Agenda Packet — Hayward City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

DATE: February 1, 2022

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving Garbage and Recycling Rates for FY2022-2023

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving the recommended garbage and recycling annual rate increase of 2.85% for all residential and commercial accounts effective March 1, 2022.

SUMMARY

Refuse rates typically increase on March 1 of each year, in accordance with the Franchise Agreement between the City and Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC) that became effective on March 1, 2015. Rate Year Eight (RY8) of the Franchise Agreement will commence on March 1, 2022. Per the Franchise Agreement, the rates for RY8 shall be set based on a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment to WMAC’s current revenues. The calculated RY8 increase is 2.85%. The City continues to negotiate with WMAC for a new Franchise Agreement that Council could approve later this year. If approved, the new Agreement may include an additional rate adjustment that would take effect in 2022.

BACKGROUND

The Franchise Agreement between the City and WMAC for garbage, recycling, and organics collection and processing is in effect for up to ten years and details a specific rate adjustment process for each year. In the first year of the contract, rates were negotiated and agreed upon at an initial rate. The rates for years two and three were increased by 3% each year. The Franchise Agreement required the rates for RY4 be set by following a detailed cost-based adjustment to ensure that WMAC received an after-tax return on its investment of 5.5%. The rate increase for RY4 was calculated to be 5.004%. Rate Years Five through Ten are to be set through an index-type of adjustment process considering the CPI, government fees, and other factors.

Page 2 of 3 ends

The Franchise Agreement with WMAC commenced March 1, 2015, and was scheduled to expire February 28, 2022. On January 18, 20221, Council approved a one-year extension so that the Agreement is now scheduled to expire February 28, 2023.

DISCUSSION

Staff received WMAC’s rate application for RY8 in December 2021 and performed a detailed review of WMAC’s application and ensured all calculations were consistent with the procedures outlined in the Franchise Agreement and confirmed the validity of the proposal.

The Agreement specifies that a minimum of 3% be used as a CPI floor in the rate calculation and, coincidentally, the annual percentage change in CPI between 2020 and 2021 was

3.0%. After further contractual procedures that adjust for fees assessed by the State, County, and City, and for projected revenues for WMAC, the resulting increase applied to the RY8 adjustment calculation is 2.85%.

Staff is currently negotiating exclusively with WMAC, as authorized by Council, for a new Franchise Agreement. On January 18, 2022, Council approved an extension of the exclusive negotiating period to expire on June 30, 2022. Staff is hopeful that negotiations can be completed this spring so that Council may consider approval of a new Agreement this summer. If the Agreement is approved this summer, rates may be adjusted again in the second half of 2022.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

If approved, residents and businesses would pay 2.85% more for refuse and recycling services for the period of March 1, 2022, through February 28, 2023 or until a new contract is approved. With a 2.85% increase, the new monthly service charge for residential customers with the standard 32-gallon cart for garbage service would be $37.67, or $1.04 higher than the existing rate. For residents subscribing to the smaller 20-gallon cart, the new service charge would be $25.77, or $0.71 higher than the existing rate. For a 20-unit multi-family residential property, the total new monthly charge would be $574.01, or $0.79 per household higher than the existing rate. For a business with a three-cubic-yard bin for garbage, the total new monthly charge would be $573.05, or $15.87 higher than the existing rate. A comparison of rates with several nearby communities is included as Attachment III.

FISCAL IMPACT

With the proposed increase, which includes street cleaning and impact fees, it is projected that City revenues related to this agreement will increase by approximately $280,000 annually.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item is not specifically related to the six Strategic Priorities included in the Strategic Roadmap adopted June 1, 2021. However, the franchise fees collected by the City

1 https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5382579&GUID=C1A9EF92-809E-4109-9D94- B44070621B45&Options=&Search=

Page 3 of 3 ends

include a Street Sweeping Fee, which supports the City’s street sweeping operations and helps to address Infrastructure project 17: Meet regulatory requirements for zero trash in stormwater by installing trash capture devices.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

The rate increase will allow the City, WMAC, and Tri-CED to continue to provide Hayward residents and businesses with recycling and composting services, so they can maximize the diversion of waste from the landfill. Solid waste management involves the safe and responsible management of discarded material from generation through processing to disposal. Reducing waste landfilled by maximizing the reuse, recycling, and composting of materials increases diversion, conserves natural resources, and plays an important role in making a community sustainable. No additional programs are contemplated as part of RY8 services.

PUBLIC CONTACT

The public was notified of the rate increase in 2014 as part of the new franchise agreement announcement mailed to all rate payers. That notice provided an estimated increase for each year of the franchise agreement and indicated that the increase that would be effective on March 1, 2022, would not exceed 6%. If Council approves the proposed rate increase, customers will be notified of the actual increase through bill inserts included with their garbage bill and a message printed on their garbage bill.

NEXT STEPS

The rate increase would be effective on March 1, 2022. If Council approves the rate adjustment, staff will work with WMAC to implement the new rates and advise customers. A brief statement regarding the fee increase will be included as a bill insert and printed on the customer’s garbage bills.

Prepared by: Jeff Krump, Solid Waste Program Manager
Erik Pearson, Environmental Services Manager

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:
__________________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

ATTACHMENT II

Page 1 of 2 ends

HAYWARD CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO. 22-

Introduced by Council Member __________

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GARBAGE & RECYCLING RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR 2022-2023

WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement between the City of Hayward and Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC) became effective on March 1, 2015; and

WHEREAS, garbage and recycling rates typically increase on March 1 of each year and Rate Year Eight of the Franchise Agreement will commence on March 1, 2022; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Franchise Agreement the rates for Rate Year Eight shall be set based on a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment to WMAC’s projected Rate Year Seven revenues, which is calculated by using several factors including the CPI, government fees, and others; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the necessary review of WMAC’s rate application; and

WHEREAS, calculations based on the methodology specified in the Franchise Agreement show that an increase of 2.85% is appropriate and warranted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hayward hereby approves the increase of 2 .85%, effective March 1, 2022, for garbage and recycling rates for residential and commercial accounts in the City of Hayward that are served under the Franchise Agreement.

ATTACHMENT II

Page 2 of 2 ends

IN COUNCIL, HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA _______________________, 2022

ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

MAYOR:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: ______________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Hayward

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________________
City Attorney of the City of Hayward

ATTACHMENT III

Comparison of Monthly Garbage & Recycling Rates

Table 1 Multi-family Dwelling Rates (assuming 1x per week service for 20 units) Municipality Garbage (3cy) Recycling (1cy) Organics (1cy) Total Livermore (LSI) $357.20 $89.30 $89.30 $535.80
Hayward (current) $401.38 $7.84 per unit Included w/ Garbage $558.18 Hayward (proposed) $412.81 $8.06 per unit Included w/ Garbage $574.01 Fremont (Republic) $260.59 $7.61 per unit $161.76 $574.55 Union City (Republic) $434.94 $99.58 $99.58 $634.10
City of Alameda (ACI) $519.16 $7.45 per unit $5.36 per unit $775.36 Castro Valley (ACI) $950.47 Included w/ Garbage Included w/ Garbage $950.47 Oakland (WMAC) $853.36 $16.14 per unit Included w/ Garbage $1,176.16

Table 2, Single-Family Dwelling Rates
Municipality Garbage (20 gallon) Garbage (30-35 gallon)* Garbage (60-64 gallon) Hayward (current) $25.06 $36.63 $65.32
Hayward (proposed) $25.77 $37.67 $67.18
Livermore (LSI) $29.94 $39.63 $59.36
Fremont (Republic) $41.39 $42.23 $46.02
City of Alameda (ACI) $35.99 $45.43 $74.64
Castro Valley (ACI) $32.42 $50.26 $87.29
Oakland (WMAC) $46.13 $52.36 $92.29
Union City (Republic) $46.37 $54.37 $94.38
*Most common container size

Table 3 Commercial Rates (assuming 1x per week service) Municipality Garbage (3cy) Recycling (1cy) Organics (1cy) Total Fremont (Republic) $258.79 $86.34 $161.76 $506.89
Livermore (LSI) $357.20 $89.30 $89.30 $535.80
Hayward (current) $401.38 $77.90 $77.90 $557.18
Hayward (proposed) $412.81 $80.12 $80.12 $573.05
Union City (Republic) $434.94 $99.58 $99.58 $634.10 City of Alameda (ACI) $519.16 $138.44 $138.44 $796.04
Castro Valley (ACI) $950.47 Included w/ Garbage Included w/ Garbage $950.47 Oakland (WMAC) $607.89 (open market) $191.45 -

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: WS 22-004
DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

SUBJECT
Joint Work Session: Density Bonus Ordinance Update and Residential Objective Standards Project

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council and Planning Commission provide feedback and guidance on the Density Bonus Ordinance Update and the Residential Objective Standards Project.

SUMMARY
City staff is moving forward with two key housing projects in light of an evolving State legislative landscape. These key projects, which are included in the City’s Strategic Roadmap and Incentives for Housing Production Plan, include the update to the City’sDensity Bonus Ordinance and the Residential Objective Standards Project. These planning efforts will align Hayward’s goals and expectations for future development with the State’s goal to address the housing crisis.

Following adoption of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance in 2005, the State of California has made significant and numerous changes to density bonus law to incentivize affordable housing and help increase housing production. In order to comply with these changes, the City must repeal and replace its existing density bonus ordinance. Additionally, to improve housing stability for Hayward residents, the Council has adopted work plans and projects as part of the Strategic Roadmap that intend to preserve, protect, and produce housing. Updating the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is one of those priority projects identified in the Strategic Roadmap.

Another key project is the development of Residential Objective Standards for residential and mixed-use development to give the community, developers, staff, and decision makers more certainty about what future development will look like as the City moves forward with these streamlined processes.

Additionally, this project will further address concerns previously expressed by the Council, Planning Commission, and the community regarding a desire for more detailed standards related to architectural design and neighborhood context.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 1/27/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:WS 22-004
For the purposes of this work session, two staff reports have been prepared to help Council and the Planning Commission consolidate comments and feedback associated with each project (Attachment I:

Staff Report on Density Bonus Ordinance Update; and Attachment II: Staff Report on Residential Objective Standards Project).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Density Bonus Ordinance Staff Report
Attachment II Residential Objective Standards Staff Report Attachment III Recent Housing and Land Use Legislation Summary Attachment IV Minter Harnish Scope of Work, Residential Objective Standards CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 1/27/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 7 ends

DATE: February 1, 2022

TO: Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission

FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

SUBJECT: Density Bonus Update: Review and Discuss the Updates to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance for Compliance with State Density Bonus Laws

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council and Planning Commission provide feedback and guidance on the Density Bonus Ordinance update. In particular, staff recommends that Council and the Planning Commission provide feedback on whether they would like to follow the State’s formula for determining the density bonus afforded to projects, or whether they would like the City to offer additional density bonuses or incentives for certain types of projects such as senior housing or housing in proximity to transit.

SUMMARY

Updating the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance is one of those priority projects identified in the Strategic Roadmap.

As part of our Ordinance update, the State has determined a default formula for what density bonus, number of incentives, and parking standards a project qualifies for, based on the share of affordable or senior units included in the project. To be consistent with State law, the City must repeal the existing Ordinance and adopt a new Ordinance that establishes a procedure for processing density bonus applications using the State’s formula. If the City desires to go above and beyond what is required by the State, the City may tailor the State’s formula to further incentivize certain types of housing. Suggestions for consideration are projects that include senior housing and/or are in proximity to public transit such as the BART line.

Page 2 of 7 ends

BACKGROUND

The current Density Bonus law (California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918) entitles a property owner or developer to build more housing units than a local zoning ordinance would otherwise allow, if they reserve a share of the units for low income or senior residents. This law can result in a minimum density bonus of 20% - for projects that reserve at least 5% very low income, 10% lower income, or 10% moderate income for sale units - and up to an 80% density increase for projects in which all units are affordable (or a three-story height increase with unlimited density within that envelope, in the case of 100% affordable projects within ½ mile of a high-quality transit stop). Projects that qualify for a density bonus also may qualify for up to four incentives and reduced parking requirements. The density bonus may be claimed by developers and property owners even if a local jurisdiction has not yet updated its density bonus ordinance to be compliant with the State directive.

To improve housing stability for Hayward residents, Council has adopted work plans (Preserve, Protect, Produce Housing for all Priority of the Strategic Roadmap and the Incentives to Housing Production Work Plan) that intend to preserve, protect, and produce housing. Both plans direct staff to not only conform Hayward Density Bonus with state law and but also explore density bonus greater than maximum.

In response to recent State housing legislation, the City of Hayward sought out and was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Of the $310,000 awarded to the City, $235,000 is earmarked for the Objective Standards component of this project with the remaining $75,000 dedicated towards updating the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance in order to bring it into compliance with State law.

Existing Density Bonus Ordinance. The City’s existing Density Bonus Ordinance was adopted in 2005. This ordinance aimed to ensure that land developed for market rate affordable housing would also provide incentives for projects that included affordable housing.

The Density Bonus Ordinance offered developers or property owners a bonus ranging from 5-35% density increase, depending on how many affordable housing units the developer included in a project. Per the Ordinance, the following are minimum thresholds which qualify for a density bonus:

- 10% of units set aside for lower income households
- 5% of units set aside for very low-income households
- Senior Citizen Housing Development or Mobile Home Park - 10% moderate income for purchase (in a common interest development) - Projects that donate land to the city for affordable housing development, in line with the requirements described in the ordinance
- Projects that include an on-site childcare facility (the project should be located in a neighborhood that lacks childcare facilities)
- Projects that convert apartments to condominiums that will make at least 33% of units affordable to moderate income households

In addition to a density bonus, housing projects qualify for up to three incentives, depending on how much affordable housing they provide. An incentive (also called a concession) can be a reduction in development standards, including a reduction in setback or square footage

Page 3 of 7 ends

requirements, or a reduction in required parking. An applicant may request another type of incentive if they can justify why that incentive is necessary.

California Density Bonus Law Amendments. Since 2005, the State of California has amended their density bonus law several times through the following legislation to expand and promote opportunities to provide affordable housing:

- SB 1227 (adopted in 2018): provides density bonuses for projects that include student housing.
- AB 1763 (adopted in 2019): strengthens the density bonus considerably by allowing up to an 80% density bonus and a fourth incentive if 100% of the units are deed restricted for lower income households. If the development proposed 100% affordable units within a half-mile of a major transit stop, this bill allows an additional 3-story height limit increase and unlimited density within that building envelope. - AB 2345 (adopted in 2020): increases annual reporting requirements and strengthens the density bonus, including by allowing developers to request an elimination of all parking requirements for 100% affordable developments within a half mile of a major transit stop.
- SB 728 (adopted in 2021): clarifies requirements for the purchaser of a “for-sale” moderate income unit that qualifies the developer for a density bonus. - SB 290 (adopted in 2021): grants incentives to projects that include 20% of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development. It also requires the local agency to report on student housing projects receiving density bonuses as part of a housing element annual report.
- AB 634 (adopted in 2021): permits local agencies to require an affordability period longer than 55 years to qualify for the incentives provided for under the State Density Bonus Law.

Current State Density Bonus Law. The current State density bonus law offers applicants a 20% to 80% density increase, depending on how many affordable or senior housing units a developer includes in a project. Additionally, for projects that provide 100% affordable units, applicants are allowed unlimited density bonus and an additional three stories of building height if located near a major transit stop. Under the current State law, the following are the minimum thresholds that qualify a project for a density bonus:

- 5% of units set-aside for low income households
- 10% of units set-aside for lower income households
- 10% of units for-sale to moderate income households
- 100% of units set- aside for very low, lower, and moderate -income (with maximum 20% moderate)
- 10% of the housing units are for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons, with rents restricted at the very low-income level - 20% of units for low-income college stud ents in housing dedicated for full -time students at accredited colleges
- The project donates at least one acre of land to the city for very low-income units - The project is a senior citizen housing development (no affordable units required) - The project is a mobile home park age- restricted to senior citizens (no affordable

Page 4 of 7 ends

units required)

In addition to the density bonus, projects can also qualify for up to four incentives, plus relaxed parking requirements. Jurisdictions are required to develop a procedure for processing density bonus applications, and the State law supersedes more conservative formulas specified in local density bonus ordinances. A more detailed comparison between the City’s Ordinance and the State’s Density Bonus laws are discussed below.

DISCUSSION

Comparison of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance and the State’s Density Bonus law. As previously noted, the City’s existing Density Bonus Ordinance from 2005 does not align with current State law. The current State law offers more density, more incentives, and additional relaxed parking requirements to projects that qualify for the density bonus. The list of qualifying projects for the Hayward Density Bonus Ordinance also differs from the list of projects that qualify for the State Density Bonus Ordinance. As such, the State’s Density Bonus formula takes precedence; however, the City can change the formula to offer a higher density bonus and more incentives for certain projects but under no circumstances can the City offer smaller density bonuses or fewer incentives than the State formula mandates. For example, if the City wants to incentivize and promote senior housing, the City could offer senior housing projects a higher density bonus instead of the standard 20% density bonus that the State requires, but in order to provide that bonus, the City must update our local Ordinance to includes that provision. A summary comparison is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Comparison Hayward’s Density Bonus Ordinance vs. State Density Bonus law Amount of Bonus Allowed Maximum # of Incentives Misc.

Hayward Density
Bonus Ordinance
5 to 35% Density Bonus 1 to 3 incentives (parking
counts as one incentive)

California Density
Bonus law
20 to 80% Density Bonus 1 to 4 incentives Relaxed parking requirements
Note: Under current California law, any development standard that would prevent a developer from achieving either the density bonus, incentives, or parking requirements they are entitled to, is waived. The above table does not capture all cases – for instance, a 100% affordable project within ½ mile of public transportation qualifies for a waiver of the parking requirements fully waived, a 3-story height increase, and an unlimited density increase within that building envelope.

In addition to bringing Hayward’s density bonus formula into compliance with the state’s formula, repealing and replacing the density bonus ordinance will help Hayward come into compliance with the State’s requirement that all jurisdictions develop a procedure for processing density bonus applications. Hayward’s existing procedure does not include a timeline for processing the application and puts the burden of proof (that an incentive provides cost savings) on the applicant rather than the City.

Examples from Other Jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions in Alameda County have adopted Density Bonus ordinances or are in the process of drafting an ordinance. Some jurisdictions, like Oakland, have outdated density bonus ordinances, but are only updating to reflect the thresholds adopted by State law. Because State law changed significantly in 2021, many of these measures were passed very recently and there is limited data on their efficacy. Below are a few examples of what other jurisdictions have adopted as part of their Density Bonus Ordinance:

Page 5 of 7 ends

1. Pre-define preferred incentives to expedite staff approval (San Jose)

Under the State Density Bonus Law, jurisdictions may reject a developer-proposed incentive if the City can show that it:
- Would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; - Would have a specific adverse impact on health and safety, or; - Would be contrary to state law.

San Jose’s Density Bonus Ordinance pre-defines four incentives that will not be deemed to have an adverse impact on public health or safety. By specifying pre-approved incentives, they hope to speed the review of density bonus applications that request these incentives and exert some control over which incentives developers seek. Developers may still request other incentives, but any incentive not specified in the ordinance will be reviewed by the city to determine its impact, which may delay the permit approval. The San Jose ordinance does not specify the approval authority for density bonus applications as the approval authority for a density bonus application is the same as any non-density bonus project.

2. Create guidelines to help staff and applicants define incentives and process applications (Berkeley)

The City of Berkeley’s Density Bonus Ordinance has created guidelines for what will constitute one incentive (i.e. exceedance of a single dimensional standard, such as building height, which would otherwise require approval by the zoning officer, Council, or zoning administration board counts as one incentive).

3. Create an ordinance that is flexible enough to accommodate future changes to state law.

Many cities in Alameda County have density bonus ordinances that thoroughly outline the state density bonus formula at the time that they were written. Because the State has frequently amended the density bonus law in the last several years, the following jurisdictions have density bonus ordinances that are out of date: Livermore, Emeryville, Albany, Oakland, San Leandro, Fremont, and Alameda. Ordinances are more likely to remain in compliance if they only cite the State formula without thoroughly describing it within the ordinance, and if it’s noted that that the formula is subject to future changes, per changes in state law. However, it is possible to list the full formula in the ordinance and just update it frequently as required by State law. Both San Mateo and Palo Alto have up-to-date ordinances that list the full density bonus formula, which they updated in 2021.

4. Offer additional incentives for desirable development types (Sonoma County, El Segundo)

Cities are entitled to offer developers a larger density bonus than the default State law formula if they wish. For example, Sonoma County offers a 100% density bonus to projects that provide 40% low-income housing. Under State law, the same project would only get a 50% density bonus.

Offering a larger bonus to certain types of projects can add additional incentive for those development types. El Segundo is considering offering an additional density bonus to senior housing projects to encourage developers to provide senior housing, a need in their city. The current Hayward Density Bonus Ordinance provides a density bonus for projects that will

Page 6 of 7 ends

include on-site childcare facilities. There is an opportunity in Hayward with this new Density Bonus ordinance to potentially offer additional density or more incentives to projects that provide student housing or lower income ownership housing.

Review and Approval of Density Bonus Applications. To apply for a density bonus under the City’s current ordinance, an applicant must submit a Density Bonus Application, along with a description of what is being requested, why the project qualifies, an administrative fee as specified in the Master Fee Schedule, and several other required documents. All Density Bonus applications in the City are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission by default. However, the application moves to the Council if the project involves another permit or entitlement requiring Council approval, such as a rezoning or General Plan Amendment. In the latter case, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Council regarding project approval or denial and adoption of any applicable CEQA documents, including a recommendation on the density bonus request.

If Council and Planning Commission determine it is appropriate, applications under this new ordinance could be considered by the lowest approving body, which in straightforward cases may be an administrative staff approval. Streamlining density bonus applications could save the developer and City time and money. It could support the goals identified in the two housing work plans adopted by Hayward by incentivizing housing production.

Summary. As discussed in this report, the City needs to update its Density Bonus Application to bring it into compliance with State Law. Staff is interested in direction from the Planning Commission and Council on the following questions:

• Does the Council and Planning Commission prefer to follow the State’s density bonus formula with no changes, or should the City offer additional incentives for certain types of housing? If so, what types of housing should the ordinance further incentivize (i.e., student, lower income ownership, senior)?

• Does the Council and Planning Commission want to align the density bonus approval process with the standard entitlement process to streamline permitting?

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

In January 2020, the Council adopted six Strategic Priorities as part of its three-year Strategic Roadmap:

1. Preserve, Protect & Produce Housing

2. Grow the Economy

3. Combat Climate Change

4. Improve Infrastructure

5. Improve Organizational Health

6. Support Quality of Life

This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect and Produce Housing for all. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project (s):

Page 7 of 7 ends

Project 4: Implement housing incentives and production work plan in accordance to state housing limits

Project 4b: Amend Density Bonus Ordinance

FISCAL IMPACT

The proposed budget for this project is $75,000, which will be covered and paid through the HCD SB2 Planning Grant awarded in 2019. At this time, staff does not anticipate any additional costs associated with this project or fiscal impacts to the City’s General Fund.

NEXT STEPS

Following the work session with the Council and Planning Commission, staff will work with the consultants to draft a new ordinance to conform with State law and incorporate feedback and recommendations of Council and the Planning Commission. Staff and the consultant team expect to bring the new draft ordinance to the Homelessness and Housing Task Force and the Planning Commission for recommendation in April with Council consideration in May 2022.

Finally, the consultant team will create two informational documents to aid staff in processing applications: a developer checklist and an informational report in word document form which can be updated in response to future state laws.

Prepared by: Jeremy Lochirco, Acting Planning Manager
Christina Morales, Housing Division Manager
Suzanne Avila, AICP, Principal Planner
Farhad Mortazavi, Principal Planner
Laurel Mathews, Associate Planner

Recommended by: Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

Approved by:

__________________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

Page 1 of 4 ends

DATE: February 1, 2022

TO: Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission

FROM: Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

SUBJECT: Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update: Review and Discuss the Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update Project

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council and Planning Commission provide initial guidance and feedback on the Residential Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Update Project with particular attention to the questions outlined in this report.

SUMMARY

In response to recent State housing legislation pertaining to streamlined development review and objective standards, in 2019, the City of Hayward sought out and was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Of the $310,000 awarded to the City, $235,000 is earmarked for a project to develop detailed objective residential standards and implement targeted zoning updates to ensure General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistency.

Following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process conducted in November and December 2021, consulting firm Mintier Harnish was selected to support the City in this project, which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2022. At this joint session, which constitutes the public kick-off of the Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates Project, staff is requesting specific feedback from the Council and Planning Commission on the following questions:
- What qualities of residential development should the objective standards address (e.g. massing, relationship to surrounding development, frontage types, windows/privacy, landscaping, colors/materials, and/or parking)?
- What stakeholders should be engaged as part of this project? - What outreach strategies should be utilized for this project?

Page 2 of 4 ends

BACKGROUND

Recent State Housing Legislation. In recent years, the California legislature has adopted and amended several housing and land use laws to address the state’s housing crisis. Specifically, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found that California needs an estimated 1.8 million new homes by 2025 to meet projected demand, yet on average, only 80,000 new homes are built per year.1 The Housing Action Plan developed by the State includes several strategies to achieve these targets including streamlining housing construction, lowering per unit costs, developing production incentives for jurisdictions meeting housing goals, defining accountability and enforcement to strengthen local compliance with housing laws, and creating dedicated funding sources for housing.

