and policies that can be applied to residential development, or a “housing development,” as defined by the State. The law clarifies that should a zoning ordinance be inconsistent with an agency’s general plan or community plan, then such agency’s general plan or community plan shall prevail, as it relates to the governing of housing developments. Accordingly, laws passed under the HCA have appeared to disproportionally affect local agency zoning control, which, for jurisdictions like Fremont, has made the use of zoning, as the once preferred tool to regulate specific uses allowed for a certain site, or planning area, less effective.
The applicability of statutory laws requires local agencies to allow housing development where the general plans or community plans allow such uses, even if the zoning ordinance is more restrictive. Because the City’s General Plan and Community Plan both broadly allow residential uses within the Warm Springs/South Fremont innovation district without specific restrictions to certain planning areas, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (the state agency enforcing the HCA) has interpreted that the City shall allow housing developments within the entire area defined by the district. Program 91 of the certified Housing Element addresses this issue. Consequently, residential uses shall be allowed in all planning areas of the district, as neither the General Plan or Community Plan identify areas of the district where such use is specifically disallowed.
Under the HCA, the bar is set extremely high for a local jurisdiction to deny a residential use if it is broadly allowed under an agency’s General Plan or Community Plan. To lawfully deny such project, the City must make certain findings, based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the certain statutorily prescribed circumstances regarding public health and safety (Government Code §65589.5(d) and (j)).
The proposed zoning text amendment implements Program 91, allowing residential uses within all 10 planning areas of the Community Plan. Unless exempt under State law, a housing development project would follow the same process for consistency with other General Plan goals and policies, and discretionary design review as required for housing developments citywide. Only objective standards may be applied to a proposed housing development. If a housing development project requires environmental review, then the project would be evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine whether the project would cause a significant adverse impact on the environment.