Since 2017, the State legislature has adopted numerous housing bills to achieve the goals and strategies outlined in the Housing Action Plan. While the legislature has adopted dozens of bills over the past few years, a few have significantly changed typical planning and approval processes. Specifically, Senate Bill (SB) 35, SB 330 and SB 8, are aimed at streamlining land use entitlements. Streamlining is generally used to limit and define local control and discretion thus providing developers with more certainty in timing and outcomes for residential and mixed-use developments.
- SB 35 (2017) streamlines housing development approvals on infill sites that comply with “objective standards,” meet minimum affordability requirements, are not environmentally sensitive, and if the developer pays prevailing wage and use a “skilled and trained workforce” for projects over a certain threshold. - SB 330 (2019) requires cities to approve housing development projects that comply with all applicable objective standards and freezes impact and other fees in place when a pre-application is filed and deemed complete.
- SB 8 (2021) builds upon SB 330 by expanding the definition of a “housing development project” to include single family dwelling units.

Other legislation includes updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Density Bonus law and adoption of SB 9 and SB 10, are aimed at allowing a greater number and variety of housing types.
- ADU law (updated 2020) allows for development of accessory dwelling units on single- family and multi-family zoned properties.
- Density Bonus Law (AB 1763, 2020) allows for an 80% density bonus if 100% of the units are deed restricted for lower income households, and provides an unlimited density bonus if the housing development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.
- SB 9 (2021) requires ministerial approval for urban lot splits and two-unit developments on single family properties that meet certain criteria. - SB 10 (2021) allows cities to upzone multifamily parcels within a certain proximity to high frequency transit to permit up to ten residential units and bypasses the CEQA process for the zone change.

1 California’s Housing Future: Challenges and Opportunities Final Statewide Housing Assessment 2025 prepared by California Department of Housing and Community Development. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/sha_final_combined.pdf

Page 3 of 4 ends

More information about new housing and land use legislation is outlined within Attachment III.

Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Project. In 2019, the City of Hayward was awarded a SB 2 Planning Grant by HCD for various housing related activities. A portion of these grant funds are earmarked for the development of more detailed objective residential standards. The grant funds for this project will also cover zoning amendments to ensure General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistency for parcels that are zoned for single family uses but have underlying General Plan designations that require higher densities.

This project will give the community, developers, staff, and decision makers more certainty about what future development will look like as we move forward with these State mandated streamlined processes. This project will further address concerns previously expressed by the Council, Planning Commission, and the community regarding a desire for more detailed standards related to architectural design and neighborhood context. Ultimately, this project will align Hayward’s goals and expectations for future development with the State’s goal to address the housing crisis.

Request for Proposals and Consultant Selection. On November 5, 2021, the City released a RFP to seek a consultant to assist with the Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Project. In response to the RFP, the City received one proposal from Mintier Harnish. A committee of staff representing the City’s Planning Division and Housing Division reviewed the proposal and interviewed the firm before confirming that Mintier Harnish is the capable and preferred team to complete the work. On January 25, 2022, the Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Mintier Harnish to complete the proposed project. Minter Harnish’s Scope of Work and Budget are attached to this staff report as Attachment IV.

DISCUSSION

As defined by the Housing Crisis Act, a development standard is considered to be objective if it involves no “personal or subjective judgement by a public official.” Due to the recent changes in State housing law outlined above, residential projects that meet certain requirements, including consistency with applicable objective standards, must be approved.

The Hayward Municipal Code already includes some basic objective standards for residential zoning districts, including height limits, setback minimums, and lot coverage maximums. More recently adopted portions of the Municipal Code, such as sections governing the Downtown Specific Plan area and the Mission Boulevard corridor, provide much more extensive objective standards for residential development, including standards related to allowable frontage and building types, façade articulation, and architectural elements. Adopting more detailed objective residential standards for all residential zoning districts will help ensure that future housing development is attractively designed in a manner consistent with the community’s goals and objectives. Additionally, more detailed objective standards will provide developers with greater certainty as to what is expected during the development review process.

Page 4 of 4 ends

At this joint session, which constitutes the public kick-off of the Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates Project, staff is requesting specific feedback from the City Council and Planning Commission on the following:
- What qualities of residential development should the objective standards address (e.g. massing, relationship to surrounding development, frontage types, windows/privacy, landscaping, colors/materials, and/or parking)?
- What stakeholders should be engaged as part of this project? - What outreach strategies should be utilized for this project?

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Preserve, Protect and Produce Housing for All. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project (s):

Project 4, Part 4d: Implement housing incentives and production work plan in accordance to state housing limits; Develop an Overlay Zoning District to allow RS zoned properties (single family residential) to develop into a variety of housing types at densities permitted under the applicable General Plan designation.

FISCAL IMPACT

Mintier Harnish’s proposed budget is $204,910. Additionally, the consultant team has proposed a $30,000 contingency to cover any unanticipated costs, bringing the total budget to $234,910, all of which will be paid through the HCD SB2 Planning Grant awarded in 2019.

NEXT STEPS

Following the joint Council and Planning Commission work session, staff will incorporate any comments received into the Objective Residential Development Standards and Zoning Consistency Project. As part of the project’s robust Community Engagement Strategy, four more study sessions and two public hearings are planned with these bodies.

Prepared by: Elizabeth Blanton, AICP, Senior Planner
Taylor Richard, Assistant Planner

Recommended by: Jennifer Ott, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director

Approved by:

_________________________________
Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

Attachment III
Recent Housing and Land Use Legislation
Page # Bill Summary
2 SB 8 (2021) This bill extends and clarifies the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), which speeds up residential project approvals. Notably, it now includes single family homes as subject to the HCA.
3 SB 9 (2021) This bill allows a lot to be divided into 2 lots, and each of those lots to have up to 2 homes, any of which could be sold separately.
5 SB 10 (2021) This bill simplifies the lengthy and costly process to rezone, as long as the rezone is limited to up to 10 homes per lot. A jurisdiction has the ability to decide whether or not to implement SB 10.
6 SB 478 (2021) This bill creates a maximum to the minimum lot size a city can require. 7 AB 2345 (2020) This bill expands existing state Density Bonus law to allow developers to build more homes in exchange for a higher set aside of affordable units.

Specifically, a developer may now receive a 50% increase in their project’s density in exchange for reserving either 15% of units at Very-Low-Income (VLI) levels, or 24% of units at Low-Income. A developer can also receive a 50% bonus by reserving 44% of their units for Moderate-Income households, but only in for-sale projects. The law also provides more flexibility for earning Density Bonus concessions (e.g., lower parking requirements, reduced setbacks, etc.). AB 2345 can help a developer make a project pencil where inclusionary requirements are higher by providing more bonus density to offset the higher percentage of affordability. 9 AB 1763 (2019) This bill creates enhanced density bonus options, including a potential 80 percent increase in base density and unlimited density bonuses for qualifying projects within a half-mile of a major transit stop, under the State Density Bonus Law. However, this only applies to projects that consist of 100 percent affordable housing (no more than 20 percent moderate- income, and the remainder for lower-income).
11 SB 330 (2019) The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 tightens the protections for residential development projects under the Housing Accountability Act by limiting a jurisdiction's ability to change development standards and zoning applicable to the project once a preliminary application is submitted.

Streamlines the permitting and approval processes, limits the number of public hearings, discourages demolition of existing housing and ensures no net loss in zoning capacity.
13 SB 35 (2017) This bill streamlines multifamily housing project approvals, at the request of a developer, in a city that fails to issue building permits for its share of the regional housing need by income category. (Hayward currently falls into this category.) In a SB 35 city, approval of a qualifying housing development on qualifying site is a ministerial act, without CEQA review or public hearings. 16 ADUs (2016-
2021)
AB2299, AB 2406 and AB 670 are among 14 bills that requires ministerial, nondiscretionary approval of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). For more information, please review the attached guidelines from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
1 SB 8 (Skinner) – 2021Currently in effect, sunsets 1/1/2030 Background:

The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 requires a housing development be subject only to the ordinances,policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted. It alsoprohibits approving a housing development project that requires the demolition of occupied or vacantprotected units unless the developer agrees to provide the occupants of any protected units withrelocation benefits and a right of first refusal for a comparable unit available in the new housingdevelopment that is affordable to the household.

Overview:

This bill clarifies that for various purposes the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, that “housing developmentproject”includes projects that involve no discretionaryapprovals, projects that involve bothdiscretionary and nondiscretionary approvals, and projects that include a proposal to construct asingle dwelling unit.It does not affect a projectfor which an application was submitted before 1/1.22.

This bill also specifies that the actdoes not prohibitanaffordablehousing project from being subjecttoordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted if theproject has not commenced construction within 3.5 years.

It alsolimits the requirement to provide relocationbenefits and a right of first refusal to only theoccupants of protected unitsthat are lower incomehouseholds. It does not apply to an occupant of ashort-term rental of fewer than 30 days.

Exemptions
● Applications submitted after1/1/19, but before 1/1/20, that are in a jurisdiction with apopulation under 31,000 that has adopted a rent or price control ordinance.● Projects with a single residential unit located on a site where a single protected unit is beingdemolished are exempt from the right of first refusal requirement● Protected units in a housing development where 100% of the units are reserved for lowerincome households, not including any manager’s units, are also exempt from right of first refusalunless the occupant of a protected unit qualifies for residence in the new development and theoccupant is not precluded from occupancy due to unit size limitations or other requirements ofone or more funding source of the housing development.

This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partnersis a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp [email protected] 2 SB 9 (Atkins, Caballero, Rubio, Wiener) – 2021
Status as of 9/16/2021: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021.This bill will be effective on January 1, 2022.

Overview:

SB 9 requires cities toministerially approve constructionof two units on any parcel zoned forsingle-family residentialandrequires cities to ministeriallyapprove "urban lot splits" tosubdivide anyresidential lot into two lots of equal size no smaller than 1,200 square feet each.

Cities may only require up to one additional off-street parking space per unit. Ministerial approval doesnot include a public hearing. Some local zoning provisions would be preempted if the provisionspreclude development of two units on a single-family lot.

Impact:

This bill is considered by many to be the most significant housing bill coming out of California’s 2021legislative session. SB 9 could expand the supply of smaller-scaled housing, particularly inhigher-resourced, single-family neighborhoods. It builds on recent ADU legislation that allowed ADUs onnearly all California single-family parcels. SB 9 allows for the development of new, for-sale homes, eitheron a newly subdivided lot or through the conversion of existing single family homes into multiple units.

According to theTerner Center, the ability to createduplexes and/or split the lot and convey new unitswith a distinct title:● Allows property owners to pursue a wider range of financing options than are available for ADUconstruction to build these new homes.● Open up new homeownership opportunities at more attainable price points for prospectivepurchasers, who would be able to apply for a traditional mortgage to buy the home.● Depends on local context because:1) It does not apply to single-family parcels in historic districts, fire hazard zones, and ruralareas2) Local market prices and development costs play a large role in determining where thereis financial viability for the addition of new homes.3) Physical constraints, such as small lot sizes and other local regulations, can limit thenumber of new homes built as a result of this bill.

The Terner Center analysis found “that SB 9’s primary impact will be to unlock incrementally more unitson parcels that are already financially feasible under existing law, typically through the simple subdivisionof an existing structure.Relatively few new single-familyparcels are expected to become financiallyfeasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill.” This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partnersis a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp [email protected] 3 Other potential impacts include:● Loss of local control and local decision-making including due process and public hearings● Environmental review under CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) not required● Increases parking issues Limitations:● SB 9 does not apply to projects which require demolition or alteration of affordable housing● SB 9 does not apply to projects which would require demolition of more than 25% of an existingstructure (walls)● SB 9 does not apply to projects located within a historic district or designated as a historiclandmark This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partnersis a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp [email protected] 4 SB 10 (Wiener) – 2021Goes into effect 1/1/22
Overview
Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction ofaffordable housing.

This bill authorizes local governments to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units ofresidential density per parcel:
● Notwithstanding any local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances● At a height specified in the ordinance● If the parcel is located in a transit-rich areaoran urban infill site Implementation & Limitations
● SB 10 maintains local control, as a local legislative body must pass a resolution to adopt the plan.● It will not impact project approvals or CEQA exemptions for projects.● Local governments can determine which individual projects will be ministerial or subject todiscretionary approval.● The bill prohibits an ordinance adopted under these provisions from superseding a localrestriction enacted or approved by a local initiative that designates publicly owned land asopen-space land or for park or recreational purposes.● The zoning ordinance must clearly demarcate the areas subject to the ordinance● The legislative body must make a finding that the ordinance is consistent with the city orcounty’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.● The ordinance must be adopted by a 2/3 vote of the members of the legislative body if theordinance supersedes any zoning restriction established by local initiative.● An ordinance adopted under these provisions cannot reduce the density of any parcel subject tothe ordinance This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partnersis a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp [email protected] 5 SB 478 (Wiener) – 2021This bill is effective on January 1, 2022 Overview:
● This bill prohibits local agencies from imposing a floor area ratio (FAR) standard that is less than1.0 on a housing development project that consists of 3 to 7 units, or less than 1.25 on a housingdevelopment project that consists of 8 to 10 units.● The bill prohibits local agencies from imposing a lot coverage requirement that would physicallypreclude a housing development project from achieving the FARs described above.● The bill prohibits a local agency from denying a housing development project located on anexisting legal parcelsolely on the basisthat thelot area of the proposed lot does not meet thelocal agency’s requirements for minimum lot size.● The bill only applies to housing development projects that is located in a multifamily residentialzone or a mixed-use zone Background:

Existing law requires HCD to notify jurisdictions and the Attorney General if a jurisdiction is in violation ofstate law due to their housing element (or an amendment to that element), or any specified action orfailure to act, does not substantially comply with housing element law. The Davis-Stirling CommonInterest Development Act governs the management and operation of common interest developments.Existing law makes void and unenforceable all instruments affecting the transfer or sale of a planneddevelopment that effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessorydwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meetsspecified standards.

Enforcement:

The bill requires HCD to identify violations by a local government of these provisions. This bill adds theHousing Crisis Act of 2019 to the specified provisions of law for which the department is required to givenotice of a violation.

This billmakes void and unenforceableall covenantsand restrictions (or conditions contained in anydeed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in aplanned development), andany provision of a governingdocument that effectively prohibits orunreasonably restricts a housing project from using the FAR standards authorized under this bill.

The bill does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions that do not make theimplementation of a project subject to the FAR standards infeasible.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp [email protected] 6 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

AB 2345 (Gonzalez & Chiu) – 2020

Overview: This bill expands existing state Density Bonus law to allow developers to build more homes in exchange for a higher set aside of affordable units. Specifically, a developer may now receive a 50% increase in their project’s density in exchange for reserving either 15% of units at Very-Low-Income (VLI) levels, or 24% of units at Low-Income. A developer can also receive a 50% bonus by reserving 44% of their units for Moderate-Income households, but only in for-sale projects. The law also provides more flexibility for earning Density Bonus concessions (e.g., lower parking requirements, reduced setbacks, etc.). AB 2345 can help a developer make a project pencil where inclusionary requirements are higher by providing more bonus density to offset the higher percentage of affordability.

Background: Previous density bonus law allows developers to build more densely in exchange for making a certain percentage of the project’s units affordable to certain income levels. In addition to increased density, the law also previously allowed projects to claim other incentives to facilitate housing development, such as lowered parking requirements. However, the Terner Center’s 2018 California Residential Land Use Survey revealed that most cities saw little to no use of California’s density bonus law. So this bill expands the existing law to allow developers to build more homes in exchange for a higher set aside of affordable units.

Eligibility Criteria:

Under AB 2345, which takes effect on January 1, 2021, the maximum available density bonus for projects not composed exclusively of affordable housing will increase from 35 to 50 percent, where additional affordable units are built. To receive the top bonus, a project must comply with unit replacement requirements and set aside at least (1) 24 percent of units for low-income households, (2) 15 percent of units for very low-income households, or (3) 44 percent of for-sale units for moderate-income households.

7 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

Bonuses between 35 and 50 percent will be granted on a sliding scale, while current affordability requirements to obtain a lesser bonus will remain unchanged. 8 9
10 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

SB 330 - 2019
Overview: SB 330 tightens the protections for development projects under the HAA by limiting a jurisdiction's ability to change development standards and zoning applicable to the project once a preliminary application is submitted.

Background: Prior law held that standards in place at the time an application was complete were applicable and thus jurisdictions could change applicable standards during the application process in order to preclude it from qualifying for HAA protection.

Protections: The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 includes a number of new procedural protections, including the following:
• Preliminary Application Protections – limitations on a jurisdiction's ability to change development standards and zoning applicable to the project once a "preliminary application" is submitted. The bill also reduces the time in which a lead agency is required to approve or disapprove certain housing projects
• Application Completeness Streamlining – amends the Permit Streamlining Act to specify what constitutes a "preliminary application" and states that a jurisdiction has one chance to identify incomplete items in an initial application and after that may not request the submission of any new information that was not in the initial list of missing items • Fees/Exactions Limitations – prevents jurisdictions from increasing exactions or fees during a project's application period, but allows such increases if the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee calls for automatic increases in the fee over time • Hearing Limitations – prohibits cities or counties from conducting more than five hearings if a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. This prevents jurisdictions from undertaking a protracted approval process in which projects can stall because of financing or other issues
• Downzoning Prohibitions – prohibits a jurisdiction (with some exceptions) from enacting development policies, standards or conditions that would change current zoning and general plan designations of land where housing is an allowable use to "lessen the intensity of housing"; from placing a moratorium or similar restrictions on housing development; from imposing subjective design standards established after Jan. 1, 2020; and limiting or capping the number of land use approvals or permits that will be issued in the jurisdiction, unless the jurisdiction is predominantly agricultural
• Historic Nature Determinations – requires jurisdictions to make a determination on the historic nature of a planned housing development site at the time the application is deemed complete.

This determination remains valid for the pendency of the development process 11 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

If the development project does not start construction within 2 ½ years of final approval or the project is modified to include 20 percent or more residential units or square footage, then a jurisdiction can subject a project to new standards.

Some of the most important provisions in SB 330 sunset on Jan. 1, 2025, if not extended. 12 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

SB 35 — 2017

Overview: SB 35 streamlines multifamily housing project approvals, at the request of a developer, in a city that fails to issue building permits for its share of the regional housing need by income category. In a SB 35 city, approval of a qualifying housing development on a qualifying site is a ministerial act, without CEQA review or public hearings.

Qualifying cities: To qualify, cities must meet the following criteria:
• City fails to submit an annual housing element report for two consecutive years prior to the date when a development application is submitted; or
• City issues fewer building permits than the locality’s share of RHNA in each of the four income categories for the last four-year reporting period, as determined by HCD.

Qualifying sites: Developments must be located on a site that:
• Is within a city that includes some portion of an urbanized area (population 50,000 or more) or urban cluster (population between 2,500 and 50,000);
• Is on an infill site (at least 75% of the perimeter adjoining parcels are developed with urban uses); and • Is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development or has a General Plan designation hat allows residential use or a mix of residential use and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.

Qualifying developments: Development sites are excluded if they are located in an ecologically protected area, including coastal zones, prime farmland, wetlands, high fire severity zones, earthquake fault zones, hazardous waste sites, floodplains or floodways, and lands under conservation easement. Developments are also excluded if they would demolish:
• A historic structure;
• Any housing occupied by tenants in the past 10 years; or • Housing that is subject to rent or price control.

Developments must:
• Abide by certain inclusionary requirements (10% must be affordable to households earning 80% or less of AMI if the city did not meet its moderate income RNHA, or 50% must be affordable to households earning 80% or less of AMI if localities did not meet its low-income RHNA); and • Pay prevailing wages and use a “skilled and trained workforce.”

In 2018, HCD’s first assessment of cities subject to SB 35 identified that 97.6% of California cities and counties were eligible for streamlining. The majority of metros (378) are subject to streamlining for developments with at least 10% affordable housing. Only twelve cities and counties are not able to apply for SB 35 status between 2018 and 2020: Beverly Hills, Carpinteria, Carte Madera, San Anselmo, Sonoma County, Santa Barbara County, Foster City, Hillsborough, Lemon Grove, San Fernando, Napa County, and West Hollywood.

Ministerial approval: If a city determines that the development is in conflict with the city’s objective planning and design review standards then it must provide written documentation within 60 days of submittal if the 13 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

development contains 150 or fewer housing units and within 90 days of submittal if the development contains more than 150 units. “Objective standards” involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are 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.”

Approvals must be completed within 90 to 180 days (depending on the number of units in housing development) and must be ministerial and not subject to CEQA.

No parking requirements can be imposed on a SB 35 housing development project if it is located:
• Within a half-mile of public transit;
• Within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; • In an area where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the development; or
• Where there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the development.

One parking space per unit can be required of all other SB 35 projects.

Length of approval: The approval does not expire if the project includes public investment in housing affordability beyond tax credits where 50% of units are affordable to households earning less than 80% of AMI. If the project does not include 50% of units affordable to households earning less than 80% of AMI, approval automatically expires in three years except for a one-year extension if significant progress has been made in preparing the development for construction (such as filing a building permit application). All approvals remain valid for three years and as long as vertical construction has begun and is in progress.

Litigation: In January 2019 the City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn SB 35. The lawsuit contends that the state’s Constitution grants charter cities exclusive authority over local land use and zoning.

Expected Impact: As of June 2019, SB 35 has resulted in the approval of approximately 4,000 housing units currently underway.

1900 Fourth Street, Berkeley: In 2018, this project became one of the first in the state to apply for SB 35 status.

The development would have included 260 units of housing, half of which would have been subsidized housing for low-income families. The project was proposed on what is currently a parking lot. The plan had faced controversy in the past because of concerns it would disturb an Ohlone tribe shellmound. In June 2018, the City of Berkeley rejected the development’s application for SB 35 status. In September 2018, the City rejected the application for a second time, citing the proximity of the shellmound as a protected historic resource. The developer ultimately decided not to develop the site.

14 This legislative update is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Urban Planning Partners is a private firm providing planning and environmental consulting services for both governmental agencies and the private sector.

Questions related to this legislative update may be directed to Meredith Rupp at [email protected]

Vallco Mall Project, Cupertino: In 2014, San Hill Properties proposed plans to transform the mostly empty Vallco Shopping Mall into 2 million square feet of office space, 2,400 housing units, and a 400,000 square foot retail center. The proposed project, located one mile from Apple’s new headquarters, faced several years of strong community pushback. After the passage of SB 35, San Hill Properties released a new plan indicating that 50% of the 2,402 housing units will be affordable to low- and very-low income households. In September 2018, the City of Cupertino approved the project. No public funds will be needed to build the affordable housing.

681 Florida Street, San Francisco: In April 2018, a 130-unit affordable housing project located in the Mission District applied for SB 35 status. The project is being developed by Mission Economic Development Agency and Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation on a site that was donated to the city as part of the community benefits package for a 195-unit market rate development on Bryant Street. The nonprofit developers expect SB 35 to cut the entitlement process for the project by six months to a year. The development will include a 9,000 square foot community arts center and social services for residents, 20% of whom will be formerly homeless.
15 16

2 Table of Contents
Understanding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Their Importance ........................................ 3 Summary of Recent Changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit Laws ..................................................... 5 Frequently Asked Questions: .............................................................................................................. 8

1. Legislative Intent .......................................................................................................................... 8

2. Zoning, Development and Other Standards .................................................................................. 9 A) Zoning and Development Standards ...................................................................................... 9 B) Size Requirements ............................................................................................................... 11 C) Parking Requirements ......................................................................................................... 12 D) Setbacks .............................................................................................................................. 13 E) Height Requirements ........................................................................................................... 13 F) Bedrooms ............................................................................................................................. 13 G) Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................... 14 H) Conversion of Existing Space in Single Family, Accessory and Multifamily Structures and Other Statewide Permissible ADUs (Subdivision (e)) ................................................................ 15 I) Nonconforming Zoning Standards ......................................................................................... 16 J) Renter and Owner-occupancy .............................................................................................. 17 K) Fire Sprinkler Requirements ................................................................................................. 17 L) Solar Panel Requirements .................................................................................................... 17

3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) – Government Code Section 65852.22 ..................... 18

4. Manufactured Homes and ADUs ................................................................................................ 18

5. ADUs and the Housing Element ................................................................................................. 19

6. Homeowners Association ........................................................................................................... 20

7. Enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 20

8. Other .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Attachment 1: Statutory Changes (Strikeout/Italics and Underline) ................................................. 23 Attachment 2: State Standards Checklist........................................................................................ 37 Attachment 3: Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 38

17 3

Understanding Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) and Their Importance
California’s housing production is not keeping pace with demand. In the last decade, less than half of the homes needed to keep up with the population growth were built.

Additionally, new homes are often constructed away from job-rich areas. This lack of housing that meets people’s needs is impacting affordability and causing average
housing costs, particularly for renters in California, to rise significantly. As affordable housing becomes less
accessible, people drive longer distances between
housing they can afford and their workplace or pack
themselves into smaller shared spaces, both of which
reduce quality of life and produce negative environmental impacts.

***
****
Beyond traditional construction, widening the range of housing types can increase the housing supply and help more low-income Californians thrive. Examples of some of these housing types are Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs - also referred to as second units, in-law units, casitas, or granny flats) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).

ADUs
tend to be significantly less expensive to build and offer benefits that address common development b arriers such as affordability and environmental quality. Because ADUs must be built on lots with existing or proposed housing, they do not require paying for new land, dedicated parking or other costly infrastructure required to build a new single-family home. Because they are contained inside existing single-family homes, JADUs require relatively What is an ADU?
An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and has a few variations:
• Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure. • Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure. • Converted Existing Space: Space (e.g., master bedroom, attached garage, storage area, or similar use, or an accessory structure) on the lot of the primary residence that is converted into an independent living unit.
• Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A specific type of conversion of existing space that is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family residence. 18 4
modest renovations and are much more affordable to complete. ADUs are often built with cost-effective one or two-story wood frames, which are also cheaper than other new homes. Additionally, prefabricated ADUs can be directly purchased and save much of the time and money that comes with new construction. ADUs can provide as much living space as apartments and condominiums and work well for couples, small families, friends, young people, and seniors.

Much of California’s housing crisis comes from job-rich, high-opportunity areas where the total housing stock is insufficient to meet demand and exclusionary practices have limited housing choice and inclusion. Professionals and students often prefer living closer to jobs and amenities rather than spending hours commuting. Parents often want better access to schools and do not necessarily require single-family homes to meet their needs. There is a shortage of affordable units, and the units that are available can be out of reach for many people. To address our state’s needs, homeowners can construct an ADU on their lot or convert an underutilized part of their home into a JADU. This flexibility benefits both renters and homeowners who can receive extra monthly rent income.

ADUs also give homeowners the flexibility to share independent living areas with family members and others, allowing seniors to age in place as they require more care, thus helping extended families stay together while maintaining privacy. The space can be used for a variety of reasons, including adult children who can pay off debt and save up for living on their own.

New policies are making ADUs even more affordable to build, in part by limiting the development impact fees and relaxing zoning requirements. A 2019 study from the Terner Center on Housing Innovation noted that one unit of affordable housing in the Bay Area costs about $450,000. ADUs and JADUs can often be buil t at a fraction of that price and homeowners may use their existing lot to create additional housing, without being required to provide additional infrastructure. Often the rent generated from the ADU can pay for the entire project in a matter of years.

ADUs and JADUs are a flexible form of housing that can help Californians more easily access job-rich, high- opportunity areas. By design, ADUs are more affordable and can provide additional income to homeowners. Local governments can encourage the development of ADUs and improve access to jobs, education, and services for many Californians.

19 5
Summary of Recent Changes to Accessory
Dwelling Unit Laws
In Government Code Section 65852.150, the
California Legislature found and declared that, among
other things, allowing accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) in zones that allow single-family and
multifamily uses provides additional rental housing,
and is an essential component in addressing
California’s housing needs. Over the years, ADU law
has been revised to improve its effectiveness at
creating more housing units. Changes to ADU laws
effective January 1, 2021, further reduce barriers,
better streamline approval processes, and expand
capacity to accommodate the development of ADUs
and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).

ADUs are a unique opportunity to address a variety of
housing needs and provide affordable housing
options for family members, friends, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, people with disabilities, and others. Further, ADUs offer an opportunity to maximize and integrate housing choices within existing neighborhoods.

Within this context, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has prepared this guidance to assist local governments, homeowners, architects, and the general public in encouraging the development of ADUs. The following is a summary of recent legislation that amended ADU law: AB 3182 (2020) and SB 13, AB 68, AB 881, AB 587, AB 670, and AB 671 (2019). Please see Attachment 1 for the complete statutory changes for AB 3182 (2020) and SB 13, AB 68, AB 881, AB 587, AB 670, and AB 671 (2019).

AB 3182 (Ting)
Chapter 198, Statutes of 2020 (Assembly Bill 3182) builds upon recent changes to ADU law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2 and Civil Code Sections 4740 and 4741) to further address barriers to the development and use of ADUs and JADUs.

This recent legislation, among other changes, addresses the following:
• States that an application for the creation of an ADU or JADU shall be deemed approved (not just subject to ministerial approval) if the local agency has not acted on the completed application within 60 days. • R equires ministerial approval of an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed- use zone to create one ADU and one JADU per lot (not one or the other), within the proposed or existing single- family dwelling, if certain conditions are met.
• Provides for the rental or leasing of a separate interest ADU or JADU in a common interest development, notwithstanding governing documents that otherwise appear to prohibit renting or leasing of a unit, and without regard to the date of the governing documents.
20 6
• P rovides for not less than 25 percent of the separate interest units within a common interest development be allowed as rental or leasable units.

AB 68 (Ting), AB 881 (Bloom), and SB 13 (Wieckowski)
Chapter 653, Statutes of 2019 (Senate Bill 13, Section 3), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2019 (Assembly Bill 68, Section 2) and Chapter 659 (Assembly Bill 881, Section 1.5 and 2.5) build upon recent changes to ADU and JADU law (Gov. Code § 65852.2, 65852.22) and further address barriers to the development of ADUs and JADUs.

This legislation, among other changes, addresses the following:
• Prohibits local agencies from including in development standards for ADUs requirements on minimum lot size (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i)).
• Clarifies areas designated by local agencies for ADUs may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services as well as impacts on traffic flow and public safety (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)). • Eliminates all owner-occupancy requirements by local agencies for ADUs approved between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2025 (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(6)). • Prohibits a local agency from establishing a maximum size of an ADU of less than 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom and requires approval of a permit to build an ADU of up to 800 square feet (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (c)(2)(B) & (C)). • Clarifies that when ADUs are created through the conversion of a garage, carport or covered parking structure, replacement of offstreet parking spaces cannot be required by the local agency (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(xi)).
• Reduces the maximum ADU and JADU application review time from 120 days to 60 days ( Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(3) and (b)).
• Clarifies that “public transit” includes various means of transportation that charge set fees, run on fixed routes and are available to the public (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (j)(10)). • Establishes impact fee exemptions and limitations based on the size of the ADU. ADUs up to 750 square feet are exempt from impact fees (Gov. Code § 65852.2, subd. (f)(3)); ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger may be charged impact fees but only such fees that are proportional in size (by square foot) to those for the primary dwelling unit (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (f)(3)). • Defines an “accessory structure” to mean a structure that is accessory or incidental to a dwelling on the same lot as the ADU (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (j)(2)). • Authorizes HCD to notify the local agency if HCD finds that their ADU ordinance is not in compliance with state law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(2)).
• Clarifies that a local agency may identify an ADU or JADU as an adequate site to satisfy Reg ional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing needs (Gov. Code, §§ 65583.1, subd. (a), and 65852.2, subd. (m)). • Permits JADUs even where a local agency has not adopted an ordinance expressly authorizing them (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(3), (b), and (e)).
21 7
• Allows a permitted JADU to be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single- family residence and eliminates the required inclusion of an existing bedroom or an interior entry into the single- family residence (Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (a)(4); former Gov. Code § 65852.22, subd. (a)(5)). • Requires, upon application and approval, a local agency to delay enforcement against a qualifying substandard ADU for five (5) years to allow the owner to correct the violation, so long as the violation is not a health and safety issue, as determined by the enforcement agency (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (n); Health & Safety Code, § 17980.12).

AB 587 (Friedman), AB 670 (Friedman), and AB 671 (Friedman) In addition to the legislation listed above, AB 587 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2019), AB 670 (Chapter 178, Statutes of 2019), and AB 671 (Chapter 658, Statutes of 2019) also have an impact on state ADU law, particularly through Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12. These pieces of legislation, among other changes, address the following:
• AB 587 creates a narrow exemption to the prohibition for ADUs to be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the primary dwelling by allowing deed-restricted sales to occur if the local agency adopts an ordinance. To qualify, the primary dwelling and the ADU are to be built by a qualified nonp rofit corporation whose mission is to provide units to low-income households (Gov. Code, § 65852.26). • AB 670 provides that covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that either effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the construction or use of an ADU or JADU on a lot zoned for single- family residential use are void and unenforceable (Civ, Code, § 4751). • AB 671 requires local agencies’ housing elements to include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for very low, low-, or moderate-income households and requires HCD to develop a list of state grants and financial incentives in connection with the planning, construction and operation of affordable ADUs (Gov. Code, § 65583; Health & Safety Code, § 50504.5). .
22 8
.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Accessory
Dwelling Units1

1. Legislative Intent
a. Should a local ordinance
encourage the
development of
accessory dwelling units?

Yes. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65852.150, the California
Legislature found and declared that,
among other things, California is facing
a severe housing crisis and ADUs are
a valuable form of housing that meets
the needs of family members,
students, the elderly, in-home health
care providers, people with disabilities
and others. Therefore, ADUs are an
essential component of California’s
housing supply.

ADU law and recent changes intend to
address barriers, streamline approval,

1 Note: Unless otherwise noted, the Government Code section referenced is 65852.2.

Government Code 65852.150:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) Accessory dwelling units are a valuable form of housing in California.
(2) Accessory dwelling units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. (3) Homeowners who create accessory dwelling units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security.
(4) Allowing accessory dwelling units in single-family or multifamily residential zones provides additional rental housing stock in California.
(5) California faces a severe housing crisis.
(6) The state is falling far short of meeting current and future housing demand with serious consequences for the state’s economy, our ability to build green infill consistent with state greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the well-being of our citizens, particularly lower and middle-income earners. (7) Accessory dwelling units offer lower cost housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents within existing
neighborhoods, while respecting architectural character. (8) Accessory dwelling units are, therefore, an essential component of California’s housing supply.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that an accessory dwelling unit ordinance adopted by a local agency has the effect of providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and that provisions in this ordinance relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees, and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create accessory dwelling units in zones in which they are authorized by local ordinance.
23 9
and expand potential capacity for ADUs, recognizing their unique importance in addressing California’s housing needs. The preparation, adoption, amendment, and implementation of local ADU ordinances must be carried out consistent with Government Code, Section 65852.150 and must not unduly constrain the creation of ADUs. Local governments adopting ADU ordinances should carefully weigh the adoption of zoning, development standards, and other provisions for impacts on the development of ADUs.

In addition, ADU law is the statutory minimum requirement. Local governments may elect to go beyond this statutory minimum and further the creation of ADUs. Many local governments have embraced the importance of ADUs as an important part of their overall housing policies and have pursued innovative strategies. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (g)).

2 . Zoning, Development and Other Standards
A) Zoning and Development Standards
• Are ADUs allowed jurisdiction wide?

No. ADUs proposed pursuant to subdivision (e) must be considered in any residential or mixed- use zone.

For other ADUs, local governments may, by ordinance, designate areas in zones where residential uses are permitted that will also permit ADUs. However, any limits on where ADUs are permitted may only be based on the adequacy of water and sewer service, and the impacts on traffic flow and public safety.

Further, local governments may not preclude the creation of ADUs altogether, and any limitation should be accompanied by detailed findings of fact explaining why ADU limitations are required and consistent with these factors.

E
xamples of public safety include severe fire hazard areas and inadequate water and sewer service and includes cease and desist orders. Impacts on traffic flow should consider factors like lesser car ownership rates for ADUs and the potential for ADUs to be proposed pursuant to Government Code s ection 65852.2, subdivision (e). Finally, local governments may develop alternative procedures, standards, or special conditions with mitigations for allowing ADUs in areas with potential health and safety concerns. (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e))

R
esidential or mixed-use zone should be construed broadly to mean any zone where residential uses are permitted by-right or by conditional use.

• Can a local government apply design and development standards?

Ye
s. A local government may apply development and design standards that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.

However, these standards shall be sufficiently objective to allow ministerial review of an ADU. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i))
ADUs created under subdivision (e) of Government Code 65852.2 shall not be subject to design and development standards except for those that are noted in the subdivision.

24 10
What does objective mean?
“objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are 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 prior to submittal. Gov Code § 65913.4, subd. (a)(5) ADUs that do not meet objective and ministerial development and design standards may still be permitted through an ancillary discretionary process if the applicant chooses to do so. Some jurisdictions with compliant ADU ordinances apply additional processes to further the creation of ADUs that do not otherwise comply with the minimum standards necessary for ministerial review. Importantly, these processes are intended to provide additional opportunities to create ADUs that would not otherwise be permitted, and a discretionary process may not be used to review ADUs that are fully compliant with ADU law. Examples of these processes include areas where additional health and safety concerns must be considered, such as fire risk.
• Can ADUs exceed general plan and zoning densities?

Ye
s. An ADU is an accessory use for the purposes of calculating allowable density under the general plan and zoning that does not count toward the allowable density. For example, if a zoning district allows one unit per 7,500 square feet, then an ADU would not be counted as an additional unit. Further, local governments could elect to allow more than one ADU on a lot, and ADUs are automatically a residential use deemed consistent with the general plan and zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(C).) • Are ADUs permitted ministerially?

Y
es. ADUs must be considered, approved, and permitted ministerially, without discretionary action.

Development and other decision-making standards must be sufficiently objective to allow for ministerial review. Examples include numeric and fixed standards such as heights or setbacks, or design standards such as colors or materials. Subjective standards require judgement and can be interpreted in multiple ways such as privacy, compatibility with neighboring properties or promoting harmony and balance in the community; subjective standards shall not be imposed for ADU development. Further, ADUs must not be subject to a hearing or any ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits and must be considered ministerially. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(3).) • Can I create an ADU if I have multiple detached dwellings on a lot?

Ye
s. A lot where there are currently multiple detached single-family dwellings is eligible for creation of one ADU per lot by converting space within the proposed or existing space of a single-family dwelling or existing structure or a new construction detached ADU subject to certain development standards. • Can I build an ADU in a historic district, or if the primary residence is subject to historic preservation?

Ye
s. ADUs are allowed within a historic district, and on lots where the primary residence is subject to historic preservation. State ADU law allows for a local agency to impose standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. However, these standards do not apply to ADUs proposed pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivision (e). 25 11
As with non-historic resources, a jurisdiction may impose objective and ministerial standards that are sufficiently objective to be reviewed ministerially and do not unduly burden the creation of ADUs.

Jurisdictions are encouraged to incorporate these standards into their ordinance and submit these standards along with their ordinance to HCD. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(B)(i) & (a)(5).) B) Size Requirements
• Is there a minimum lot size requirement?

N
o. While local governments may impose standards on ADUs, these standards shall not include minimum lot size requirements. Further, lot coverage requirements cannot preclude the creation of a statewide exemption ADU (800 square feet ADU with a height limitation of 16 feet and 4 feet side and rear yard setbacks). If lot coverage requirements do not allow such an ADU, an automatic exception or waiver should be given to appropriate development standards such as lot coverage, floor area or open space requirements. Local governments may continue to enforce building and health and safety standards and may consider design, landscape, and other standards to facilitate compatibility.

What is a statewide exemption ADU?
A statewide exemption ADU is an ADU of up to 800 square feet, 16 feet in height, as potentially limited by a local agency, and with 4 feet side and rear yard setbacks. ADU law requires that no lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, or minimum lot size will preclude the construction of a statewide exemption ADU.

Further, ADU law allows the construction of a detached new construction statewide exemption ADU to be combined on the same lot with a JADU in a single-family residential zone. In addition, ADUs are allowed in any residential or mixed uses regardless of zoning and development standards imposed in an ordinance.

See more discussion below.
• Can minimum and maximum unit sizes be established for ADUs?

Yes. A local government may, by ordinance, establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached ADUs. However, maximum unit size requirements must be at least 850 square feet and 1,000 square feet for ADUs with more than one bedroom. For local agencies without an ordinance, maximum unit sizes are 1,200 square feet for a new detached ADU and up to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling for an attached ADU (at least 800 square feet). Finally, the local agency must not establish by ordinance a minimum square footage requirement that prohibits an efficiency unit, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 17958.1.

T
he conversion of an existing accessory structure or a portion of the existing primary residence to an ADU is not subject to size requirements. For example, an existing 3,000 square foot barn converted to an ADU would not be subject to the size requirements, regardless if a local government has an adopted ordinance.

Should an applicant want to expand an accessory structure to create an ADU beyond 150 square feet, this ADU would be subject to the size maximums outlined in state ADU law, or the local agency’s adopted ordinance.

• Can a percentage of the primary dwelling be used for a maximum unit size?

Ye
s. Local agencies may utilize a percentage (e.g., 50 percent) of the primary dwelling as a maximum unit size for attached or detached ADUs but only if it does not restrict an ADU’s size to less than the standard of at least 850 square feet (or at least 1000 square feet for ADUs with more than one bedroom). Local agencies must not, by ordinance, establish any other minimum or maximum unit sizes , including based on 26 12
a percentage of the primary dwelling, that precludes a statewide exemption ADU. Local agencies utilizing percentages of the primary dwelling as maximum unit sizes could consider multi-pronged standards to help navigate these requirements (e.g., shall not exceed 50 percent of the dwelling or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater).

• Can maximum unit sizes exceed 1,200 square feet for ADUs?

Y
es. Maximum unit sizes, by ordinance, can exceed 1,200 square feet for ADUs. ADU law does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of ADUs ( Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (g)).

Lar
ger unit sizes can be appropriate in a rural context or jurisdictions with larger lot sizes and is an important approach to creating a full spectrum of ADU housing choices.

C) Parking Requirements

• Can parking requirements exceed one space per unit or bedroom?

N
o. Parking requirements for ADUs shall not exceed one parking space per unit or bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. Guest parking spaces shall not be required for ADUs under any circumstances.

What is Tandem Parking?

Tandem parking means two or more automobiles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(D)(x)(I) and (j)(11).)

Loc
al agencies may choose to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for ADUs such as requiring zero or half a parking space per each ADU.

• Is flexibility for siting parking required?

Y
es. Local agencies should consider flexibility when siting parking for ADUs. Offstreet parking spaces for the ADU shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made. Specific findings must be based on specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions.

W
hen a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, or converted to an ADU, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces for the primary unit be replaced. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(D)(xi).)

• Can ADUs be exempt from parking?

Ye
s. A local agency shall not impose ADU parking standards for any of the following, pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2, subdivisions (d)(1-5) and (j)(10). (1) Accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. 27 13
(2) Accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district . (3) Accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure.
(4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
(5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit .

Note: For the purposes of state ADU law, a jurisdiction may use the designated areas where a car share vehicle may be accessed. Public transit is any location where an individual may access buses, trains, subways and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes and are available to the general public. Walking distance is defined as the pedestrian shed to reach public transit. Additional parking requirements to avoid impacts to public access may be required in the coastal zone.

D) Setbacks
• Can setbacks be required for ADUs?

Ye
s. A local agency may impose development standards, such as setbacks, for the creation of ADUs.

Setbacks may include front, corner, street, and alley setbacks. Additional setback requirements may be required in the coastal zone if required by a local coastal program. Setbacks may also account for utility easements or recorded setbacks. However, setbacks must not unduly constrain the creation of ADUs and cannot be required for ADUs proposed pursuant to subdivision (e). Further, a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an attached or detached ADU. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(D)(vii).)
A local agency may also allow the expansion of a detached structure being converted into an ADU when the existing structure does not have four-foot rear and side setbacks. A local agency may also allow the expansion area of a detached structure being converted into an ADU to have no setbacks, or setbacks of less than four feet, if the existing structure has no setbacks, or has setbacks of less than four feet. A local agency shall not require setbacks of more than four feet for the expanded area of a detached structure being converted into an ADU.

A local agency may still apply front yard setbacks for ADUs, but front yard setbacks cannot preclude a statewide exemption ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (c).)
E) Height Requirements
• Is there a limit on the height of an ADU or number of stories?

Not in state ADU law, but local agencies may impose height limits provided that the limit is no less than 16 feet. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(1)(B)(i).)
F) Bedrooms
• Is there a limit on the number of bedrooms?

28 14
State ADU law does not allow for the limitation on the number of bedrooms of an ADU. A limit on the number of bedrooms could be construed as a discriminatory practice towards protected classes, such as familial status, and would be considered a constraint on the development of ADUs .

G) Impact Fees

• Can impact fees be charged for an ADU less than 750 square feet?

No. An ADU is exempt from incurring impact fees from local agencies, special districts , and water corporations if less than 750 square feet. Should an ADU be 750 square feet or larger, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

What is “Proportionately”?
“Proportionately” is some amount that corresponds to a total amount, in this case, an impact fee for a single-family dwelling. For example, a 2,000 square foot primary dwelling with a proposed 1,000 square foot ADU could result in 50 percent of the impact fee that would be charged for a new primary dwelling on the same site. In all cases, the impact fee for the ADU must be less than the primary dwelling. Otherwise, the fee is not calculated proportionately. When utilizing proportions, careful consideration should be given to the impacts on costs, feasibility, and ultimately, the creation of ADUs. In the case of the example above, anything greater than 50 percent of the primary dwelling could be considered a constraint on the development of ADUs.

For purposes of calculating the fees for an ADU on a lot with a multifamily dwelling, the proportionality shall be based on the average square footage of the units within that multifamily dwelling structure. For ADUs converting existing space with a 150 square foot expansion, a total ADU square footage over 750 square feet could trigger the proportionate fee requirement. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (f)(3)(A).) • Can local agencies, special districts or water corporations waive impact fees?

Y
es. Agencies can waive impact and any other fees for ADUs. Also, local agencies may also use fee deferrals for applicants.
• Can school districts charge impact fees?

Y
es. School districts are authorized but do not have to levy impact fees for ADUs greater than 500 square feet pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code. ADUs less than 500 square feet are not subject to school impact fees. Local agencies are encouraged to coordinate with school districts to carefully weigh the importance of promoting ADUs, ensuring appropriate nexus studies and appropriate fees to facilitate construction or reconstruction of adequate school facilities.

• What types of fees are considered impact fees?

I
mpact fees charged for the construction of ADUs must be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act and generally include any monetary exaction that is charged by a local agency in connection with the approval of an ADU, including impact fees, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities relating to the ADU. A local agency, special district or water corporation shall not consider ADUs as a new residential use for the purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for 29 15
utilities, including water and sewer services. However, these provisions do not apply to ADUs that are constructed concurrently with a new single-family home. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2, subd. (f), and 66000)

• Can I still be charged water and sewer connection fees?

A
DUs converted from existing space and JADUs shall not be considered by a local agency, special district or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, unless constructed with a new single-family dwelling. The connection fee or capacity charge shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed ADU, based on its square footage or plumbing fixtures as compared to the primary dwelling. State ADU law does not cover monthly charge fees. (Gov.

Code, § 65852.2, subd. (f)(2)(A).)

H) C
onversion of Existing Space in Single Family, Accessory and Multifamily Structures and Other Statewide Permissible ADUs (Subdivision (e)) • Are local agencies required to comply with subdivision (e)?

Y
es. All local agencies must comply with subdivision (e). This subdivision requires the ministerial approval of ADUs within a residential or mixed-use zone. The subdivision creates four categories of ADUs that should not be subject to other specified areas of ADU law, most notably zoning and development standards. For example, ADUs under this subdivision should not have to comply with lot coverage, setbacks, heights, and unit sizes. However, ADUs under this subdivision must meet the building code and health and safety requirements. The four categories of ADUs under subdivision (e) are:
b. One ADU and one JADU are permitted per lot within the existing or proposed space of a single-family dwelling, or a JADU within the walls of the single family residence, or an ADU within an existing accessory structure, that meets specified requirements such as exterior access and setbacks for fire and safety. c. One detached new construction ADU that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. This ADU may be combined on the same lot with a JADU and may be required to meet a maximum unit size requirement of 800 square feet and a height limitation of 16 feet.
d. Multiple ADUs within the portions of multifamily structures that are not used as livable space. Local agencies must allow at least one of these types of ADUs and up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily structures. e. Up to two detached ADUs on a lot that has existing multifamily dwellings that are subject to height limits of 16 feet
and 4-foot rear and side yard setbacks.

T
he above four categories are not required to be combined. For example, local governments are not required to allow (a) and (b) together or (c) and (d) together. However, local agencies may elect to allow these ADU types together.

Loc
al agencies shall allow at least one ADU to be created within the non-livable space within multifamily dwelling structures, or up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units within a structure and may also allow not more than two ADUs on the lot detached from the multifamily dwelling structure. New detached units are subject to height limits of 16 feet and shall not be required to have side and rear setbacks of more than four feet.

30 16
The most common ADU that can be created under subdivision (e) is a conversion of proposed or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure into an ADU, without any prescribed size limitations, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, landscape, or other development standards.

This would enable the conversion of an accessory structure, such as a 2,000 square foot garage, to an ADU without any additional requirements other than compliance with building standards for dwellings.

These types of ADUs are also eligible for a 150 square foot expansion (see discussion below).

A
DUs created under subdivision (e) shall not be required to provide replacement or additional parking.

Moreover, these units shall not, as a condition for ministerial approval, be required to correct any existing or created nonconformity. Subdivision (e) ADUs shall be required to be rented for terms longer than 30 days, and only require fire sprinklers if fire sprinklers are required for the primary residence. These ADUs shall not be counted as units when calculating density for the general plan and are not subject to owner- occupancy.

• Can I convert my accessory structure into an ADU?

Ye
s. The conversion of garages, sheds, barns, and other existing accessory structures, either attached or detached from the primary dwelling, into ADUs is permitted and promoted through the state ADU law.

These conversions of accessory structures are not subject to any additional development standard, such as unit size, height, and lot coverage requirements, and shall be from existing space that can be made safe under building and safety codes. A local agency should not set limits on when the structure was created, and the structure must meet standards for health and safety. Finally, local governments may also consider the conversion of illegal existing space and could consider alternative building standards to facilitate the conversion of existing illegal space to minimum life and safety standards.

• Can an ADU converting existing space be expanded?

Ye
s. An ADU created within the existing or proposed space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure can be expanded beyond the physical dimensions of the structure. In addition, an ADU created within an existing accessory structure may be expanded up to 150 square feet without application of local development standards, but this expansion shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. An example of where this expansion could be applicable is for the creation of a staircase to reach a second story ADU. These types of ADUs shall conform to setbacks sufficient for fire and safet y.

A local agency may allow for an expansion beyond 150 square feet, though the ADU would have to comply with the size maximums as per state ADU law, or a local agency’s adopted ordinance.

As a JADU is limited to being created within the walls of a primary residence, this expansion of up to 150 square feet does not pertain to JADUs.

I) Nonconforming Zoning Standards
• Does the creation of an ADU require the applicant to carry out public improvements?

No physical improvements shall be required for the creation or conversion of an ADU. Any requirement to carry out public improvements is beyond what is required for the creation of an ADU, as per state law. For example, an applicant shall not be required to improve sidewalks, carry out street improvements, or access improvements to create an ADU. Additionally, as a condition for ministerial approval of an ADU, an applicant shall not be required to correct nonconforming zoning conditions. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(2).)
31 17

J) Re
nter and Owner-occupancy
• Are rental terms required?

Yes
. Local agencies may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. ADUs permitted ministerially, under subdivision (e), shall be rented for terms longer than 30 days. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(6) & (e)(4).)

• Are there any owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs?

No.

Prior to recent legislation, ADU laws allowed local agencies to elect whether the primary dwelling or ADU was required to be occupied by an owner. The updates to state ADU law removed the owner- occupancy allowance for newly created ADUs effective January 1, 2020. The new owner-occupancy exclusion is set to expire on December 31, 2024. Local agencies may not retroactively require owner occupancy for ADUs permitted between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2024.

However, should a property have both an ADU and JADU, JADU law requires owner -occupancy of either the newly created JADU, or the single-family residence. Under this specific circumstance, a lot with an ADU would be subject to owner-occupancy requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (a)(2).) K) Fire Sprinkler Requirements
• Are fire sprinklers required for ADUs?

N
o. Installation of fire sprinklers may not be required in an ADU if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence. For example, a residence built decades ago would not have been required to have fire sprinklers installed under the applicable building code at the time. Therefore, an ADU created on this lot cannot be required to install fire sprinklers. However, if the same primary dwelling recently undergoes significant remodeling and is now required to have fire sprinklers, any ADU created after that remodel must likewise install fire sprinklers. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subds. (a)(1)(D)(xii) and (e)(3).)

P
lease note, for ADUs created on lots with multifamily residential structures, the entire residential structure shall serve as the “primary residence” for the purposes of this analysis. Therefore, if the multifamily structure is served by fire sprinklers, the ADU can be required to install fire sprinklers.

L) Solar Panel Requirements
• Are solar panels required for new construction ADUs?

Yes,
newly constructed ADUs are subject to the Energy Code requirement to provide solar panels if the unit(s) is a newly constructed, non-manufactured, detached ADU. Per the California Energy Commission (CEC), the panels can be installed on the ADU or on the primary dwelling unit. ADUs that are constructed within existing space, or as an addition to existing homes, including detached additions where an existing detached building is converted from non-residential to residential space, are not subject to the Energy Code requirement to provide solar panels.
32 18
Please refer to the CEC on this matter. For more information, see the CEC’s website www.energy.ca.gov .

You may email your questions to: [email protected], or contact the Energy Standards Hotline at 800- 772-3300. CEC memos can also be found on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/AccessoryDwellingUnits.shtml.

3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) – Government Code Section 65852.22 • Are two JADUs allowed on a lot?

No. A
JADU may be created on a lot zoned for single-family residences with one primary dwelling. The JADU may be created within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence, including attached garages, as attached garages are considered within the walls of the existing single- family residence. Please note that JADUs created in the attached garage are not subject to the same parking protections as ADUs and could be required by the local agency to provide replacement parking.

JADUs are limited to one per residential lot with a single-family residence. Lots with multiple detached single-family dwellings are not eligible to have JADUs. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(1).) • Are JADUs allowed in detached accessory structures?

No, J
ADUs are not allowed in accessory structures. The creation of a JADU must be within the single- family residence. As noted above, attached garages are eligible for JADU creation. The maximum size for a JADU is 500 square feet. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subds. (a)(1), (a)(4), and (h)(1).) • Are JADUs allowed to be increased up to 150 square feet when created within an existing structure?

No. Only A
DUs are allowed to add up to 150 square feet “beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure” to provide for ingress. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (e)(1)(A)(i).) This provision extends only to ADUs and excludes JADUs. A JADU is required to be created within the single-family residence.
• Are there any owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs?

Yes. Ther
e are owner-occupancy requirements for JADUs. The owner must reside in either the remaining portion of the primary residence, or in the newly created JADU. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (a)(2).)

4. Manufactured Homes and ADUs
• Are manufactured homes considered to be an ADU?

Yes.

An ADU is any residential dwelling unit with independent facilities and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. An ADU includes a manufactured home (Health & Saf. Code, § 18007).
33 19

5. ADUs and the Housing Element
• Do ADUs and JADUs count toward a local agency’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation?

Yes.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65852.2 subdivision (m), and section 65583.1, ADUs and JADUs may be utilized towards the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) and Annual Progress Report (APR) pursuant to Government Code section 65400. To credit a unit toward the RHNA, HCD and the Department of Finance (DOF) utilize the census definition of a housing unit. Generally, an ADU, and a JADU with shared sanitation facilities, and any other unit that meets the census definition, and is reported to DOF as part of the DOF annual City and County Housing Unit Change Survey, can be credited toward the RHNA based on the appropriate income level. The housing element or APR must include a reasonable methodology to demonstrate the level of affordability. Local governments can track actual or anticipated affordability to assure ADUs and JADUs are counted towards the appropriate income category. For example, some local governments request and track information such as anticipated affordability as part of the building permit or other applications.
• Is analysis required to count ADUs toward the RHNA in the housing element?

Yes
. To calculate ADUs in the housing element, local agencies must generally use a three-part approach:
(1) development trends, (2) anticipated affordability and (3) resources and incentives. Development trends must consider ADUs permitted in the prior planning period and may also consider more recent trends.

Anticipated affordability can use a variety of methods to estimate the affordability by income group.

Common approaches include rent surveys of ADUs, using rent surveys and square footage assumptions and data available through the APR pursuant to Government Code section 65400. Resources and incentives include policies and programs to encourage ADUs, such as prototype plans, fee waivers, expedited procedures and affordability monitoring programs. • Are ADUs required to be addressed in the housing element?

Yes
. The housing element must include a description of zoning available to permit ADUs, including development standards and analysis of potential constraints on the development of ADUs. The element must include programs as appropriate to address identified constraints. In addition, housing element s must Health and Safety Code section 18007, subdivision (a): “Manufactured home,” for the purposes of this part, means a structure that was constructed on or after June 15, 1976, is transportable in one or more sections, is eight body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a single-family dwelling with or without a foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. “Manufactured home” includes any structure that meets all the requirements of this paragraph except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification and complies with the standards established under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C., Sec. 5401, and following).
34 20
include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for very low, low-, or moderate-income households and requires HCD to develop a list of state grants and financial incentives in connection with the planning, construction and operation of affordable ADUs . (Gov. Code, § 65583 and Health & Saf. Code, § 50504.5.)

6. Homeowners Association
• Can my local Homeowners Association (HOA) prohibit the construction of an ADU or JADU?

No.

Assembly Bill 670 (2019) and AB 3182 (2020) amended Section 4751, 4740, and 4741 of the Civil Code to preclude common interest developments from prohibiting or unreasonably restricting the construction or use, including the renting or leasing of, an ADU on a lot zoned for single-family residential use. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that either effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the construction or use of an ADU or JADU on such lots are void and unenforceable or may be liable for actual damages and payment of a civil penalty. Applicants who encounter issues with creating ADUs or JADUs within CC&Rs are encouraged to reach out to HCD for additional guidance.

7. Enforcement
• Does HCD have enforcement authority over ADU ordinances?

Yes
. After adoption of the ordinance, HCD may review and submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with state ADU law. If the local agency’s ordinance does not comply, HCD must provide a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, for the local agency to respond, and the local agency shall consider HCD’s findings to amend the ordinance to become compliant. If a local agency does not make changes and implements an ordinance that is not compliant with state law, HCD may ref er the matter to the Attorney General.

In ad
dition, HCD may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify ADU law.

8. Other
• Are ADU ordinances existing prior to new 2020 laws null and void?

No. Ordinances existing prior to the new 2020 laws are only null and void to the extent that existing ADU ordinances conflict with state law. Subdivision (a)(4) of Government Code Section 65852.2 states an ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) shall be null and void and shall apply the state standards (see Attachment 3) until a compliant ordinance is adopted. However, ordinances that substantially comply with ADU law may continue to enforce the existing ordinance to the extent it complies with state law. For example, local governments may continue the compliant provisions of an ordinance and apply the state standards where pertinent until the ordinance is amended or replaced to fully comply with ADU law. At the same time, ordinances that are fundamentally incapable of being enforced because key provisions are invalid -- meaning there is not a reasonable way to sever conflicting provisions and apply the remainder of an ordinance in a way that is consistent with state law -- would be fully null and void and must follow all state standards until a compliant ordinance is adopted. 35 21

• Do local agencies have to adopt an ADU ordinance?

No. Local governments may choose not to adopt an ADU ordinance. Should a local government choose to not adopt an ADU ordinance, any proposed ADU development would be only subject to standards set in state ADU law. If a local agency adopts an ADU ordinance, it may impose zoning, development, design, and other standards in compliance with state ADU law. (See Attachment 4 for a state standards checklist.) • Is a local government required to send an ADU ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)?

Ye
s. A local government, upon adoption of an ADU ordinance, must submit a copy of the adopted ordinance to HCD within 60 days after adoption. After the adoption of an ordinance, the Department may review and submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (h)(1).)

Loc
al governments may also submit a draft ADU ordinance for preliminary review by HCD. This provides local agencies the opportunity to receive feedback on their ordinance and helps to ensure compliance with the new state ADU law.

• Are charter cities and counties subject to the new ADU laws?

Ye
s. ADU law applies to a local agency which is defined as a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (Gov. Code, § 65852.2, subd. (j)(5)).

F
urther, pursuant to Chapter 659, Statutes of 2019 (AB 881), the Legislature found and declared ADU law as “…a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution” and concluded that ADU law applies to all cities, including charter cities.

• Do the new ADU laws apply to jurisdictions located in the Coastal Zone?

Ye
s. ADU laws apply to jurisdictions in the Coastal Zone, but do not necessarily alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies. (Gov. Code, § 65852.22, subd. (l)).

C
oastal localities should seek to harmonize the goals of protecting coastal resources and addressing housing needs of Californians. For example, where appropriate, localities should amend Local Coastal Programs for California Coastal Commission review to comply with the California Coastal Act and new ADU laws. For more information, see the California Coastal Commission 2020 Memo and reach out to the locality’s local Coastal Commission district office.

• What is considered a multifamily dwelling?

F
or the purposes of state ADU law, a structure with two or more attached dwellings on a single lot is considered a multifamily dwelling structure. Multiple detached single-unit dwellings on the same lot are not considered multifamily dwellings for the purposes of state ADU law.

36 22
Resources

37 23
Attachment 1: Statutory Changes (Strikeout/Italics and Underline)

GOV. CODE: TITLE 7, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 2
Combined changes from (AB 3182 Accessory Dwelling Units) and (AB 881, AB 68 and SB 13 Accessory Dwelling Units)
(Changes noted in strikeout, underline/italics)
Effective January 1, 2021, Section 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended to read:

65852.2.
(a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted.

The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. (B) (i) Impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.
(C) Provide t hat accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
(D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:
(i) The accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. (ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.
(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. (iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.
(v) The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway s hall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. (III) This cl ause shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d). (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced.
(xii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
38 24
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot.

If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. (4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including any owner-occupant requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
(7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b) When a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit.
39 25
(B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following:
(i) 850 square feet.
(ii) 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. (C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A) One accessory dwelling unit or and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit:
(i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet.
(C) (i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (ii) A local agency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (D) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
(2) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (3) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.
(4) A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days.
(5) A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (6) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose standards including, but not limited to, design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size. 40 26
(f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling. (3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation. (4) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family home. (5) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
(h) (1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. (2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B) The local agency shall consider the findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (A) and shall do one of the following:
(i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(3) (A) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
(B) Before notifying the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, the department may consider whether a local agency adopted an ordinance in compliance with this section between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020.
(i) The department may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section. The guidelines adopted pursuant to this subdivision are not subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2.
(j) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(A) An efficiency unit.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. 41 27
(2) “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (3) “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (4) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
(5) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (6) “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(7) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.
(8) “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
(9) “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
(10) “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
(k) A local ag ency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. (l) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.
(m) A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division.
(n) In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an accessory dwelling unit described in paragraph (1) or (2) below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an accessory dwelling unit for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code:
(1) The a ccessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (2) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
(o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed. (Becomes operative on January 1, 2025)

Section 65852.2 of the Government Code is amended to read (changes from January 1, 2021 statute noted in underline/italic):

65852.

2. (a) (1) A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The ordinance shall do all of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where accessory dwelling units may be permitted.

The designation of areas may be based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety. A local agency that does not provide water or sewer services shall consult with the local water or sewer service provider regarding the adequacy of water and sewer services before designating an area where accessory dwelling units may be permitted. (B) (i) I mpose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), a local agency may reduce or eliminate parking requirements for any accessory dwelling unit located within its jurisdiction.
(C) Provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
42 28
(D) Require the accessory dwelling units to comply with all of the following:
(i) The accessory dwelling unit may be rented separate from the primary residence, but may not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence. (ii) The lot is zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use and includes a proposed or existing dwelling.
(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. (iv) If there is an existing primary dwelling, the total floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.
(v) The total floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (vi) No passageway shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (vii) No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (viii) Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (ix) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (x) (I) Parking requirements for accessory dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway. (II) Offstreet parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. (III) This clause shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit that is described in subdivision (d). (xi) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the local agency shall not require that those offstreet parking spaces be replaced.
(xii) Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) A permit application for an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered and approved ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot.

If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred to implement this paragraph, including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that provides for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit. (4) An existing ordinance governing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit by a local agency or an accessory dwelling ordinance adopted by a local agency shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. If a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
(6) (A) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed 43 29
accessory dwelling unit on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be used or imposed, including any owner-occupant requirement, except that imposed except that, subject to subparagraph (B), a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant or that the property be used for rentals of terms longer than 30 days.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a local agency shall not impose an owner-occupant requirement on an accessory dwelling unit permitted between January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025, during which time the local agency was prohibited from imposing an owner-occupant requirement. (7) A local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of an accessory dwelling unit if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
(8) An accessory dwelling unit that conforms to this subdivision shall be deemed to be an accessory use or an accessory building and shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (b) Wh en a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a) receives an application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to subdivision (a). The permitting agency shall act on the application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60 -day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. If the local agency has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved. (c) ( 1) Subject to paragraph (2), a local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached accessory dwelling units.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following:
(A) A minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit.
(B) A maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than either of the following:
(i) 850 square feet.
(ii) 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom. (C) Any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size, for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law, a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units in accordance with subdivision (a), shall not impose parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances:
(1) T he accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. (2) The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The accessory dwelling unit is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure. (4) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit. (5) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. (e) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, a local agency shall ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following:
(A) One accessory dwelling unit or and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
(i) The accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not 44 30
more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress.
(ii) The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. (iii) The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. (iv) The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with the requirements of Section 65852.22. (B) One detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed four-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling unit may be combined with a junior accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A). A local agency may impose the following conditions on the accessory dwelling unit:
(i) A total floor area limitation of not more than 800 square feet. (ii) A height limitation of 16 feet.
(C) (i) Multiple accessory dwelling units within the portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings. (ii) A local a gency shall allow at least one accessory dwelling unit within an existing multifamily dwelling and shall allow up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units. (D) Not more than two accessory dwelling units that are located on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling, but are detached from that multifamily dwelling and are subject to a height limit of 16 feet and four-foot rear yard and side setbacks.
(2) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. (3) The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory dwelling unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.
(4) A local agency may require owner occupancy for either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit on a single-family lot, subject to the requirements of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a). (4) (5) A local agency shall require that a rental of the accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this subdivision be for a term longer than 30 days.
(5) (6) A local agency may require, as part of the application for a permit to create an accessory dwelling unit connected to an onsite wastewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last five years, or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (6) (7) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) and paragraph (1) a local agency that has adopted an ordinance by July 1, 2018, providing for the approval of accessory dwelling units in multifamily dwelling structures shall ministerially consider a permit application to construct an accessory dwelling unit that is described in paragraph (1), and may impose standards including, but not limited to, design, development, and historic standards on said accessory dwelling units. These standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size. (f) (1) Fees charged for the construction of accessory dwelling units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012). (2) An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered by a local agency, special district, or water corporation to be a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family dwelling. (3) (A) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “impact fee” has the same meaning as the term “fee” is defined in subdivision (b) of Section 66000, except that it also includes fees specified in Section 66477. “Impact fee” does not include any connection fee or capacity charge charged by a local agency, special district, or water corporation. (4) For an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge, unless the accessory dwelling unit was constructed with a new single-family home. dwelling. (5) For an accessory dwelling unit that is not described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), a local agency, special district, or water corporation may require a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. Consistent with Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the 45 31
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.
(h) (1) A local agency shall submit a copy of the ordinance adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. After adoption of an ordinance, the department may submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with this section. (2) (A) If the department finds that the local agency’s ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local agency and shall provide the local agency with a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to the findings before taking any other action authorized by this section. (B) The local agency shall consider the findings made by the department pursuant to subparagraph (A) and shall do one of the following:
(i) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(ii) Adopt the ordinance without changes. The local agency shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(3) (A) If the local agency does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local agency and may notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law.
(B) Before notifying the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, the department may consider whether a local agency adopted an ordinance in compliance with this section between January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020.
(i) The department may review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards set forth in this section. The guidelines adopted pursuant to this subdivision are not subject to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2.
(j) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(A) An efficiency unit.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) “Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (3) “Efficiency unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. (4) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
(5) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered. (6) “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(7) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit.
(8) “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
(9) “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
(10) “Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
(k) A local agency shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for an accessory dwelling unit before the local agency issues a certificate of occupancy for the primary dwelling. (l) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit 46 32
applications for accessory dwelling units.
(m) A local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing, as specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65583.1, subject to authorization by the department and compliance with this division.
(n) In enforcing building standards pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 17960) of Chapter 5 of Part 1.5 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code for an accessory dwelling unit described in paragraph (1) or (2) below, a local agency, upon request of an owner of an accessory dwelling unit for a delay in enforcement, shall delay enforcement of a building standard, subject to compliance with Section 17980.12 of the Health and Safety Code:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (2) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
(o) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed. become operative on January 1, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2021, Section 4740 of the Civil Code is amended to read (changes noted in strikeout, underline/italics) (AB 3182 (Ting)):

4740.
(a) An owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development to a renter, lessee, or tenant unless that governing document, or amendment thereto, was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to his or her their separate interest.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, an owner of a separate interest in a common interest development may expressly consent to be subject to a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in the common interest development to a renter, lessee, or tenant.
(c) (b) For purposes of this section, the right to rent or lease the separate interest of an owner shall not be deemed to have terminated if the transfer by the owner of all or part of the separate interest meets at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Pursuant to Section 62 or 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the transfer is exempt, for purposes of reassessment by the county tax assessor.
(2) Pursuant to subdivision (b) of, solely with respect to probate transfers, or subdivision (e), (f), or (g) of, Section 1102.2, the transfer is exempt from the requirements to prepare and deliver a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement, as set forth in Section 1102.6.
(d) (c) Prior to renting or leasing his or her their separate interest as provided by this section, an owner shall provide the association verification of the date the owner acquired title to the separate interest and the name and contact information of the prospective tenant or lessee or the prospective tenant’s or lessee’s representative. (e) (d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to revise, alter, or otherwise affect the voting process by which a common interest development adopts or amends its governing documents. (f) This section shall apply only to a provision in a governing document or a provision in an amendment to a governing document that becomes effective on or after January 1, 2012.

Effec
tive January 1, 2021 of the Section 4741 is added to the Civil Code, to read (AB 3182 (Ting)):

4741.
(a) An owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits, has the effect of prohibiting, or unreasonably restricts the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests, accessory dwelling units, or junior accessory dwelling units in that common interest development to a renter, lessee, or tenant. (b) A common interest development shall not adopt or enforce a provision in a governing document or amendment to a governing document that restricts the rental or lease of separate interests within a common interest to less than 25 percent of the separate interests. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits a common interest development from adopting or enforcing a provision authorizing a higher percentage of separate interests to be rented or leased. (c) This section does not prohibit a common interest development from adopting and enforcing a provision in a 47 33
governing document that prohibits transient or short-term rental of a separate property interest for a period of 30 days or less.
(d) For purposes of this section, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be construed as a separate interest.
(e) For purposes of this section, a separate interest shall not be counted as occupied by a renter if the separate interest, or the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit of the separate interest, is occupied by the owner.
(f) A common interest development shall comply with the prohibition on rental restrictions specified in this section on and after January 1, 2021, regardless of whether the common interest development has revised their governing documents to comply with this section. However, a common interest development shall amend their governing documents to conform to the requirements of this section no later than December 31, 2021. (g) A common interest development that willfully violates this section shall be liable to the applicant or other party for actual damages, and shall pay a civil penalty to the applicant or other party in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(h) In accordance with Section 4740, this section does not change the right of an owner of a separate interest who acquired title to their separate interest before the effective date of this section to rent or lease their property.

Effective January 1, 2020, Section 65852.22 of the Government Code is was amended to read (AB 68 (Ting)):
65852.22.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones. The ordinance may require a permit to be obtained for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit, and shall do all of the following:
(1) Limit the number of junior accessory dwelling units to one per residential lot zoned for single-family residences with a single-family residence built, or proposed to be built, on the lot. (2) Require owner-occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
(3) Require the recordation of a deed restriction, which shall run with the land, shall be filed with the permitting agency, and shall include both of the following:
(A) A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers. (B) A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this section. (4) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed within the walls of proposed or existing single-family residence.
(5) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the proposed or existing single-family residence.
(6) Require the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of the following:
(A) A cooking facility with appliances.
(B) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit.
(b) (1) An ordinance shall not require additional parking as a condition to grant a permit. (2) This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit the requirement of an inspection, including the imposition of a fee for that inspection, to determine if the junior accessory dwelling unit complies with applicable building standards.
(c) An application for a permit pursuant to this section shall, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. The permitting agency shall act on the application to create a junior accessory dwelling unit within 60 days from the date the local agency receives a completed application if there is an existing single-family dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create a junior accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the permitting agency may delay acting on the permit application for the junior accessory dwelling unit until the permitting agency acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the junior accessory dwelling unit shall still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. If the applicant requests a delay, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse the local agency for costs incurred in connection with the issuance of a permit purs uant to this section. 48 34
(d) For purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county, city and county, or other local public entity from adopting an ordinance or regulation relating to fire and life protection requirements within a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit so long as the ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences within the zone regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit or not. (e) For purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including a connection fee, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. (f) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from adopting an ordinance or regulation, related to parking or a service or a connection fee for water, sewer, or power, that applies to a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit, so long as that ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single- family residences regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit. (g) If a l ocal agency has not adopted a local ordinance pursuant to this section, the local agency shall ministerially approve a permit to construct a junior accessory dwelling unit that satisfies the requirements set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 65852.2 and the requirements of this section. (h) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. (2) “Local agency” means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.

Effective January 1, 2020 Section 17980.12 is was added to the Health and Safety Code, immediately following Section 17980.11, to read (SB 13 (Wieckowski)):
17980.12.
(a) (1) An enforcement agency, until January 1, 2030, that issues to an owner of an accessory dwelling unit described in subparagraph (A) or (B) below, a notice to correct a violation of any provision of any building standard pursuant to this part shall include in that notice a statement that the owner of the unit has a right to request a delay in enforcement pursuant to this subdivision:
(A) The accessory dwelling unit was built before January 1, 2020. (B) The accessory dwelling unit was built on or after January 1, 2020, in a local jurisdiction that, at the time the accessory dwelling unit was built, had a noncompliant accessory dwelling unit ordinance, but the ordinance is compliant at the time the request is made.
(2) The owner of an accessory dwelling unit that receives a notice to correct violations or abate nuisances as described in paragraph (1) may, in the form and manner prescribed by the enforcement agency, submit an application to the enforcement agency requesting that enforcement of the violation be delayed for five years on the basis that correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety. (3) The enforcement agency shall grant an application described in paragraph (2) if the enforcement determines that correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the enforcement agency shall consult with the entity responsible for enforcement of building standards and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 13146. (4) The enforcement agency shall not approve any applications pursuant to this section on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the enforcement agency before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the initial approval of the application pursuant to paragraph (3).
(b) For purposes of this section, “accessory dwelling unit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 65852.2. (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed.

49 35
GOV. CODE: TITLE 7, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 2
AB 587 Accessory Dwelling Units
Effective January 1, 2020 Section 65852.26 is was added to the Government Code, immediately following Section 65852.25, to read (AB 587 (Friedman)):
65852.26.
(a) Notwithstanding clause (i) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 65852.2, a local agency may, by ordinance, allow an accessory dwelling unit to be sold or conveyed separately from the primary residence to a qualified buyer if all of the following apply:
(1) The property was built or developed by a qualified nonprofit corporation. (2) There is an enforceable restriction on the use of the land pursuant to a recorded contract between the qualified buyer and the qualified nonprofit corporation that satisfies all of the requirements specified in paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3) The property is held pursuant to a recorded tenancy in common agreement that includes all of the following:
(A) The agreement allocates to each qualified buyer an undivided, unequal interest in the property based on the size of the dwelling each qualified buyer occupies.
(B) A repurchase option that requires the qualified buyer to first offer the qualified nonprofit corporation to buy the property if the buyer desires to sell or convey the property. (C) A requirement that the qualified buyer occupy the property as the buyer’s principal residence. (D) Affordability re strictions on the sale and conveyance of the property that ensure the property will be preserved for low-income housing for 45 years for owner-occupied housing units and will be sold or resold to a qualified buyer.
(4) A grant deed naming the grantor, grantee, and describing the property interests being transferred shall be recorded in the county in which the property is located. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report shall be filed concurrently with this grant deed pursuant to Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (5) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65852.2, if requested by a utility providing service to the primary residence, the accessory dwelling unit has a separate water, sewer, or electrical connection to that utility.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Qualified buyer” means persons and families of low or moderate income, as that term is defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) “Qualified nonprofit corporation” means a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that has received a welfare exemption under Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for properties intended to be sold to low-income families who participate in a special no-interest loan program.

CIVIL C
ODE: DIVISION 4, PART 5, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 1
AB 670 Accessory Dwelling Units
Effective January 1, 2020, Section 4751 is was added to the Civil Code, to read (AB 670 (Friedman)):
4751.
(a) Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable. (b) This section does not apply to provisions that impose reasonable restrictions on accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units. For purposes of this subdivision, “reasonable restrictions” means restrictions that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability 50 36
to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with the provisions of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code.

GOV. CODE
: TITLE 7, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 10.6
AB 671 Accessory Dwelling Units
Effective January 1, 2020, Section 65583(c)(7) of the Government Code is was added to read (sections of housing element law omitted for conciseness) (AB 671 (Friedman)):
65583(c)(7).

Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2.

Effective January 1, 2020, Section 50504.5 is was added to the Health and Safety Code, to read (AB 671 (Friedman)):
50504.5.
(a) The department shall develop by December 31, 2020, a list of existing state grants and financial incentives for operating, administrative, and other expenses in connection with the planning, construction, and operation of an accessory dwelling unit with affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053, for very low, low-, and moderate-income households.
(b) The list shall be posted on the department’s internet website by December 31, 2020. (c) For purposes of this section, “accessory dwelling unit” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code.

51 37
Attachment 2: State Standards Checklist

YES/NO STATE STANDARD*

GOVERNMENT

CODE SECTION
Unit is not intended for sale separate from the primary residence and may be rented.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(i)
Lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use and contains a proposed, or existing, dwelling.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(ii)
The accessory dwelling unit is either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure, or detached from the proposed or existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iii)
Increased floor area of an attached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling but shall be allowed to be at least 800/850/1000 square feet.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iv),
(c)(2)(B) & C)
Total area of floor area for a detached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 1,200 square feet.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(v)
Passageways are not required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vi)
Setbacks are not required for an existing living area or accessory structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit or to a portion of an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(vii)
Local building code requirements that apply to detached dwellings are met, as appropriate.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(viii)
Local health officer approval where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(ix)
Parking requirements do not exceed one parking space per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway.
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(x)(I

52 38
Attachment 3: Bibliography
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: CASE STUDY (26 pp.)
By the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. (2008)
Introduction: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — also referred to as accessory apartments, ADUs, or granny flats — are additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit. The separate living spaces are equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities and can be either attached or detached from the main residence. This case study explores how the adoption of ordinances, with reduced regulatory restrictions to encourage ADUs, can be advantageous for communities. Following an explanation of the various types of ADUs and their benefits, this case study provides examples of municipalities with successful ADU legislation and programs. Section titles include: History of ADUs; Types of Accessory Dwelling Units; Benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units; and Examples of ADU Ordinances and Programs.

THE MACRO VIEW ON MICRO UNITS (46 pp.)
By Bill Whitlow, et al. – Urban Land Institute (2014)
Library Call #: H43 4.21 M33 2014
The Urban Land Institute Multifamily Housing Councils were awarded a ULI Foundation research grant in fall 2013 to evaluate from multiple perspectives the market performance and market acceptance of micro and small units.

SECONDARY UNITS AND URBAN INFILL: A Literature Review (12 pp.) By Jake Wegmann and Alison Nemirow (2011)
UC Berkeley: IURD
Library Call # D44 4.21 S43 2011
This literature review examines the research on both infill development in general, and secondary units in particular, with an eye towards understanding the similarities and differences between infill as it is more traditionally understood – i.e., the development or redevelopment of entire parcels of land in an already urbanized area – and the incremental type of infill that secondary unit development constitutes.

RETHINKING PRIVATE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS (5 pp.)
By William P. Macht. Urbanland online. (March 6, 2015)
Library Location: Urbanland 74 (1/2) January/February 2015, pp. 87-91.

One of the large impacts of single-use, single-family detached zoning has been to severely shrink the supply of accessory dwellings, which often were created in or near primary houses. Detached single- family dwelling zones— the largest housing zoning category—typically preclude more than one dwelling per lot except under stringent regulation, and then only in some jurisdictions. Bureaucratically termed “accessory dwelling units” that are allowed by some jurisdictions may encompass market-derived names such as granny flats, granny cottages, mother-in-law suites, secondary suites, backyard cottages, casitas, carriage flats, sidekick houses, basement apartments, attic apartments, laneway houses, multigenerational homes, or home-within-a-home.

53 39
Regulating ADUs in California: Local Approaches & Outcomes (44 pp.)

By Deidra Pfeiffer
Terner Center for Housing and Innovation, UC Berkeley

Accessory dwelling units (ADU) are often mentioned as a key strategy in solving the nation’s housing problems, including housing affordability and challenges associated with aging in place. However, we know little about whether formal ADU practices—such as adopting an ordinance, establishing regulations, and permitting— contribute to these goals. This research helps to fill this gap by using data from the Terner California Residential Land Use Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau to understand the types of communities engaging in different kinds of formal ADU practices in California, and whether localities with adopted ordinances and less restrictive regulations have more frequent applications to build ADUs and increasing housing affordability and aging in place.

Findings suggest that three distinct approaches to ADUs are occurring in California: 1) a more restrictive approach in disadvantaged communities of color, 2) a moderately restrictive approach in highly advantaged, predominately White and Asian communities, and 3) a less restrictive approach in diverse and moderately advantaged communities. Communities with adopted ordinances and less restrictive regulations receive more frequent applications to build ADUs but have not yet experienced greater improvements in housing affordability and aging in place. Overall, these findings imply that 1) context-specific technical support and advocacy may be needed to help align formal ADU practices with statewide goals, and 2) ADUs should be treated as one tool among many t o manage local housing problems.

A
DU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California's State and Local Policy Changes (8 p.)

By
David Garcia (2017)
Terner Center for Housing and Innovation, UC Berkeley

A
s California’s housing crisis deepens, innovative strategies for creating new housing units for all income levels are needed. One such strategy is building Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by private homeowners. While large scale construction of new market rate and affordable homes is needed to alleviate demand- driven rent increases and displacement pressures, ADUs present a unique opportunity for individual homeowners to create more housing as well. In particular, ADUs can increase the supply of housing in areas where there are fewer opportunities for larger-scale developments, such as neighborhoods that are predominantly zoned for and occupied by single-family homes.

In two of California’s major metropolitan areas -- Los Angeles and San Francisco -- well over three quarters of the total land area is comprised of neighborhoods where single-family homes make up at least 60 percent of the community’s housing stock. Across the state, single-family detached units make up 56.4 percent of the overall housing stock. Given their prevalence in the state’s residential land use patterns, increasing the number of single- family homes that have an ADU could contribute meaningfully to California’s housing shortage.

Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (29 pp.)

B
y Karen Chapple et al (2017)
Terner Center for Housing and Innovation, UC Berkeley

D
espite government attempts to reduce barriers, a widespread surge of ADU construction has not materialized.

The ADU market remains stalled. To find out why, this study looks at three cities in the Pacific Northwest of the United States and Canada that have seen a spike in construction in recent years: Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. Each city has adopted a set of zoning reforms, sometimes in combination with financial incentives and outreach programs, to spur ADU construction. Due to these changes, as well as the acceleration of the housing crisis in each city, ADUs have begun blossoming.

54 40
Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California's Faustian Bargain (37 pp.)

By Darrel Ramsey-Musolf (2018)
University of Massachusetts Amherst, ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

In 2003, California allowed cities to count accessory dwelling units (ADU) towards low -income housing needs.

Unless a city’s zoning code regulates the ADU’s maximum rent, occupancy income, and/or effective period, then the city may be unable to enforce low-income occupancy. After examining a stratified random sample of 57 low-, moderate-, and high-income cities, the high-income cities must proportionately accommodate more low-income needs than low-income cities. By contrast, low-income cities must quantitatively accommodate three times the low- income needs of high-income cities. The sample counted 750 potential ADUs as low-income housing. Even though 759 were constructed, no units were identified as available low-income housing. In addition, none of the cities’ zoning codes enforced low-income occupancy. Inferential tests determined that cities with colleges and high incomes were more probable to count ADUs towards overall and low-income housing needs. Furthermore, a city’s count of potential ADUs and cities with high proportions of renters maintained positive associations with ADU production, whereas a city’s density and prior compliance with state housing laws maintained negative associations. In summary, ADUs did increase local housing inventory and potential ADUs were positively associated with ADU production, but ADUs as low-income housing remained a paper calculation. 55 City of Hayward

OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

AND ZONING CONSISTENCY UPDATES

PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES
Revised - January 20, 2022
SUBMITTED TO:

Elizabeth Blanton, Senior Planner
City of Hayward
Development Services Department
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
[email protected]
SUBMITTED BY:

Mintier Harnish
1415 20th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
916.446.0522
mintierharnish.com
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

Miller Planning Associates
DKS Associates
Attachment IV

1. Cover Letter
1415 20TH Street
Sacramento, California 95811
(916) 446-0522
FAX (916) 446-7520
[email protected]
www.mintierharnish.com
December 15, 2021
Elizabeth Blanton, Senior Planner
City of Hayward
Development Services Department
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
[email protected]
RE: Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Dear Ms. Blanton:

Mintier Harnish is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the City of Hayward with the preparation of the Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates (Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates). Since 1985, we have served over 100 public agencies and have established ourselves as a leader in general plan, housing element, and zoning code updates in California. In response to your request for proposals, the City will likely receive responses from several qualified firms.

We feel there are several key factors that distinguish us.

Zoning Code Preparation Experience. Our team has extensive experience with drafting and ensuring adoption of zoning codes and other types of development regulations. We are able to create innovative and practical solutions to both routine and unique zoning and planning problems.

Extensive Local Familiarity. Our team has unmatched local familiarity of the community.

Most notably, Mintier Harnish led the consultant team that assisted the City of Hayward with the preparation of the 2040 General Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plan. Secondly, Miller Planning Associates led the consultant team that assisted the City of Hayward with the Industrial Design Guidelines and Development Code Update.

Third, Jordan Cowell, part of our management team, led the redesign of 808 A Street and senior-housing project across from City Hall, and assisted in the site planning and architectural design effort for the SoHAY development. Each of these highly successful efforts won the strong support and praise from the City Council and community. They reflect the aspirations and goals of the Hayward community for increased quality of life, economic vitality, and streamlined development. The natural next step is to ensure that the City’s Objective Standards for Residential Development reflect the goals and aspirations of the previous efforts and continue to ensure that Hayward is on the cutting edge of design and development, while encouraging more affordable housing options for the community. We are ideally suited to lead this Project. 1 Familiarity with Contemporary Zoning Practice. We are familiar with new and emerging zoning practice trends and issues. We produce zoning ordinances that are user-friendly and rely extensively on graphics and illustrations. We are addressing the changing housing-related provisions in zoning codes, including ADUs, density bonus, employee housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and objective design standards. We are also at the forefront in the development of web-based zoning codes.

Comprehensive Objective Design Standards Experience and Implementation. We have a comprehensive understanding of the State requirements of objective design standards and have provided innovative ways for successful implementation. We have or are currently assisting 19 communities of all sizes adapt and implement objective design standards. We focus on creating standards that are not only acceptable to the community and are easy to understand, but are also acceptable to the development community.

Local Government Experience. We have extensive experience as local government staff. We have “hands-on” experience with all levels of zoning code administration, ranging from answering zoning inquiries at the front counter, to processing land use permit applications and preparing staff reports, to managing planning divisions and departments. We have personally drafted zoning codes and then been responsible for the administration and enforcement of those regulations. We understand the wide array of day-to-day issues City staff must address in code administration, as well as the needs of the public for timely, accurate responses to their questions.

Experienced Project Management. I will be the Project Advisor for the Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates. I have been a planner since 1970 and have participated in the preparation of dozens of zoning code updates. Brent Gibbons, AICP, will be the Project Director. Brent brings over a decade of planning experience and has prepared more than ten zoning code updates for communities throughout the state.

Jordan Cowell will be intimately involved in the project as the Project Manager. Jordan has eight years of experience in urban design in the Bay Area and has been a critical element to our successful objective standards efforts.

An Excellent Team. Our teaming partners brings extensive zoning code update experience as well.
• Miller Planning Associates (MPA) has been providing planning and zoning services to a variety of municipal clients throughout California and nationwide. Martha Miller, Founder, and Principal of MPA, has facilitated the comprehensive update of over a dozen zoning codes in the last 20 years. Martha and Brent also co-teach the UC Davis Course on How to Update Your Zoning Code. Mintier Harnish and MPA are partnering on several code updates including comprehensive updates for Calaveras and Madera Counties.
1415 20TH Street
Sacramento, California 95811
(916) 446-0522
FAX (916) 446-7520
[email protected]
www.mintierharnish.com
2 • DKS Associates will provide the parking analysis and will be led by Jim, Damkowitch, Managing Director of DKS Sacramento. Jim brings more than 30 years of experience in regional multimodal transportation planning.

Active Principal Involvement. I am personally leading the Mintier Harnish Team. I will be fully engaged in every aspect of the Objective Design Standards project. As noted above, I have been a Planning Director for several cities and prepared and administered dozens of zoning codes. I will be involved in the project daily and in regular contact with City staff, the community, and decision-makers.

Work Style. As part of this effort, we will be working closely with City staff, the community, Planning Commission, and City Council. To have an effective, stress free, and enjoyable process, you need a team that is great to work with. Our team has a very approachable, collegial, and comfortable work style with our clients. We bring a great process experience and tailor it to the needs and personality of each community.

We develop close, collaborative working relationships with each of our clients that last well beyond the completion of a project. We strongly urge you to confirm this with our references.

As the owner of Mintier Harnish, I am authorized to bind the firm contractually on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions at 916-446-0522 or [email protected]. I look forward to the opportunity to present our proposal and team in person.

Sincerely,
Jim Harnish, JD
Principal/Owner
1415 20TH Street
Sacramento, California 95811
(916) 446-0522
FAX (916) 446-7520
[email protected]
www.mintierharnish.com
3 Contents

1. Cover Letter ............................................................. 1

2. Team .................................................................. 5

3. Experience ............................................................. 9

4. Project Understanding and Approach ..................................... 15

5. Scope of Work ......................................................... 19

6. Schedule of Charges ................................................... 25

7. Budget ............................................................... 25 Appendix A: Detailed Resumes ............................................ A-1 Appendix B: Project Example Sheets ....................................... B-1 Appendix C: Professional Services Agreement ............................. CD-1 Appendix D: Disclosures ................................................ CD-1 4 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Qualifications
Mintier Harnish
Mintier Harnish is a Sacramento-based consulting
firm specializing in the preparation of general plans,
housing elements, zoning codes, and specific plans.

Our mission as a firm is to help public agencies,
residents, businesses, and other stakeholders plan
their communities and improve their quality of life
through solid research, community involvement,
innovation, and policy leadership. Since our
founding in 1985, we have prepared more than 60
general plans and over two dozen zoning codes,
and provided a range of planning services to more
than 140 public agencies, law firms, and other
organizations. We are currently leading 14 objective
design and development standards updates for
both cities and counties across the state. We are
a leader in preparing implementable plans for the
future that solve community policy and design issues.

Our staff includes planning experts, each with his/
her own unique mixture of education, training, and
experience. We are all dedicated to providing the
highest quality service to our clients.

Miller Planning Associates
Miller Planning Associates provides planning and
zoning services to a variety of municipal clients
throughout California and nationwide. Through our
work, we seek to give form to community aspirations,
and foster places that are vital, livable, and reflect
environmental stewardship. After 20 years of working
in private firms and the public sector, Martha Miller
established Miller Planning Associates in 2019
to provide each client and project the time and
individual attention it deserves. Each assignment
is approached with an open mind, and provides
strategic, context-based solutions that address the
unique issues and needs facing each client. Martha
Miller will serve as a Project Advisor, overseeing the
Zoning Amendments. She will provide peer review
of deliverables and assist and attend all project
meetings and community outreach events. Miller
Planning Associates is located in San Luis Obispo, CA.

2. Team
Mintier Harnish has extensive experience
in planning, zoning, and urban design. We
are currently preparing objective design
standards for the cities of Folsom, Gilroy,
Kerman, Lakeport, Millbrae, Pleasant Hill,
Reedley, Santa Clara, Selma, Stockton,
Ukiah, the Town of Windsor, and the
counties of Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado,
Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, and Trinity.

Miller Planning Associates has extensive
experience in planning and zoning in California.

Notably, Martha recently led the recent Zoning
Code Update for the City of Hayward. Miller
Planning Associates is currently working on
code updates for the communities of Alhambra,
Calaveras County, Dixon, Hermosa Beach, Morro
Bay, and Stockton; and objective standards
for the cities of San Leandro and Union City.
5 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
DKS Associates
DKS will provide the parking analysis.

Founded in 1979, DKS is a transportation consulting
firm that provides a broad range of transportation
planning and engineering services. As experts
connecting communities, DKS specializes in
transportation planning, traffic engineering,
traffic operations, traffic signal design, circulation
elements, environmental planning, and Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) design and planning.

DKS has assessed the potential parking impacts of
many commercial and residential projects in a wide
variety of settings.

Staffing
Jim Harnish, JD
Principal/Owner
Role: Project Advisor
Jim Harnish, JD, is the Principal/
Owner of Mintier Harnish and
will be the project team leader.

Jim has been a planner and
project manager since 1970. He
has been an attorney since 1981,
with extensive experience in land use and CEQA.

Jim has been Planning Director for three cities (Galt,
Folsom, and South San Francisco) and understands
every aspect of city and county planning and
zoning. He has managed or is currently managing
general plan updates for the cities of Alturas,
American Canyon, Folsom, Galt, Gilroy, Hayward,
Healdsburg, Isleton, Livingston, Millbrae, Rohnert
Park, Sacramento, South San Francisco, Ukiah, Union
City, Wheatland, and Windsor, and the counties of
Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Merced, Modoc, San Benito,
San Joaquin, and Ventura. Jim is currently managing
zoning code updates or amendments for the cities
of Gilroy, Santa Clara, Ukiah, and Windsor and the
counties of Madera, Mariposa, and Sierra. Jim has
an unparalleled working knowledge of general plan
updates and has prepared dozens of general plan
work programs and budgets.

Brent Gibbons, AICP
Project Manager
Role: Project Director
Brent has been a planner in
both the public and private
sectors. He specializes in
zoning code interpretation
and preparation, urban design,
site design, community
engagement, land use planning, public policy, and
geographic information systems. Prior to working
with Mintier Harnish, Brent served as a Planner for
both Madera County and the City of Turlock. His
experience includes permit processing, formation of
community/area plans, and project management, as
well as zoning ordinance development.
6 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Ryan Lester
Associate Planner
Ryan is an Associate Planner
with an eye for design. A
skilled user of industry-
standard graphic design
software, Ryan specializes in
preparing accessible, user-
friendly materials that present
planning concepts to the public in concise, easy-
to-understand, and engaging ways. Ryan applies
these skills while crafting existing conditions and
trends analyses, housing needs assessments, and
land use alternatives analyses for cities and counties
throughout the state. Additionally, he designs project
websites, facilitates workshops and stakeholder
interviews, and constructs interactive exercises and
surveys for both in-person and online engagement
efforts. In eight years with Mintier Harnish, Ryan has
worked on over a dozen General Plans and an equal
number of housing elements. Among other projects,
Ryan is currently working on five 6th-cycle housing
elements and is drafting Objective Design and
Development Standards for SB 35 compliance for a
half dozen cities.

Michael Gibbons
Associate Planner
Michael Gibbons is an Associate
with Mintier Harnish. Michael
serves as the day-to-day
planner for a variety of long-
term planning projects including
general plans, zoning code
updates, and housing elements.

He has experience in land use planning, zoning
regulations, Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design, urban design, architectural applications,
historic preservation, real estate development,
regulatory code, and public policy. Michael has
worked in both the public and private sector, as well
as in law enforcement. Michael holds a bachelor’s
degree in City and Regional Planning from Cal Poly,
San Luis Obispo. Among a number of projects,
Michael is currently assisting with the preparation of
the Mariposa County Development Code Update, the
Town of Windsor Zoning Code Amendments, and the
City of Gilroy General Plan and Zoning Code Updates.

Brent has extensive experience in drafting zoning
code updates and objective and development
standards. Brent is currently managing
comprehensive zoning code updates for the counties
of Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Sierra,
and the cities of Folsom, Gilroy, Kerman Santa Clara,
Walnut Creek, and Windsor. He has also managed
objective standards updates for the counties of
Fresno, Mariposa, and Madera, and the cities of
Folsom, Gilroy, Kerman, Santa Clara, Ukiah, South
Lake Tahoe, and Windsor. Brent’s comprehensive
understanding of the planning process from both
sides of the planning spectrum has proven beneficial
during the formation of and zoning code and
objective standards updates.

Jordan Cowell
Project Manager
Role: Project Manager
Jordan Cowell is a Project
Manager who specializes in
both architecture and planning/
urban design. Jordan has
become an integral member of
the planning team as he is able
to ensure plans will actually work for builders. Jordan applies his detailed knowledge to each project,
streamlining the preliminary planning to construction
document process for our clients. His municipal
planning experience allows him to actively engage in
a wide range of roles on the planning team, including
fast, yet thorough, zoning code analysis thanks to his
intimate understanding of how codes are organized
and written.

Jordan is an experienced problem solver, is adept
in writing specific plans, and provides effective
and efficient support in entitlement processes,
thanks to his work on a wide array of project types
ranging from large-scale master plans to urban infill/
mixed-use projects. He has a passion for developing
a sustainable vision for communities and future
generations to come. Jordan is Assistant Project
Manager for the City of Millbrae, City of San Ramon,
and Trinity County General Plans. Additionally, Jordan
is currently working on objective standards projects
for the cities of Gilroy, Lakeport, and Pleasant Hill.
7 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Miller Planning Associates
Martha Miller, AICP
Principal and Owner
Role: Zoning Advisor
Martha is a skilled land
use planner and project
manager specializing
in community planning,
development regulations,
and community
engagement. With 20 years of experience
working in private firms and for public agencies,
Martha brings an in-depth understanding of how
to translate community vision into a usable set
of plans, policies, and regulations that achieve
results. Martha’s approach is marked by carefully
assessing each client’s needs and resources,
and bringing best practices from form-based,
performance-based, and Euclidean applications.

DKS Associates
Jim Damkowitch
Managing Director
DKS Sacramento
Jim has 30 years of experience
in regional multimodal
transportation planning,
congestion management,
multidisciplinary corridor
studies, safety studies, transit
studies, active transportation studies, operational
analyses, transportation and air quality modeling,
and performance measure applications. He has
managed regional transportation plan/sustainable
community strategy updates and general plan
circulation element updates; operational traffic
studies for state highway infrastructure improvement
projects (PSR/PA-ED Phases); corridor studies; active
transportation studies; traffic impact fee programs;
travel demand modeling; air quality modeling; and,
transportation operational studies for a variety of
clients including Caltrans, MPOs, and various cities
and counties in California. He has served on state and
regional planning committees and conference panels
for transportation air quality conformity, performance
measurement, and SB 743, respectively.

Yana Loginova, EIT
Transportation Engineering Associate
Yana is a transportation engineering associate
working on a variety of design, planning, and
operations projects. She has experience working
on traffic signal modification, signing and striping,
lighting, ramp meter, ITS, and operations projects
with private and public agencies throughout
California and Oregon. Yana is experienced in
applying the latest transportation software packages,
including AutoCAD, Microstation, Vissim, Vistro,
Sidra, Tru Traffic, Synchro 10, and Aimsun Next.

Sean Carney, EIT
Transportation Engineer/Planner
Sean offers a broad range of analysis skills
including signal timing, traffic operations analysis,
transportation system planning, and crash data
and safety analysis. He almost exclusively works
with public agencies to identify and resolve the
transportation issues of today and plan around the
travel demand of the future. Sean is experienced in
providing both quantitative and qualitative analysis
for all methods of mobility and has worked on
projects throughout Northern California and Oregon
to address the needs of growing traffic, transit, and
active mobility demands. Sean is adept at applying
various software packages for traffic analysis
including Synchro/SimTraffic, Vissim, ArcGIS, and
Cube.

3. Experience
Relevant Experience:
• City of South Lake Tahoe Objective Residential
Design and Development Standards and
Permit Process Streamlining for Residential
Development
• City of Santa Clara Comprehensive Zoning Code
Update and Objective Design and Development
Standards Update
• City of Ukiah Multi-Family Objective Standards
and Zoning Amendments for Housing
• City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance Update and
Objective Design and Development Standards
• Town of Windsor Multifamily Objective Design
Standards
• City of Lakeport Objective Design and
Development Standards for Residential
Development
• Del Norte County 6th Cycle Housing Element,
Objective Design and Development Standards,
and Housing Element Implementation
References
Mintier Harnish
City of Ukiah
Objective Standards and
Zoning Amendments for Housing
Mintier Harnish is currently preparing objective
multifamily residential design standards and an
update to the Ukiah Zoning Ordinance to address
flexible standards for housing development. The
objective design standards and zoning ordinance
amendments will reflect changes in State law and
implementation of the City’s Housing Element, which
was adopted in early 2020. Mintier Harnish is also
leading a team to work with the City to update the
General Plan. The update includes broad community
engagement, visioning, alternatives, policy
development and a Program EIR, will be prepared by
Rincon Consultants. The Objective Standards were
adopted in June 2021.

Contact: Mireya G. Turner, MPA
Interim Senior Planner – Special Projects
Department of Community Development
300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 463-6203
[email protected]
Project Director: Jim Harnish
Project Manager: Brent Gibbons
Timing: May 2020 to June 2021
Budget: $97,000
9 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
City of Hayward
2040 General Plan Update and
Program Environmental Impact
Report (2012-2015)
Mintier Harnish managed a multi-disciplinary
consulting team in a comprehensive update of the
City of Hayward General Plan and preparation of a
Program EIR. The General Plan incorporated new City
initiatives within the context of several significant
changes in State law and a comprehensive strategy
for how the City can address climate change and
sustainability. City staff took a major role in updating the General Plan in-house. Mintier Harnish worked
closely with City staff and the team of consultants
to produce an innovative and compelling plan for
Hayward’s future. We conducted focused Do-It-
Yourself General Plan® training sessions with City
staff throughout the Update process. The resulting
2040 General Plan established a new Vision for
the city of Hayward and included several unique
elements, including a Community Health and Quality
of Life Element and an Education and Lifelong
Learning Element. The General Plan was also
developed as the City’s Community Risk Reduction
Plan and as the City’s Climate Action Plan. The City
Council certified the Final PEIR and approved the
Hayward 2040 General Plan in July 2014. Following
adoption, the Mintier Harnish team created a web-
based, fully searchable online General Plan (www.
hayward2040generalplan.com).

Contact: Sara Buzier, AICP,
Deputy Director
Development Services Department
510.583.4191
sara [email protected]
Project Manager: Jim Harnish
Timing: 2011-2015
Budget: $1,171,210
City of Gilroy
Zoning Ordinance Update and
Objective Design Standards
for Multifamily Residential
Development
Our team is currently preparing a comprehensive
update of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, as well as a
comprehensive set of Objective Standards and an
Missing Middle Housing memorandum. This update
is being undertaken in conjunction with an update
of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Update
includes compliance with changes in Federal and
State law and implementation of the updated
General Plan. The Objective Design Standards were
adopted by the City Council November 2021. This
project is scheduled to conclude in Spring 2022.

Contact: Cindy McCormick
Customer Service Manager
City of Gilroy
(408) 846-0253
[email protected]
Project Director: Jim Harnish
Project Manager: Brent Gibbons
Timing: October 2020 - November 2021
Budget: Objective Standards - $120,000
Miller Planning Associates
We have included project examples on the following
pages.
10 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates

WEST SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

ZONING ORDINANCE MODERNIZATION
Martha Miller was the project manager for a comprehensive update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, originally written in 1990 shortly after incorporation, had been amended numerous times but had not been comprehensively updated. As land use patterns diversified and modernized, the City found that the Zoning Ordinance was hindering new land use and development objectives and economic development.

The Zoning Ordinance Modernization Project (ZOMP!) brought the code up to date, adequately reflecting modern uses and current development practices. The ZOMP! also provides consistency with the recently adopted General Plan. Included in the update was a comprehensive revision of the City’s sign regulations. The goal of the sign regulation revisions was to provide for the conveyance of information in a way that protects and enhances community character and is consistent with recent case law.

CLIENT
City of West Sacramento

PROJECT TIMELINE
2016-2019

CONTACT
David Tilley, Principal Planner
(916) 617-4645
[email protected]

CONTRACT AMOUNT
$235,000

WEB LINK
http://online.encodeplus.com/
regs/westsacramento-ca/index.
aspx
WWW.MILLERPLANNINGASSOCIATES.COM
11 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA

ZONING CODE UPDATE
Martha Miller was the project manager for the comprehensive update of the City of Newark’s Zoning Ordinance. The new Zoning Ordinance implements the City’s General Plan in a concise, user-friendly set of regulations. A priority of this project was to craft regulations that will allow Newark to maintain and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods, promote economic development, and create new identifiable places, consistent with the General Plan. The new regulations are written to be predictable, understandable, and enforceable. A streamlined approval process has been established for conforming projects and an extensive use of graphics have been integrated to reduce wordiness.

The update was comprehensive, including new districts, use allowances, procedures, and sign regulations. The sign regulations were updated to comply with state and federal law and the 2015 Supreme Court case Reed v. T own of Gilbert.

CLIENT
City of Newark

PROJECT TIMELINE
2016-2018

CONTACT
Art Interiano, Deputy Community
Development Director
(510) 578-4331
[email protected]

CONTRACT AMOUNT
$250,000

WEB LINK
http://bit.ly/2KsD6iG
WWW.MILLERPLANNINGASSOCIATES.COM
12 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates DKS Associates
City of Hercules
General Plan Circulation Element
DKS assisted the City of Hercules in updating the
Circulation Element of their General Plan, previously
updated in 1998 by DKS. The update includes an
improved focus on a multimodal transportation
network and complete streets concepts and
improvements and included the following elements:
• Develop a program for outreach that helped to
identify the needs and concerns of stakeholders,
decision-makers, and the public
• Evaluation of the existing circulation system and
projected development to evaluate and prioritize
potential improvements
• Creation of a circulation model for Hercules
based on the existing CCTA traffic model to
evaluate various transportation improvement
alternatives
• Update of the goals and policies included in the
existing Circulation Element to reflect current
priorities
• Confirmation of environmental (CEQA)
compliance for the identified alternatives
• Assist in the adoption of the Circulation Element
and provide the City with guidance on fee
programs, grant programs, and other existing or
emerging sources that could be tapped to help
fund improvements identified in the Circulation
Element
The update also included a task to do cost estimating
for the identified improvements and a Nexus Study
to establish a developer fee structure.

Contact: Holly Smith, City of Hercules Planning
Director, (510) 799-8247, [email protected]
City of Dixon
General Plan Update/EIR
DKS was contracted to prepare the transportation
and circulation element update for Dixon’s General
Plan and perform analysis in support of the EIR.

DKS will be providing transportation modeling and
engineering services, including the assessment of
transportation impacts of a baseline future land use
and up to two alternatives for the General Plan and
EIR. DKS will also recommend improvements that will
be required to mitigate potential impacts determined
in the analysis.

Contact: Joe Leach, PE, City Engineer/Public Works
Director, (707) 678-7031x5305, [email protected]
City of Santa Maria
VMT Threshold Study
DKS is developing the City of Santa Maria’s SB 743
VMT Threshold Study. The study entailed establishing
a VMT methodology, analysis and establishment of
VMT Thresholds, assessment of VMT mitigation, and
development of a VMT Sketch Planning Tool. DKS
also reviewed the City of Santa Maria’s VISUM model
to identify modifications that will allow the model
to be more sensitive to VMT assessments consistent
with SB 743. The Santa Maria model was modified
and now generates full-trip length VMT estimates
for both residential and non-residential City trips
consistent with SB 743. DKS made two presentations
to the Santa Maria Planning Commission to describe
and provide options regarding screening criteria and
thresholds. Adoption of the City of Santa Maria VMT
Thresholds by City Council is scheduled/anticipated
by September 2020.

Contact: Ryan Hostetter, AICP, Planning Manager,
(805) 925-0951 ×2369,
[email protected]
13 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
This page is intentionally left blank.
14 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates

4. Project Understanding and Approach
Project Understanding
The City of Hayward is seeking proposals from
qualified consultants to prepare Objective Standards
for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency
Updates (Objective Standards and Zoning
Consistence Updates). Our understanding of the
Project is based on a combination of the Request for
Proposals, the City’s response to questions regarding
the RFP (Addendum 1), our experience assisting
numerous other communities in successfully crafting
standards, our overall understanding of the housing
crisis in California, and our knowledge from preparing
zoning codes for dozens of cities and counties
throughout the state. This Project is the City’s
opportunity to establish clear and unambiguous,
internally-consistent, legally-defensible residential
design standards and development regulations
that reflect a contemporary Hayward. The objective
design and development standards will comply with
the requirements of State law and set the stage for
continued positive change in the community. Based
on our understanding, we have identified seven
objectives for the Project.

Engage the Community. The City expects the
Consultants to work with staff to organize and
facilitate an effective community engagement
program. The engagement program should include
a wide range of components intended to maximize
public participation, including a project webpage,
project-specific marketing materials, interactive
outreach efforts, community workshops, stakeholder
meetings, study sessions, and adoption hearings.

The new Objective Standards must be based upon
the results of a comprehensive public engagement
program to ensure that everyone in the community
has an opportunity to participate and are fully
represented in shaping Hayward’s future. Further,
outreach activities should be conducted through
a racial equity lens to ensure that the proposed
objective standards and zoning updates do not
disproportionately impact communities of color.

Special attention should be given to communicating
information clearly and succinctly and in multiple
languages, as necessary, so that it is accessible and
easy to understand.

Conduct Background Research. The City expects
the Consultants to conduct background research to
gain an understanding of community priorities, the
City’s current residential development standards,
and existing General Plan and Zoning discrepancies
for single family zoned parcels in Hayward. The
Consultants will prepare a General Plan Zoning
Discrepancy Memo that identifies parcels within the
city that are zoned for single family residential uses
but have underlying General Plan designations that
allow or require higher densities. The memo should
include analysis of the implications of SB 9 and any
Recent Changes to State Law
California is in the midst of a housing crisis in
which communities throughout the state are
challenged with accommodating their fair share
of housing production. The housing shortage
prompted California to enact new laws in 2017
(SB 35, SB 167, AB 648) requiring cities and
counties to streamline housing approval by
establishing a by-right, ministerial approval
process for multifamily residential development;
and to provide an increased standard of proof
to legally deny a lower- or moderate-income
housing project. In 2019, changes to the Housing
Accountability Act (SB 330, AB 1485) further
limited a jurisdictions ability to deny or reduce
the density of housing projects that meet
objective standards, while expanding SB 35
eligibility and protections under the HAA. Under
these changes to State law, jurisdictions without
a ministerial approval process have little say in
the design of developments processed under the
protections of the HAA. Key to the establishment
of this process is the replacement of subjective
design guidelines and discretionary review with
objective standards and ministerial approval.

Finally, the zoning code will need to be brought
into compliance with State legislation from 2021,
including SB 9, SB 10, and SB 478, which directly
limit a jurisdiction’s ability to control certain
density, lot size, and lot coverage requirements.
15 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
other recent State legislation on these parcels, and
specifically whether this recent legislation eliminates any of the existing discrepancies in allowable density.

As part of this process, the City expects the
Consultants to prepare a Residential Objective
Standards Background Report that summarizes
recent legislation, including SB 35, SB 330, SB 8,
and SB 9, that restrict the City’s ability to deny
projects that meet adopted objective standards.

The report should further analyze the City’s Zoning
Ordinance, Off-Street Parking Regulations, Mission
Boulevard Corridor Code, Downtown Development
Code, Design Guidelines, Hillside Design and
Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, and various
Neighborhood Plans to summarize the objective
standards for residential development are already
in place and where changes or additions may be
appropriate. Finally, the report should also identify
best practices regarding objective standards in
similar communities around the Bay Area and
beyond.

Develop a Vision for the Objective Standards.

The City expects the Consultants to develop a
Vision Statement for the Residential Objective
Standards portion of the project that fine tunes the
project’s goals and objectives, as identified through
initial outreach to decision makers, stakeholders,
community members, and staff. The Vision Statement
should be designed as a one-to-two-page graphic
handout that is eye-catching and easy to understand.

Provide a Technical Report with Options and
Recommendations. The City expects the Consultants
to prepare a Technical report that explores potential
updates for zoning consistency and provides
options and recommendations for new or revised
objective standards for residential development.

The Report should include a Zoning Consistency
Recommendations Memo that introduces different
approaches to bringing the City’s single family zoned
properties into compliance with their underlying
General Plan land use designations. This may include
a rezoning of these properties, creation of one
or more zoning overlays, or other strategies. The
memo should state which, if any, of the proposed
approaches would require environmental analysis.

Additionally, the Technical Report should include an
Objective Standards Technical Report that introduces
various options for objective standards for residential development that the City may want to adopt. The
Report should analyze tradeoffs in selecting different
options, including the potential impacts to different
stakeholders and community members, the feasibility
and/or potential economic impacts, and impacts to
overall design aesthetic and diversity. The analysis
should include a Prototype Analysis that illustrates
how changes in key development standards (such
as parking, massing, setbacks, and articulation)
would result in different building prototypes for three residentially zoned sites in the city.

Draft Objective Residential Standards and
Zoning Consistency Updates. The City expects
the Consultants to develop Draft Objective
Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates based
on feedback received on the Zoning Consistency
Recommendations Memo and Objective Standards
Technical Report. Both documents should indicate
the specific location where the proposed changes
will occur in the City’s adopted Ordinances, Codes,
and Plans. The City expects the Objective Standards
to include high quality graphics and diagrams to
clearly illustrate standards.

Complete Environmental Review. If necessary, the
Consultants will prepare all required studies and
documents for California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) review, including, if warranted, an
Initial Study and Draft and Final Addendum to
the General Plan EIR. For budget purposes, the
Consultants should list different costs depending on
the level of analysis that may ultimately be needed.

The City expects the Consultants to provide one
Administrative Draft and one Screencheck Draft
round of review for each document.

Prepare Final Documents. The City expects the
Consultants to prepare final versions of the Objective
Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates based
on feedback on the draft documents from decision-
makers, stakeholders, and community members. The
final documents will be presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for final consideration.
16 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Our Approach
Based on our understanding of the City’s
expectations for the Objective Standards and Zoning
Ordinance Updates, we identified six themes for our
approach to the Project.

Collaborate with Staff. Close collaboration with
City staff throughout the project is an essential part
of our approach. While we have broad experience
with zoning code updates, City staff has detailed
working knowledge of Hayward’s regulatory
structure and development approval process. We
will establish a close working relationship and
regular communication with City staff throughout
the project. We will work with City staff early on
to define work responsibilities and communication
protocols. We will form an integrated and seamless
staff/consultant project team. We could also
provide optional staff training opportunities at the
beginning of the process to understand the details
and mechanics of preparing objective design and
development standards and methods for streamlining
residential development approvals.

Design and Implement a Robust Community
Engagement Program. Throughout the Project,
we will facilitate an effective engagement
program around three key components: education
and information; engagement and interaction;
and validation and direction. Education and
information include a Project website, project
logo/branding, e-blasts, social media posts, press
releases, newsletters, and informational handouts.

Engagement and interaction include community
workshops, online opinion surveys, and study
sessions and public hearings. We will focus particular
attention on engaging a wide range of community
members, including communities that have limited
or no access to technology or who are hard to reach
an/or do not typically participate in City processes,
homeowners, renters, housing advocates, developers,
and architects.

Clearly Define Issues and Opportunities. Key to the
success of the objective design and development
standards is clearly identifying the types of
residential development projects that are preferred
in the city, projects that did not work, obstacles in
the project approval process, and opportunities for
improvement. Early in the Project, we will facilitate
meetings and conference calls to refine the work
scope, thoroughly define and explore issues and
opportunities, and prioritize tasks. We will meet with
stakeholders selected by City staff to understand the
perspectives of the regulated community. We will
also facilitate a study session with the City Council
and Planning Commission to understand their
expectations for future residential development and
additional desired outcomes of the project.

Build on Successes. Every planning process requires
a solid foundation on which to build. We will identify
successful residential design that has worked well for
the City. We will research and analyze existing City
planning documents to extract design approaches
that could be implemented citywide. We will also
analyze recent relevant State law and provide a
summary of best practices regarding objective
standards in similar communities around the Bay
Area and beyond.

Create New Ideas. At each step in the process, we
will explore new ideas and innovative approaches
for establishing objective design and development
standards that address design, massing,
neighborhood compatibility, parking, setbacks,
and/or other topics identified as important by the
community, stakeholders, decision-makers, and
staff. Additionally, we will explore and present
innovative concepts based on our understanding of
best practices in residential and mixed-use zoning
regulations and our extensive experience working
with a wide array of cities throughout California.
17 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Deliver User-Friendly Objective Standards for
Residential Development. We prepare user-
friendly residential design and development
standards in a format that is easily read and
understood by residents, permit applicants, City
staff, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council. While technical and regulatory, there
is no need for standards in the Zoning Code to
be difficult to use and understand. The content,
format, and presentation of the objective
standards will provide all users with a clear
understanding of the land use regulations and
development standards, and expectations for the
project approval and permitting processes. We
will provide graphic illustrations and consolidated
tables, where useful and appropriate. We will
eliminate internal inconsistencies and clarify cross-
referencing.
18 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Phase 1: Project Management
Throughout the Project, Mintier Harnish will
manage communication and coordination
between our staff, subconsultants, and City staff,
including meetings, phone/Zoom conferences,
email exchanges, and other communications to
ensure timely delivery of all tasks.

Task 1.1: Kickoff Meeting
Mintier Harnish will facilitate a kick-off meeting
with City staff and Consultant team to discuss
the project work scope, schedule, budget, and
communication protocols. We will clearly identify
the roles and responsibilities of key staff and
Consultants.

Further, we will identify the core project
management team and establish a schedule for
recurring bi-weekly check-in zoom/conference
calls and any additional meetings. Finally, we will
prepare agendas and action minutes for all calls
and meetings, and monthly status reports on the
Project.

Meetings:
• Project Kickoff meeting with City staff and
Consultant Team
Deliverables:
• Standardized file-naming protocols
• E-mail protocols to assure consistency in
team communication
• Standardized document format and style
guide
• Coordination meeting/call agendas and
action minutes
• Data needs list
• Community engagement event preparation
guides/checklists
• Monthly Project status reports
• Invoices
Phase 2: Community Engagement
Program
The Consultants will develop and finalize a Community
Engagement Strategy that we will use to guide
engagement throughout the Project. The strategy
will describe how the engagement will be structured
to ensure residents, businesses, property owners,
and other community stakeholders are aware of and
engaged throughout the project. This will include
not only multiple opportunities to provide input
and feedback, but multiple outreach techniques to
maximize community engagement. While we expect to
refine the details of the Engagement Strategy with City staff, our work program and budget estimate includes
the following engagement elements:
• Project website
• Project logo and branding
• Newsletters (2)
• Flyers
• E-blasts
• Social media
• Press releases
• Community Opinion survey
• Online engagement
• Community workshop
• Support of community led events
• Stakeholder Interviews
• City Council and Planning Commission Study
Sessions (5 total)
• Planning Commission Hearing
• City Council Hearing
• Translation services
As the Community Engagement Strategy is finalized,
some of these elements may be substituted for
others as the consultant team receives feedback from
staff, decision makers, and the community on the
most effective ways to reach the diverse Hayward
community.

Throughout every phase of the Project, we will facilitate an effective engagement program around three key
components: education and information; engagement
and interaction; and validation and direction.

Education and information includes a Project website,
project logo/branding, e-blasts, social media posts,
newsletters, and flyers. Engagement and interaction
includes opinion surveys and online engagement,

5. Scope of Work
19 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
community workshops and events, and stakeholder
interviews. Validation and direction includes City
Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions,
and public hearings. The following is a detailed
description of our suggested engagement activities.

These are subject to refinement in consultation with
City staff.

The following is a detailed description of our
suggested engagement activities. These are subject
to refinement in consultation with City staff.

Project Website. The Consultants will design,
develop, and maintain a Project website. The
Consultants will build the website on a user-friendly
platform that allows quick and easy updates to
the site. In addition to being an important public
outreach and information tool, the website will serve
as an administrative record of the project. It will
include all meeting announcements/materials, draft
and final documents, and meeting summaries. Once
the site is live, the Consultants will prepare email
blasts, use City social media accounts, and other
outreach methods to drive traffic to the site.

Project Logo and Branding. The Consultants will
work with City staff to develop an overall brand for
the Project. This will be carried through all materials, the Project website, and presentations to build
enthusiasm and ensure that this effort is distinct in
the minds of the public and other stakeholders. As
part of this effort, we will prepare three branding
options for the City’s consideration.

Newsletters. The Consultants will prepare two
newsletters at key points in the Project. The
newsletters will serve as Project-specific marketing
and educational materials for City staff outreach
efforts. The newsletters will provide a project status
report, summarize a key topic or subject, and
promote upcoming community engagement events
and online activities. The newsletters will be highly
graphical, attractive, easy to read, and typically four pages long. We will provide them to City staff for
distribution at the Planning front counter, in City
buildings, other public facilities, and events.

Newsletter #1 will introduce the Project, direct
readers to the Project website, and will announce the
Community Workshop. Newsletter #2 will present the
Vision Statement, summarize the Zoning Consistency
Recommendations Memo and Objective Standards
Technical Report, and announce the release of the
Draft Objective Residential Standards and Draft
Zoning Consistency Updates.

Flyers. The Consultants will prepare promotional
flyers in conjunction with all workshops and events.

The flyers will serve as easy-to-read handouts
suitable for posting in City offices and other public
buildings, community bulletin boards, and in store
windows. Mintier Harnish will also provide digital
copies of the flyer in sizes appropriate for posting on social media and other online platforms.

E-blasts, Social Media, Press Releases. The
Consultants will prepare periodic e-blasts and/or
social media posts at key points in the Project to
inform the public about engagement opportunities,
upcoming meetings and events, and availability
of new documents. We will coordinate all public
information through City staff.

Community Opinion Survey. The Consultants will
work with the City to craft, distribute, and tabulate a Community Opinion Survey. The Community Opinion
Survey will be a critical tool to understanding the
community wants, needs, and concerns regarding
residential objective standards in Hayward. We
will conduct the survey as a part of the online
engagement program. We will publicize the survey
through the Project and City websites, eblasts, social
media, and announcements at City Council and
Planning Commission meetings.

Online Engagement. The Consultants will develop
and use online engagement platforms, linked
from the project website, to collect input from the
community. We will regularly update the online
engagement tools with new questions, surveys,
opinion polls, and geographic mapping tools. The
following are typical uses of this engagement, and
other ideas will be generated in response to input
received, making the input for Hayward uniquely
tailored to capture community attitudes on design-
related issues. These online activities can also mirror concurrent in-person engagement done at the
community workshop for those community members
who were not able to attend in person.
20 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Visit http:/ /pleasanthill2040.com/engage.html to
view an example of how we have incorporated public
engagement activities on a General Plan Update
page.

Community Workshop. The Consultants will facilitate
the Community Workshop interested community
members. This workshop will serve to provide
a common understanding of the need for and
purpose of the Project, the key steps in the process,
community engagement opportunities, new State
requirements, and contemporary planning issues.

Mintier Harnish will also facilitate an open dialog to
gain input on the community’s expectations for the
Objective Standards Update and design in Hayward.

We will also conduct a visioning exercise that will
serve as one of the tools informing the Draft Vision
Statement.

Partner with Community Organizations. In order
to effectively connect with the broadest range of
community members, the Consultants will work with
City staff to identify and collaborate with existing
community groups and organizations for direct
community member engagement. We will inform
and educate group and organization staff about
the project, document content, and our feedback
objectives and provide them with engagement
materials. We will continue to work with the
organizations to inform and educate community
members and explore options for maximizing
community input and direction throughout the
remainder of the Project.

Stakeholder Interviews. The Consultants will conduct
eight one-on-one and group interviews via Zoom
or conference call with local housing developers,
architects, housing advocates, and others, to gain
an understanding of the ideas and expectations of
housing and subsequent development regulations
in the city. We will summarize the results of the
interviews in a memorandum.

City Council and Planning Commission Study
Sessions. The Consultants will facilitate five Study
Sessions with the City Council and Planning
Commission. At each Study Session, the Consultants
will provide an update of the Project status, present
specific topical information, and solicit direction
and feedback from the Council and Commission.

The study sessions will be an opportunity to review
community input received and discuss the Project
Vision Statement, discuss the Zoning Consistency
Recommendations Memo and Objective Standards
Technical Report, as well as review the Administrative
Draft Residential Objective Standards and Zoning
Consistency Update.

Planning Commission Hearing. The Consultants
and City staff will facilitate a public hearing with
the Planning Commission to review the Final Zoning
Updates for Zoning/General Plan Consistency and
Final Residential Objective Standards. The Planning
Commission will consider all public comments
and, at the conclusion of the hearings, make
recommendations to the City Council regarding the
Final Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency
Updates.

City Council Hearing. The Consultants and City staff
will facilitate a public hearing with the City Council
to review the Final Zoning Updates for Zoning/
General Plan Consistency and Draft Residential
Objective Standards. At this meeting, the City
Council will consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendations and all public comments. At the
conclusion of the hearings, the City Council will
adopt the Final Zoning Updates for Zoning/General
Plan Consistency and Final Residential Objective
Standards with any desired changes.

Translation Services. Our team has included a
preliminary budget for translation services in the
Direct Services line item in our budget. As requested
in Addendum #1 to this RFP, we have assumed
responsibility for providing verbal translation services available at the community workshop, as an option
for any stakeholder interview participants. During
the kick-off meeting in Task 1, we will discuss City
staff expectations for further translation services.

There are two basic types of translation services:
written and verbal. All Update documents can
be translated; however, we typically limit written
translation to eblasts, newsletters, opinion surveys,
open house materials, and other community
engagement-related documents. The Project Website
would be available in other languages as well. All
other project documents (e.g., Zoning Consistency
21 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Recommendations Memo) can be translated, but can
represent a significant expense. Translation services
can be provided in multiple languages, as necessary.

COVID-19 and Community Engagement
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we do
realize that the extent of community engagement
and participation in public meetings, workshops,
and community events is still unknown. Our team
is flexible in our approach to collaborate with
the City on the facilitation of these public events.

We are currently working on several projects
that have temporarily transitioned to Zoom
or Go-To-Meeting virtual platforms for public
meetings and that have been quite successful,
particularly with stakeholder interviews. Using
virtual platforms over time can also save on travel
time and cost. We have also reimagined how to
solicit community feedback and have transitioned
several large outreach events to completely
virtual events. These have included interactive
online exercises, educational and informational
videos, live webinars with Q&A sessions, and
visual preference surveys.

As requested in the RFP, we have included
separate cost estimates for virtual and in person
attendance for each meeting. We will work with
City staff to finalize our approach to facilitating
community outreach, Study Session, and Public
Hearings, and are dedicated to ensuring an
inclusive process for all.

Deliverables:
• Community Engagement Program
• Project logo, website materials
• Project Newsletters (2)
• Community Opinion Survey (hardcopy/digital)
• Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo (Word/
PDF)
• Online engagement tools such as surveys, polls,
and mapping exercises, as planned in the final
Community Engagement Program.
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed
• Meeting notes
Phase 3: Vision and Background
Research
Task 3.1: General Plan/Zoning Discrepancy Memo
The Consultants will conduct background research
to gain an understanding of community priorities,
the City’s current residential development standards,
design guidelines, and existing General Plan and
Zoning discrepancies for single family zoned
parcels in Hayward. We will identify single family
zoned parcels that have underlying General Plan
designations that allow or required higher densities
and will summarize our findings in a General Plan/
Zoning Discrepancy Memo. The Memo will also
include analysis of the implications of SB 9 and any
other recent State legislation on these parcels, and
specifically whether this recent legislation eliminates any of the existing discrepancies in allowable density.

Task 3.2: Vision Statement
The Consultants will develop a Vision Statement
for the Residential Objective Standards portion of
the Project that fine tunes the project’s goals and
objectives, as identified through initial outreach to
decision makers, stakeholders, community members,
and City staff. The Vision Statement will be designed
as a one-to-two-page graphic handout that is both
attractive and user-friendly.

Task 3.3: Residential Objective Standards
Background Report
The Consultants will produce a Residential Objective
Standards Background Report summarizing recent
legislation, including SB 35, SB 330, SB 8, and SB
9, that restrict the City’s ability to deny projects
that meet adopted objective standards. We will
also analyze the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Off-Street
Parking Regulations, Mission Boulevard Corridor
Code, Downtown Development Code, Design
Guidelines, Hillside Design and Urban/Wildland
Interface Guidelines, and various Neighborhood Plans
to summarize the objective standards for residential
development that are already in place and where
changes or additions may be appropriate. Finally,
we will identify best practices regarding objective
standards in similar communities around the Bay
Area and beyond.
22 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Meetings:
• Community Workshop #1: Attendance and
facilitation
• Community Event #2: Stakeholder Interviews:

Attendance and facilitation
• Study Session #1: Attendance and facilitation of
a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study
Session on community input and the Project
Vision
Deliverables:
• General Plan/Zoning Discrepancy Memo (Word/
PDF)
• Vision Statement (Word/PDF)
• Residential Objective Standards Background
Report (Word/PDF)
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed
• Meeting notes
Phase 4: Parking Analysis
The Consultants will conduct an analysis of
the City’s current residential parking standards
and the potential economic impacts of altering
requirements, particularly in the area governed by
the Mission Boulevard Corridor Code, which has no
minimum parking standard of altering requirements,
particularly in the area governed by the Mission
Boulevard Corridor Code, which has no minimum
parking standard.

Deliverable:
• Parking Analysis (Word/PDF)
Phase 5: Technical Report with
Options and Recommendations
Task 5.1: Zoning Consistency Recommendations
Memo
The Consultants will prepare a Zoning Consistency
Recommendations Memo that introduces different
approaches to bringing the City’s single family zoned
properties into compliance with their underlying
General Plan land use designations. This may include
a rezoning of these properties, creation of one or
more zoning overlays, or other strategies. We will
then analyze each site and state which, if any, of the
proposed approaches would require environmental
analysis.

Task 5.2: Objective Standards Technical Report
The Consultants will prepare an Objective Standards
Technical Report that introduces various options
for objective standards for residential development
that the City may want to adopt. We will analyze
tradeoffs in selecting different options, including
the potential impacts to different stakeholders
and community members, the feasibility and/or
potential economic impacts, and impacts to overall
design aesthetic and diversity. To help demonstrate
the tradeoffs of different options, we will include
a Prototype Analysis that illustrates how changes
in key development standards (such as parking,
massing, setbacks, and articulation) would result in
different building prototypes for three residentially
zoned sites in the city. As stated in the RFP, we
assume the City will work with our team to select
sites for the Prototype Analysis.

Meetings:
• Study Session #2: Attendance and facilitation
of a Planning Commission Study Session on the
Zoning Consistency Recommendations Memo
and the Objective Standards Technical Report
• Study Session #3: Attendance and facilitation
of a City Council Study Session on the Zoning
Consistency Recommendations Memo and the
Objective Standards Technical Report
Deliverables:
• Zoning Consistency Recommendations Memo
• Objective Standards Technical Report
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed
• Meeting Notes
Phase 6: Draft Objective
Residential Standards and Zoning
Consistency Updates
Based on feedback received on the Zoning
Consistency Recommendations Memo and Objective
Standards Technical Report from decision makers,
23 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
stakeholders, and the community, the Consultants
will develop the Draft Objective Residential
Standards Update and the Draft Zoning Consistency
Update. Within each document, we will indicate the
specific location where the proposed changes will
occur in the City’s adopted Ordinances, Codes, and
Plans. The Draft Objective Residential Standards
shall further include high quality graphics and
diagrams to clearly illustrate standards, as necessary.

For each of the two documents, we will prepare
an Administrative Draft for review by City staff.

Following a period for staff review, we will revise the document and produce a Public Review Draft of each
document as outlined in Phase 8.

Meetings:
• Study Session #4: Attendance and facilitation
of a Planning Commission Study Session on
the Administrative Draft Objective Residential
Standards and the Administrative Draft Zoning
Consistency Update
• Study Session #5: Attendance and facilitation
of a City Council Study Session on the
Administrative Draft Objective Residential
Standards and the Administrative Draft Zoning
Consistency Update
Deliverables:
• Administrative Draft Zoning Updates for Zoning/
General Plan Consistency (Word/PDF)
• Administrative Draft Objective Residential
Standards (Word/PDF)
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed
• Meeting Notes
Phase 7: Environmental Review
If required, the Consultants will conduct an
environmental review of the Public Review Draft
Objective Residential Standards and Public Review
Draft Zoning Consistency Update consistent with
the requirements of CEQA. The City certified the
Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General
Plan in July 2014. Based on our understanding of
the probable contents of the Draft Zoning Updates
and Objective Residential Standards, the Code is
likely to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan
FEIR. We will make this determination in consultation
with City staff and the City Attorney. If necessary,
we will prepare an initial draft and final technical
memorandum supporting a finding of consistency
of the Public Review Draft Objective Residential
Standards and Public Review Draft Zoning
Consistency Update with the 2040 General Plan FEIR
or an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Deliverables:
• Environmental studies, as necessary
• Initial Study, as necessary
• Draft and Final Addendum to General Plan EIR,
as necessary (Word/PDF)
Phase 8: Final Documents
Based on feedback on the draft documents from
decision-makers, stakeholders, and community
members, the Consultants will prepare final versions
of the Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency
Updates for final consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.

Meetings:
• Public Hearings (2): Attendance and facilitation
of a Planning Commission and a City Council
Hearing
Deliverables:
• Public Review Draft Zoning Updates for Zoning/
General Plan Consistency (Word/PDF)
• Public Review Draft Objective Residential
Standards (Word/PDF)
• Final Zoning Updates for Zoning/General Plan
Consistency (Word/PDF)
• Final Residential Objective Standards (Word/
PDF)
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed
24 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates

6. Schedule of Charges
We have included our proposed schedule of charges for labor and expenses for the Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates below. Within this schedule of charges, we have identified labor rates for the specific professional staff assigned to work on this Project. As stated in the RFP, we understand that the proposed schedule of charges is subject to negotiation prior to contract execution.

7. Budget
We have included our budget for the Objective Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates on the following page. The budget is organized by the tasks listed in the Scope of Work, hourly rates, and team member. The proposed budget is submitted on a “not to exceed” basis. The budget also includes direct expenses such as travel, printing, and translation services.

Our budget reflects the additional $50,000 added to the project total as a part of the December 2, 2021, Addendum #2. We included the parking study as a budgeted task, not an optional task. We have also included $30,000 as contingency for unanticipated work. We believe our original cost estimate was sufficient to cover the work scope described in the Request for Proposals. City staff may want to allocate contingency to expanded community engagement or retain it for unanticipated additional work tasks. If selected to the project, we will discuss these options further with City staff at the project kick-off meeting.

Staff Member Billing Rate Assigned Hours
Jim Harnish, Project Advisor $250/hour 108
Brent Gibbons, Project Director $200/hour 100
Jordan Cowell, Project Manager $185/hour 260
Ryan Lester, Associate Planner $170/hour 252
Michael Gibbons, Associate Planner $170/hour 80
Admin./Support $115/hour 46
Direct Expenses $7,700 total -
Martha Miller, Zoning Advisor $200/hour 102
Jim Damkowitch, Parking Analysis Lead $275/hour 24
Carney/Loginova, Transportation Planners $150/hour 80
25 MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Proposal Cost Estimate (1)(2)
Mintier Harnish
HAYWARD OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING CONSISTENCY UPDATES
TASKS

HARNISH
Project
Advisor
B. GIBBONS
Project
Director
COWELL
Project
Manager
LESTER
Associate
Planner
M. GIBBONS
Associate
Planner

ADMIN/SUP
PORT

SUBTOTAL
HOURS

SUBTOTAL
COSTS
MILLER
Principal/Zoning
Advisor

SUBTOTAL
HOURS

SUBTOTAL
COSTS

DAMKOWITCH
Task Lead

CARNEY/

LOGINOVA
Transportation
Planner

SUBTOTAL
HOURS

SUBTOTAL
COSTS
TOTAL
COSTS
Phase 1: Project Management
Task 1.1: Kickoff Meeting 8 8 10 26 $5,450 2 2 $400 0 $0 $5,850 Task 1.2: Project Management 8 10 36 46 100 $15,950 6 6 $1,200 0 $0 $17,150 Subtotal 16 18 46 0 0 46 126 $21,400 8 8 $1,600 0 0 0 $0 $23,000 Phase 2: Community Engagement Program
Task 2.1: Community Engagement Program (see line items below) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Community Engagement Program 2 2 6 10 20 $3,710 0 $0 0 $0 $3,710 Project logo, website, and business cards 2 2 8 16 28 $5,100 0 $0 0 $0 $5,100 Project Newsletters (2) 2 2 6 16 26 $4,730 0 $0 0 $0 $4,730 Community Opinion Survey (hardcopy/digital) 2 6 8 16 $2,970 0 $0 0 $0 $2,970 Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo 2 2 12 16 $2,910 0 $0 0 $0 $2,910 Online engagement tools such as surveys, polls, and mapping exercises, 2 6 10 18 $3,210 0 $0 0 $0 $3,210 Subtotal 10 8 34 72 0 0 124 $22,630 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $22,630 Phase 3: Vision and Background Research
Task 3.1: General Plan/Zoning Discrepancy Memo 4 4 8 36 52 $9,400 6 6 $1,200 0 $0 $10,600 Task 3.2: Vision Statement 2 4 8 14 $2,780 4 4 $800 0 $0 $3,580 Task 3.3: Residential Objective Standards Background Report 6 4 10 40 60 $10,950 8 8 $1,600 0 $0 $12,550 Community Workshop #1: Attendance and facilitation 8 6 14 24 52 $9,870 0 $0 0 $0 $9,870 Community Event #2: Stakeholder Interviews: 10 12 22 $3,890 0 $0 0 $0 $3,890 Study Session #1: Joint PC/CC on Community Input and Project Vision 6 10 4 20 $3,730 0 $0 0 $0 $3,730 Subtotal 20 24 60 80 36 0 220 $40,620 18 18 $3,600 0 0 0 $0 $44,220 Phase 4: Parking Analysis
Task 4.1: Parking Analysis/Study 4 8 8 20 $4,080 0 $0 24 80 104 $18,600 $22,680 Subtotal 4 8 8 0 0 0 20 $4,080 0 0 $0 24 80 104 $18,600 $22,680 Phase 5: Technical Report with Options and Recommendations Task 5.1: Zoning Consistency Recommendations Memo 2 12 24 38 $6,980 48 48 $9,600 0 $0 $16,580 Task 5.2: Objective Standards Technical Report 2 4 12 24 42 $7,600 0 $0 0 $0 $7,600 Study Session #2: PC on Zoning Consistency Memo and ODDS Technical Report 6 10 4 20 $3,730 0 $0 0 $0 $3,730 Study Session #3: CC on Zoning Consistency Memo and ODDS Technical Report 6 10 4 20 $3,730 0 $0 0 $0 $3,730 Subtotal 4 28 32 32 24 0 120 $22,040 48 48 $9,600 0 0 0 $0 $31,640 Phase 6: Draft Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates Task 6.1: Draft Objective Residential Standards and Zoning Consistency Updates 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Administrative Draft Zoning Updates for Zoning/General Plan Consistency 2 4 16 22 $4,020 16 16 $3,200 0 $0 $7,220 Administrative Draft Objective Residential Standards 4 36 40 80 $14,460 10 10 $2,000 0 $0 $16,460 Public Review Draft Zoning Updates for Zoning/General Plan Consistency 2 2 4 8 $1,580 2 2 $400 0 $0 $1,980 Public Review Draft Objective Residential Standards 2 8 16 26 $4,700 0 $0 0 $0 $4,700 Study Session #4: PC on Admin Draft ODDS and Zoning Consistency Update 6 10 2 18 $3,390 0 $0 0 $0 $3,390 Study Session #5: CC on Admin Draft ODDS and Zoning Consistency Update 6 10 2 18 $3,390 0 $0 0 $0 $3,390 Subtotal 10 18 64 60 20 0 172 $31,540 28 28 $5,600 0 0 0 $0 $37,140 Phase 7: Environmental Review
Task 7.1: Environmental Review 24 4 28 $6,800 0 $0 0 $0 $6,800 Subtotal 24 4 0 0 0 0 28 $6,800 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $6,800
Phase 8: Final Documents
Task 8.1: Final Documents 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0
Final Zoning Updates for Zoning/General Plan Consistency 2 2 4 8 $1,550 0 $0 0 $0 $1,550 Final Residential Objective Standards 2 2 4 8 $1,550 0 $0 0 $0 $1,550 Planning Commission Hearing 8 10 18 $3,850 0 $0 0 $0 $3,850 City Council Hearing 8 10 18 $3,850 0 $0 0 $0 $3,850
Subtotal 20 0 24 8 0 0 52 $10,800 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 $10,800 TOTAL
Total Hours 108 108 268 252 80 46 862 ‐ 102 102 ‐ 24 80 104 ‐ ‐ 2021 Billing Rates (subject to change every January 1st) $250 $200 $185 $170 $170 $115 ‐‐ $200 ‐‐ $275 $150 ‐‐ ‐ Labor Subtotals $27,000 $21,600 $49,580 $42,840 $13,600 $5,290 ‐ $159,910 $20,400 ‐ $20,400 $6,600 $12,000 ‐ $18,600 $198,910 Direct Expenses (e.g., translation services, printing, travel, online engagement fee) $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $6,000 TOTAL COST W/O CONTINGENCY $164,910 $21,400 $19,600 $204,910 CONTINGENCY $30,000
TOTAL COST W/CONTINGENCY $234,910
1) This represents a total cost based on the provided scope of work. 2) The distribution of hours between firms, staff categories, and tasks are an estimate. While the total costs will not change, the distribution of hours/costs may vary depending on actual execution.

MINTIER HARNISH DKSMILLER PLANNING ASSOCIATES

Page 1 ends

26 CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Appendix A: Detailed Resumes
We have included our detailed resumes on the following pages.

A-1
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Jim Harnish is the Principal/Owner of Minti er Harnish. He has been a planner and project manager since 1970. He is also an att orney with extensive experience in land use and CEQA. He has managed public agencies and private consulti ng ﬁ rms.

He specializes in project management for general plans, speciﬁ c plans, and large private planning projects; CEQA compliance and environmental document peer review; zoning and regulatory ordinance preparati on; and public outreach and consensus-building.

Jim is currently Project Director on general plan updates for the citi es of American Canyon, Livingston, Los Gatos, Millbrae, Rohnert Park, and the counti es of Fresno, Kern, and Ventura, and zoning code updates for the citi es of Folsom, Gilroy, and Santa Clara, and the counti es of Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Sierra.

Jim’s broad experience, in both the public and private sector, in land use planning, regulatory codes and ordinances, permit processing, environmental analysis, toxics and hazardous materials, wetlands and endangered species, and legal analysis enables him to bring a wealth of experience to every project.

Jim has extensive experience in supervising large planning staﬀ s and managing interdisciplinary consultant teams on complex planning projects. Jim has managed or prepared general plans for the citi es of Alturas, American Canyon, Folsom, Galt, Gilroy, Hayward, Healdsburg, Isleton, Livingston, Millbrae, Rohnert Park, Sacramento, South San Francisco, Ukiah, Union City, Wheatland, and Windsor, and the counti es of Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Merced, Modoc, San Benito, San Joaquin, and Ventura.

He has managed the preparati on of speciﬁ c plans for Southwest Live Oak, the Mountain House New Town in San Joaquin County, and the Gold Rush Ranch in Sutt er Creek. He also assisted Genentech with the preparati on and approval of its South San Francisco Campus Master Plan and EIR. Jim has also prepared zoning ordinance updates for several jurisdicti ons, including, Kern, Merced, and San Joaquin Counti es and the citi es of Santa Rosa, and South San Francisco.

Jim has been principal-in-charge of several regional planning projects in the San Joaquin Valley, including the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint implementati on project, which included the Valley Planners Toolkit. He also managed the Metro Rural Loop Study for the Fresno Council of Governments and the San Joaquin Valley Greenprint II program.

Jim has managed the preparati on of or conducted criti cal third party review of numerous EIRs and negati ve declarati ons. As Environmental Coordinator for the City of Sacramento, he led the restructuring of the City’s environmental review procedures. He has worked extensively with State and Federal regulatory agencies in creati ng and negoti ati ng Habitat Conservati on Plans (Coalinga), 404 permits, and wetland miti gati on plans.

EDUCATION
Juris Doctor
McGeorge School of Law,
University of the Paciﬁ c
Bachelor of Arts, History
University of California, Davis

CERTIFICATIONS/

AFFILIATIONS
California State Bar Associati on
(Bar No. 99326)
American Planning Associati on

EXPERIENCE
Minti er Harnish
Principal/Owner
City of South San Francisco
Chief Planner
Sugnet & Associates
Vice President
City of Folsom
Community Development Director
City of Sacramento
Environmental Coordinator
Balfrey & Abbott
Att orney
Minti er Harnish & Associates
Partner
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Planner
County of Sacramento
Planner

PROJECTS
General plans for over 25 citi es and
counti es throughout California
Environmental impact reports for over
100 general plans and other projects
Zoning and subdivision ordinance
revisions for 10 citi es and counti es
[email protected]

JIM HARNISH, JD

PRINCIPAL/OWNER
A-2

BRENT GIBBONS, AICP

SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
Brent Gibbons has been a planner in both the public and private sectors since 2013. He specializes in architectural applicati ons, urban design, site design, land use planning, public policy, geographic informati on systems, regulatory code and ordinances, CEQA analysis, and community engagement.

Brent started his professional career as a Planner I with Madera County, which included the review of project plans with the zoning administrator, operati ng the front planning counter, and regularly evaluati ng setback variances and zoning permits. Brent was promoted to Planner II aft er a year, and managed projects with greater responsibility. His overall experience at Madera County included the intake of permits, zoning ordinance development, presentati ons to the Planning Commission, formati on of community/area plans, and serving as the lead on solar facility and wireless tower projects. Brent also had the opportunity to serve on several committ ees pertaining to the drought and well water demand, as well as community park planning and design in conjuncti on with public health agencies.

Additi onally, Brent worked as an Assistant Planner for the City of Turlock where he conducted project permitti ng, development of maps, the General Plan Annual Report, and project management. His work included interfacing with a multi tude of stakeholders ranging from community members to real estate developers.

Prior experience includes an internship with Hathaway Dinwiddie (Santa Clara oﬃ ce) in 2008 on the Solyndra Project, where Brent served as the onsite contact between the City of Milpitas and the Project Engineer. Tasks delegated included project permitti ng, editi ng plans, and constructi on administrati on. Brent also interned for the Housing Authority of San Mateo County, where he amended the HOME Aﬀ ordability Covenant, performed HOME rent reviews for 2004-2009, and evaluated year-end ﬁ scal performance data.

Brent holds a Bachelor’s Degree in City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo. While at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Brent served as the Associated Students in Planning (ASP) President, and the American Insti tute of Architecture Students (AIAS) President, where he sat on a nati onal board that provided student connecti on to the American Insti tute of Architects (AIA). He represented Cal Poly at two internati onal student architecture conferences in Minneapolis in 2009 and Toronto, Ontario, in 2010.

Brent also was part of the project team that took 1st Place in the Bank of America Low Income Housing Challenge in 2012 for the Alere development.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science,
City and Regional Planning
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

CERTIFICATIONS/

AFFILIATIONS
American Insti tute of Certi ﬁ ed Planners
American Planning Associati on,
Sacramento Valley Secti on
enCode user Certi ﬁ cati on

EXPERIENCE
Minti er Harnish
Senior Project Manager, Project
Manager, Associate
City of Turlock
Assistant Planner
Madera County
Planner II
San Mateo County Housing Authority
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Intern
Hathaway Dinwiddie, Santa Clara
Project Engineer Intern

PROJECTS
General plans for the City of Gilroy,
the Town Los Gatos, the Town of
Windsor, and the Counti es of Fresno,
Sierra County, and Ventura
SB244: Disadvantaged Communiti es
Report for Merced County
Zoning Ordinance updates for the
Counti es of Fresno, Merced, and Sierra,
the Citi es of Folsom, Gilroy and Santa
Clara, and the Placer County Sunset Area
Plan Implementi ng Zoning Regulati ons
Objecti ve Design and Development
Standards for the Citi es of Folsom, Gilroy,
South Lake Tahoe, and Ukiah, the town
of Windsor, and the county of Mariposa
Town of Windsor Housing Element Update
[email protected]
A-3
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022

JORDAN COWELL

PROJECT MANAGER
Jordan Cowell is Project Manager at Minti er Harnish who specializes in both architecture and planning/urban design. He has experience working with communiti es, private developers, and public agencies since 2013. He began his professional career as Planner I with DAHLIN Group Architecture & Planning, where he was involved in a wide array of project types ranging from large-scale master plans to urban inﬁ ll/mixed use projects. During this tenure, Jordan was promoted to Planning Project Manager, where he has provided innovati ve planning and design experti se to maintain eﬃ ciency for every project and valued clients.

With his extensive experience working closely with builder/developers, Jordan is an integral member of the planning team as he is able to ensure plans are feasible and implementable. He applies his detailed knowledge to every project through his familiarity of varying building typologies and densiti es, pays close att enti on to the issues related to mass and scale, and has the ability to bridge the gap between the vision and jurisdicti onal requirements. His municipal planning experience allows him to acti vely engage in a wide range of roles on the planning team, including fast, yet thorough, zoning code analysis thanks to his inti mate understanding of how codes are organized and writt en.

Jordan’s prior experience includes working as a Community Development Intern for the City of Atascadero, where he assisted with front counter assistance, building permit plan checks, code enforcement, preparati on of staﬀ reports, presentati ons and documentati on.

Jordan graduated with honors from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo, and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in City and Regional Planning. While at Cal Poly, Jordan served one term as a Faculty Representati ve for the Associated Students in Planning (ASP), and att ended an Urban Design Summer Program at the Universidade Lusofona de Humanidades e Tecnologias in Lisbon, Portugal. In additi on, Jordan assisted in compiling a database for two professors, Michael Boswell and Adrienne Greve, in preparati on for their book Local Climate Acti on Planning. Jordan also holds an Associate of Science in Architecture with a concentrati on in planning from Modesto Junior College.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, City
and Regional Planning
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

EXPERIENCE
Minti er Harnish
Project Manager, Associate
DAHLIN Group
Project Manager
City of Atascadero
Community Development
Planning Intern

PROJECTS
General Plans:

General Plan Updates for the
Citi es of Solvang, San Ramon,
Millbrae, and Trinity County
Objecti ve Design and Development
Standards for the Citi es of Gilroy and
Pleasant Hill, and Commercial and Mixed-
Use Design Standards for Eldorado County
Citywide Design Guidelines for the City
of Elk Grove and Residenti al Design
Requirements for the City of Vacaville
Speciﬁ c Plans:

Amoruso Ranch Speciﬁ c Plan,
Roseville; Watson Ranch Speciﬁ c
Plan, American Canyon; Duarte
Stati on Speciﬁ c Plan, Duarte
TOD/Aﬀ ordable/
Senior Development Projects:

Prynt Mixed-Use, Tamien Stati on
Redevelopment, SoHay Catalyst
Site, Kotti nger Gardens Pleasanton,
The Cannery at Lewis Street Gilroy,
Shorebreeze Apartments Mountain View
[email protected]
A-4

RYAN LESTER

ASSOCIATE
Ryan is a planner with an eye for design. A skilled user of industry-standard graphic design soft ware, Ryan specializes in preparing accessible, user-friendly materials that present planning concepts to the public in concise, easy-to- understand, and engaging ways. Ryan applies these skills while craft ing existi ng conditi ons and trends analyses, housing elements, objecti ve design standards, and land use alternati ves analyses for citi es and counti es throughout the state.

For Housing Element eﬀ orts, Ryan constructs and implements community engagement programs, facilitates stakeholder interviews and workshops, and completes housing needs and constraints analyses. Further, Ryan develops available sites inventories, AFFH analyses, and, implementati on programs that are responsive to both State law and local context.

In eight years with Minti er Harnish, Ryan has worked on over a dozen General Plans and an equal number of housing elements. Among other projects, Ryan is currently writi ng four 6th-cycle housing elements and is draft ing Objecti ve Design and Development Standards for SB 35 compliance for several citi es. Additi onally, Ryan is working on the SJV REAP Housing Study and is on the Minti er Harnish team providing valleywide REAP-funded housing element technical assistance.

Ryan holds a Master’s Degree in U.S. Social and Cultural History from California State University, Sacramento, as well as a Bachelor’s Degree in U.S. History from the same insti tuti on.

EDUCATION
Master of Arts, U.S. Social
and Cultural History
California State University, Sacramento
Bachelor of Arts, U.S. History
California State University, Sacramento

EXPERIENCE
Minti er Harnish
Associate, Planner, Research Assistant
The League of California Citi es
Member Services Representati ve

PROJECTS
General Plans for the Citi es of American
Canyon, Folsom, Gilroy, Kerman,
Millbrae, Pleasant Hill, Solvang, Ukiah,
and Union City, the Towns of Los
Gatos, Truckee, and Windsor, and the
Counti es of Fresno, Kern, and Ventura
6th Cycle Housing Elements for the
Citi es of Carlsbad, Galt, Pleasant Hill,
Shasta Lake, Solvang, and St. Helena, and
Del Norte County.
5th Cycle Housing Elements: Research
Assistant for several update eﬀ orts
Objecti ve Design and Development
Standards for the citi es of Folsom,
Gilroy, Lakeport, Pleasant Hill,
Santa Clara, South Lake Tahoe, and
Ukiah, and the Town of Windsor
Additi onal Projects:

SJV REAP Housing Study and Technical
Assistance Team, San Joaquin
County Greenprint Phase II, SMUD
Environmental Sustainability Plan, Sunset
Area Plan Update (Placer County)

SOFTWARE/

WEB DESIGN

Adobe Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop
HTML and CSS
Microsoft Oﬃ ce
[email protected]
A-5
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022

MICHAEL GIBBONS

ASSOCIATE
Michael is an Associate Planner with Minti er Harnish. He has worked in both the public and private sector, as well as in law enforcement. He has experience in land use planning, zoning regulati ons, Crime Preventi on Through Environmental Design, urban design, architectural applicati ons, historic preservati on, real estate development, regulatory code, and public policy.

Michael started his career as the Assistant Planner for the City of Napa, where his technical duti es included processing zoning clearances, temporary use permits, sign permits, business licenses, and building permits. He reviewed development proposals and applicati ons for compliance with appropriate regulati ons and policies, and subsequently made recommendati ons to the City Council, Planning Commission, and Cultural Heritage Commission.

During his tenure with the City of Napa, Michael decided to serve the community in a diﬀ erent capacity. Working in the community he served and lived in fueled his desire to transiti on into Law Enforcement, where he became a City of Napa Police Oﬃ cer. Michael att ended the Napa Valley College Criminal Justi ce Training Center, where he received his California POST Peace Oﬃ cer Certi ﬁ cati on. Michael transiti oned back into Land Use Planning in 2019.

Michael’s prior experience includes working as a Community Development Intern for the City of Gilroy, where he assisted with sign permitti ng, front counter assistance, and the review of plot plans. He also worked as a Housing and Community Development Intern for the City of Hollister, where he performed site and architectural review, the processing of user permits and variances, CEQA document review, and minor subdivision review. Additi onally, Michael worked as an Intern for Minti er Harnish, where he performed a variety of planning and oﬃ ce support tasks.

Michael graduated with honors from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo, and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in City and Regional Planning. While at Cal Poly, Michael minored in both Real Estate Development and Sustainable Environments, and served two terms as the Associated Students in Planning (ASP) President. Michael also holds an Associate of Science in Mathemati cs with a concentrati on in Architecture from Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo.
michael@minti erharnish.com

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in City
and Regional Planning
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Associate of Science in Mathemati cs
with a Concentrati on in Architecture
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo
California Peace Oﬃ cer
S t a n d a r d s a n d Tr a i n i n g C e r ti ﬁ c a t e Napa Valley Police Academy, Napa

AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Associati on,
Sacramento Valley Secti on

EXPERIENCE
City of Napa
Police Oﬃ cer
City of Napa
Assistant Planner
Minti er Harnish
Planner, Intern
City of Hollister
Community Development Intern
City of Gilroy
Community Development Intern

PROJECTS
General Plan Updates for the Citi es
of Gilroy, Pleasant Hill, Livingston,
American Canyon, and Los Gatos,
and the County of Kern
Zoning Ordinance Updates for the Citi es
of Gilroy, Folsom, Kerman, and Santa Clara,
and the Counti es of Madera and Mariposa
A-6
[email protected] , 626 -616-9303 | 1

Education
Master of City and Regional
Planning
California Polytechnic
University, San Luis Obispo
Bachelor of Science in Industrial
Engineering
Purdue University
Certifications &
Affiliations
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning Association
(APA), California Central Coast
San Luis Obispo Subsection
Director (2015 - 2017)
Cal Poly City and Regional
Planning Advisory Council
(CiRPAC), Chair
Awards
2017 APA Sacramento Valley
Section Award of Excellence,
Placer County Tahoe Basin Area
Plan
2014 APA Los Angeles
Section Award of Excellence
and 2014 Southern California
Association of Governments
Sustainability Award,
San Gabriel “Greening the Code”
Martha Miller, AICP
Principal and Owner, Miller Planning Associates
Martha is a skilled land use planner and project manager specializing in community planning, development regulations, and community engagement. With 20 years of experience working in private firms and for public agencies, Martha brings an in-depth understanding of how to translate community vision into a usable set of plans, policies, and regulations that achieve results. Martha’s approach is marked by carefully assessing each client’s needs and resources, and bringing best practices from form -based, performance -based, and Euclidean applications.

Relevant Project Experience
• El Monte Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines Update
• Goleta New Zoning Ordinance and Coastal Implementation Plan • Hayward Industrial District Regulations Update
• Morro Bay Comprehensive Zoning Code and Coastal
Implementation Plan Update
• Newark Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
• Vacaville Land Use and Development Code Audit and Update (CodeUP)
• West Sacramento Zoning Ordinance Modernization Project (ZOMP!)
• Santa Barbara New Zoning Ordinance
• Norma Triangle (West Hollywood) Neighborhood Overlay
District and Design Guidelines
• Fresno Development Code Update
• Honolulu Transit Oriented Development Land Use Ordinance Amendments
• Tahoe Region Local Planning Implementation
• Town of Mammoth Lakes Commercial Districts Development Standards
• Placer County Area Plan and Implementing Ordinance
• Porterville Development Code Update
• Princeton (San Mateo County) General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Plan Update (Plan Princeton)
• San Carlos Zoning Ordinance Update
• San Gabriel “Greening the Code” Zoning Amendments
• South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update
A-7
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
[email protected] , 626 -616-9303 | 2 Professional Experience
Miller Planning Associates, 2019-Present
Principal and Owner of planning firm specializing in community planning, development regulations, and community engagement.

Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc, 2017-2019
Director responsible for project management of development code and planning projects, as well as staff, office, and business management.

RRM Design Group, 2015-2017
Principal Planner providing business development, preparation, and project management for zoning and development code projects. Individual project responsibilities include providing overall project direction, conducting technical analysis, preparing recommendations, crafting regulations, and leading workshops.

Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners, 2008-2015
Principal in charge of zoning responsible for project management of General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Program updates.

Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo, 2000-2003 and 2004 ‐‐2008
Senior Planner responsible for preparing and/or updating community plans, coastal planning, policies, zoning regulations, ordinances, and design guidelines; processing land use permit and land division applications; performing CEQA compliance including management of Environmental Impact Reports and preparation of Mitigated Negative Declarations.

Sapphos Environmental, Urban Planner/Environmental Analyst, 2003-2004 Urban Planner/Environmental Analyst responsible for managing planning projects; assisting counties, cities, and special districts with comprehensive planning efforts and environmental compliance; and preparing environmental compliance documents including Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations.

Speaking Engagements
Co-Instructor, CRP 430 Professional Planning Practice, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, 2017, 2018, 2019 Updating Your Zoning Code: Overcoming Challenges, 2019 American Planning Association California State Conference
From Here to There: The Future of Mobility, 2017 American Planning Association Central Coast Section Barn Raising in the Burbs: Novel Strategies for Growing Food and Cultivating Community Through Urban Farming, 2016 American Planning Association California Chapter State Conference Supporting Urban Agriculture in Your Community, 2014 American Planning Association California State Conference
A New Paradigm for Keeping Tahoe Blue, 2013 American Planning Association California State Conference A-8
CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates

Brian Copeland, PE, PTOE—Page 1

JIM DAMKOWITCH
Jim has 30 years of experience in regional multimodal transportation planning, congestion management, multidisciplinary corridor studies, safety studies, transit studies, active transportation studies, operational analyses, transportation and air quality modeling, and performance measure applications. He has managed regional transportation plan/sustainable community strategy updates and general plan circulation element updates; operational traffic studies for state highway infrastructure improvement projects (PSR/PA-ED Phases); corridor studies; active transportation studies; traffic impact fee programs; travel demand modeling; air quality modeling; and, transportation operational studies for a variety of clients including Caltrans, MPOs, and various cities and counties in California. He has served on state and regional planning committees and conference panels for transportation air quality conformity, performance measurement, and SB 743, respectively.

Relevant Project Experience
Circulation Elements/Regional Plans
• Ventura County General Plan Update (2016–Current)
• Fresno County General Plan EIR Baseline Update (2016–2017) • San Joaquin County CA General Plan Update & EIR (2008-15) • City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Update (2012-2014) • City of Goleta General Plan (2006)
• MCAG 2018 RTP/SCS
• StanCOG 2018 RTP/SCS & EIR
• SJCOG 2018 RTP/SCS Technical Support
• SJCOG 2018 RTP/SCS EIR
• Calaveras COG RTP Update (2017)
• Del Norte County Local Transportation Authority RTP Update (2016) • California Rural Counties Task Force: Performance Monitoring Indicators for Rural and Small Urban Transportation Planning (2015)
• CA Strategic Growth Council, 2014 MPO SCS Self-Assessment • SJCOG 2014 RTP/SCS & EIR Technical Support
• StanCOG 2014 RTP/SCS & EIR
Travel Demand Modeling / SB 743 Studies
• City of Goleta SB 743 VMT Threshold Study & Sketch Planning Tool (2020) • City of Santa Maria SB 743 VMT Threshold Study & Sketch Planning Tool (2020) • El Dorado County 743 VMT Threshold Study Peer Review (2020) • City of Fairfield SB 743 VMT Threshold Study (2020)
• Ventura County General Plan EIR SB 743 VMT Threshold Analysis (2020) • Caltrans District 5 Modeling On-Call (Contract #05A1141; 2007-2012) • Caltrans D-1 Del Norte County Travel Demand Model Development (2013) • TRPA/TMPO Travel Model Update Validation Peer Review (2016) • El Dorado County Travel Model Update Peer Review (2016) • City of Goleta Travel Demand Model Update (2017)
• TRPA/TMPO Interregional Trip Estimation Peer Review (2018) Corridor Studies
• MCAG, Atwater-Merced Expressway (SR 59 Bypass) PA-ED/PS&E (2010) Education: MS, Geography,
University of California, Santa
Barbara, CA
BA, Geography (Honors),
University of California, Santa
Barbara, CA
Presentations: Travel
Behavior Responses to
Increased Highway Capacity.

California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association - Air
Quality Planning Symposium
Improving the Transportation
Conformity Process. California
Air Pollution Control Officers
Association - Air Quality
Planning Symposium
Old Car Buyback: Merits and
Funding Issues. California Air
Pollution Control Officers
Association - Air Quality
Planning Symposium
Impacts of Employer-Based
TDM Strategies on GHG
Emissions: A Case Study for
San Joaquin County,
California. ITE Western
District 2011 Annual Meeting
Analysis of Multi-Modal and
GHG Reduction Strategies on
Interregional Traffic in the I-
580 Corridor. ITE Western
District 2012 Annual Meeting
Visual Simulation of Cut-
Through Traffic in the City of
Goleta. ITE Western District
2012 Annual Meeting
A-9
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022

Brian Copeland, PE, PTOE—Page 2
• SR 88 Bypass PSR Traffic Analysis (San Joaquin County 2010) • I-580 Interregional Multimodal Corridor Study (MTC/SJCOG 2011) • US 101 HOV PA-ED (Caltrans D-5, 2012)
• SR 99 & I-5 Interregional STAA Truck Study (SACOG/SJCOG, 2012) • Amador CTC SR 16 Corridor Analysis: Watt to Grant Line Road (2014) • SLOCOG US101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (2014)
• SLOCOG SR 227 Operations Study (2016)
• TAMC SR 68 Scenic Highway Plan (2017)
• PCTPA I-80/SR 65 Travel Time Reliability and Safety Analysis (2017) • SCCRTC SR 1 Unified Corridor Investment Study (2018)
• SR 49 CSMP - Technical Advisor (2018, NCTC)
• SLOCOG US 101 Access Restriction Traffic Diversion Study (2019) • US 101 Pismo PA-ED Traffic Operations Report (Caltrans D-5, 2019) • NCTC SR 49 Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020)
• NVTA SR 29 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (2020) Congestion Management Program (Federal/State)
• SJCOG 2019 Congestion Management Program Monitoring Report Update • StanCOG 2018 Partial CMP Update as part of 2018 RTP/SCS • SACOG 2017 Federal Congestion Management Program
• SJCOG 2017 CMP Monitoring Report Update
• SJCOG 2016 Congestion Management Program Update
• SJCOG 2012 Congestion Management Program Update & Automation Project • SJCOG 2010 Regional Deficiency Analysis
• While at SBCAG (1992-2005) CMP Program Management
Air Quality Planning / Climate Action Plans
• County of Merced - Climate Action Plan (2018-Present) • TMPO GHG Reduction Technical Support (2016)
• City of Gridley - Climate Action Plan (2015)
• Caltrans On-Call Air Quality Study Support Services (2009-2015) • KCAG Climate Action Plan (2014)
• SCAQMD Technical Assistance Related to GHG Air Quality Impacts (2008-13) • City of Manteca Climate Action Plan (2011)
• TMPO Air Quality Technical Support (2008-11)
• SJCOG Regional TDM Plan & GHG Estimation (2010)

Fee Studies
• SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee Addendum (2020) • El Dorado County Western Slope Traffic Impact Fee Program Update (Current) • City of Rancho Cordova Traffic Fee Impact Fee Update (2020, Current) • City of Goleta Development Impact Fee Update (2018)
• City of Goleta Development Impact Fee Update (2018)
• City of Chico Facilities Fee Update (2018)
• SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee Update (2018) • El Dorado County Western Slope Traffic Impact Fee Program Update (2016) • San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Update (2015) • SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee Update (2011) • San Joaquin County Traffic Impact Fee Mitigation Program 2008 Update (2008) • Atwater-Merced Expressway (SR-59 Bypass) Regional Fee Analysis (2008) • City of Rio Vista AB1600 Study (2008)
• City of Goleta CIP Fair Share Analysis (2008)

San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy
Conference (2013): Moderator
for the "Innovations in Transit
and Travel”.

San Joaquin Valley Fall Policy
Conference (2014): Panelist:
"Navigating SB 375: CEQA
Streamlining and SB 743
Transportation Analysis”
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP) 2015
State Conference: Panelist:

SB 7 43 Practicum: Policy,
Practical Tools, Tips, and
Techniques for Implementing
SB 7 43 CEQA Guidance
Application of Caltrans Smart
Mobility Framework for the US
101 Corridor Mobility Master
Plan in San Luis Obispo
County. ITE Western District
2015 Annual Meeting
Development of Performance
Measures for Rural Counties
in California. National
Transportation Research
Board 2017 Annual Meeting
SR 68 Scenic Highway Plan in
Monterey County. ITE
Western District 2019 Annual
Meeting
Sustainable Community
Strategy Implementation: Fact
or Fiction? Panel Discussion.
2019 American Planning
Association California Annual
Conference
SB 743 Where is the safety?
Panel Discussion. 2019
American Planning
Association California Annual
Conference
Years of experience: 30

A-10
CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates

Brian Copeland, PE, PTOE—Page 1

YANA LOGINOVA, EIT
Transportation Engineering Associate
Yana is a transportation engineering associate working on a variety of design, planning, and operations projects. She has experience working on traffic signal modification, signing and striping, lighting, ramp meter, ITS, and operations projects with private and public agencies throughout California and Oregon. Yana is experienced in applying the latest transportation software packages, including AutoCAD, Microstation, Vissim, Vistro, Sidra, Tru Traffic, Synchro 10, and Aimsun Next.

Relevant Experience
Westminster On-Call Staff Support, Westminster, CA. Yana assisted the City of Westminster in preparation for the citywide inventory of signalized intersections and updated the citywide local timings to ensure compliance with the latest standards set by MUTCD.

Yana developed the citywide Synchro Model to help the City identify the local routes which needed improvement in synchronization and to propose possible flush plans.

SR-134 Traffic Signal Improvements, Burbank, CA. The City of Burbank looked to improve various traffic signals along SR-134 and the surrounding area. Yana assisted the design team to prepare signal upgrade plans, improve safety for vehicles and pedestrian access, replace signal controller and cabinet equipment, and fulfill the requirements as set forth in the CA MUTCD.

Imperial Highway Traffic Signal Synchronization Project, Los Angeles County, CA. Yana is responsible for the design of the project, including twelve intersections improvements along the Imperial corridor within Los Angeles County, the City of Inglewood, and the City of Hawthorne. The project involves the preparation of traffic signal plans for traffic signal upgrades, modifications, and intersection geometry improvements including signing and striping improvements.

Olympiad Road – Felipe Road Traffic Signal Synchronization Project, Mission Viejo, CA. As a project engineer, Yana assisted in the preparation of the traffic signal timing plans for the corridor. In addition, she assisted in performing data collection and analysis to develop and implement optimized traffic signal synchronization.

Union Street Two-Way Cycle Track Project, Pasadena, CA. As a project engineer, Yana worked with a multi-disciplined team to provide public outreach, environmental clearance, preliminary and final design, and construction support for a two-way cycle track on Union Street from Arroyo Parkway to Hill Street in the City of Pasadena, California. The design will involve safety measures protecting bicyclists including median barriers separating the cycle track from vehicle lanes, as well as upgrades in traffic signalization and communications that will provide gaps in traffic for bikes and pedestrians to complete turning movements and crossings.

Registration: California
Engineer in Training No.
169042
Education: BS, Civil
Engineering, University of
California Irvine
Years of experience: 3

A-11
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022

Brian Copeland, PE, PTOE—Page 1

SEAN CARNEY, EIT
Transportation Engineer/Planner
Sean offers a broad range of analysis skills including signal timing, traffic operations analysis, transportation system planning, and crash data and safety analysis. He almost exclusively works with public agencies to identify and resolve the transportation issues of today and plan around the travel demand of the future. Sean is experienced in providing both quantitative and qualitative analysis for all methods of mobility and has worked on projects throughout Northern California and Oregon to address the needs of growing traffic, transit, and active mobility demands. Sean is adept at applying various software packages for traffic analysis including Synchro/SimTraffic, Vissim, ArcGIS, and Cube.

Relevant Experience
2035 General Plan Circulation Element, West Sacramento, CA.

Sean assisted in developing the focused travel demand model for the City, as well as applying the model to update the circulation element of the City’s general plan. Sean helped with the development of model inputs and developed a Synchro network for intersection analysis and a series of Excel workbooks to evaluate roadway and freeway segment performance. Further, he worked on incorporating elements of the City’s Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan into the 2035 General Plan Circulation Element.

Sacramento Downtown Transportation Study, Sacramento, CA. Sean assisted in the evaluation of multiple planning alternatives for the Downtown Sacramento street grid. This work included the post processing of activity-based model results in Excel and the mapping of these results in GIS. Some evaluation metrics included mode share, vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of delay, and street segment volume-to-capacity ratios for all streets in the downtown area.

Additional work included the mapping of all downtown bus lines and transit stops as well as the mapping of the downtown on-street parking data in GIS.

Rancho Cordova General Plan Update, Rancho Cordova, CA. DKS will provide the City with development and traffic forecasts on several “base scenarios” for the EIR on the general plan update.

Folsom General Plan, Folsom, CA. As part of a multidisciplinary team, DKS developed the alternatives for the general plan update. Because the City of Folsom is largely built out and the planning for the new growth area south of Highway 50 is largely complete, city-wide land use alternatives were deemed unnecessary. Instead, alternatives were developed for selected focus areas or corridors. Using the input gathered at the third Townhall Forum, the team identified focus areas that represent the greatest potential for future change, such as Sutter Street and Historic Folsom, the Bidwell Corridor, and the Corp Yard. The focus of the alternatives were options for enhancing these opportunity areas through land use and urban form, and for increasing connectivity between activity nodes within the city. DKS assisted in identifying options for complete streets for the focus area alternatives.

Registrations:

Engineer in Training
(CA), Certificate No.
146088

Education: BS, Civil
Engineering, Cal Poly
San Luis Obispo

Years of experience: 6

A-12
CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Appendix B: Project Example Sheets
B-1
MINTIER HARNISH | REVISED - January 20, 2022
Example Architectural Graphics
Articulation Articulation Articulation
4' 4'
36' Max. 36' Max.

B-2
CITY OF HAYWARD | Objective Standards for Residential Development and Zoning Consistency Updates Gilroy Mixed-use Residential and Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy – Adopted October 18, 2021

Page 9 of 11 ends

Hayward City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Hayward City Council
February 1, 2022