Agenda — Hillsborough City Council, September 12, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

We appreciate your hard work and the diligent effort and cooperation of the entire housing element update team. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
Paul McDougall
Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 February 8, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Sites Inventory: While the element includes some general discussion regarding the identification of sites and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The element should still include analysis such as the number of units by income group and location, impact, or lack of, on existing patterns and isolation of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) to evaluate whether fair housing conditions are improved or exacerbated.

Local Data and Knowledge, and Other Relevant Factors: The element generally was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Actions must have metrics and milestones to target meaningful outcomes and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, placebased strategies for community revitalization and displacement protection.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Realistic Capacity: The element now lists recent developments to support capacity assumptions, however, the analysis of realistic capacity should also account for recent development by affordability as noted in the prior review. This is particularly important since some development affordable to lower-income households may not be built at higher densities assumed in the inventory. In addition, as noted in the prior review, the calculation of residential capacity should account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential uses.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 February 8, 2021
The element describes some recent trends and concludes residential is very likely, but the information also indicates that 100 percent nonresidential uses does occur (p. F-7) and the element should account for this likelihood in the calculation of capacity.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element includes some additional discussion of the various categories of sites, market conditions and lists some recent redevelopment activity. However, the element should still include analysis of the extent existing uses impede additional development. For example, the element describes various factors utilized to identify high potential sites but does not appear to reflect all of those factors in the inventory. Further, the element lists recent trends but should also utilize those trends to support the validity of factors used to determine potential. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

In addition, for your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. While the resolution of adoption includes the appropriate findings, any changes to the analysis should be reflected in future re-adoption of the element.

City-Owned Sites: The element now lists City-Owned sites and indicates sites can be available for development in the planning period. However, given the reliance on these sites and as noted in the prior review, the element should include some discussion on the potential schedule of availability for development in the planning period and revise programs as appropriate to facilitate development on these sites in the planning period.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element now clarifies recent ADU trends to include permitted units and adjusts the number of ADUs assumed to be permitted in the planning period. However, as noted in the prior review, HCD records indicate far different ADU trends than what is indicated in the element. The City should reconcile these figures and adjust assumptions as appropriate. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the housing element describes other evidence these sites are adequate to accommodate lower income housing. The element lists some recent trends on small sites; however, these trends do not appear to align with assumptions in the inventory as noted in the prior review. For example, the element identifies many sites that accommodate less than 15 units for lower-income households, but trends indicate most developments that are 100 percent affordable for lower-income households are 15 or more units. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Infrastructure: As noted in the prior review, the element must still describe sufficient existing and planned total infrastructure sewer capacity to accommodate the RHNA and include programs, if necessary.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 February 8, 2021
Electronic Site Inventory: As noted in the prior review, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory and submit an electronic version of the sites inventory. While the City has submitted an electronic version of the sites inventory, if changes occur, any future re-adopted versions of the element must also submit the electronic version of the sites inventory.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element discusses the number of parcels in various zones but should still discuss opportunities for opportunities for redevelopment or reuse. In addition, the element indicates parking requirements are inconsistent with AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019) and Program should specifically commit to revise parking requirements.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: The element describes permanent supportive housing uses are permitted uses but should clarify the uses are permitted without discretionary action. If necessary, programs should specifically commit to amend zoning to permit these uses without discretionary action. • Employee Housing: The element states the City does not regulate housing for six or fewer persons and therefore complies with the Employee Housing Act.

However, zoning should explicitly comply with the provisions of the Employee Housing Act and programs should be revised to specifically amend zoning and procedures. Please see HCD’s prior review.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element generally describes programs that were added to address constraints. However, those programs do not include specific commitment to remove or modify standards and generally commit to only review and change land use controls if necessary. Instead, the element update should review or analyze those land use controls and programs should specifically commit to address constraints. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Fees and Exaction: The element generally describes that typical development on identified sites will not require a conditional use permit and therefore no analysis of planning fees as potential constraints is necessary. However, the element should evaluate fees as constraints regardless of the RHNA or identified sites. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element now includes Program

1.B to streamline architectural review, it must still evaluate approval findings for Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 February 8, 2021
impacts on housing and add or modify programs as appropriate. Please see HCD’s prior review.

B. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
• Shortfall of Sites: Program 1.A (By-right Approvals) mentions various zoning amendment, however, as noted in the prior review, the Program must specifically commit to acreage, allowable densities, anticipated units and meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).
• Program 1A (Streamlined Approvals for Housing Projects): As noted in the prior review, this program should clarify the allowance of by-right developments for sites identified in previous cycles if the project includes at least 20 percent affordable housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2. • City-Owned Sites: Program 2E (Affordable Housing on City-owned/Publiclyowned Land) was revised to issue at least one request for proposal in the planning period. But, given the reliance on City-Owned sites, the Program should have far greater commitment to facilitate development on City-owned sites and in stride with assumption for the planning period. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information, including rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 February 8, 2021
As noted in Findings A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

In addition, while the element includes Program 2.I to amend zoning for a variety of housing types, the Program should include specific commitment to amend zoning for identified constraints related to the definition of households, residential care facilities for seven or more persons, parking for emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and employee housing.

3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete analysis of AFFH. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs to affirmatively further fair housing. In addition, HCD’s prior review found the City should revise Program 4.D (Rezoning R1 Neighborhoods) with meaningful and sufficient actions to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities. In response, the element now appears to only promote accessory dwelling units; an insufficient action given the perpetuated segregation noted in the element. Please see HCD’s prior review.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 30, 2021
Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street – Mail Stop 28
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Jing Yeo:

RE: Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Monica’s (City) draft housing element received for review on July 1, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on August 24, 2021 with you, Rachel Kwok, George Cardona, David Martin, Heidi von Tongeln, and the City’s consultant John Douglas. In addition, HCD considered comments from Abundant Housing LA, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Santa Monica Housing Council, Jason Mastbaum, Tieira Ryder, Brad Ewing, Matthew Millen, Adam Buchbinder, Ann Paulson, Matthew Stevens, Ken Kutcher, Lee Kaplan, and Haley Feng, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of October 15, 2021 for Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit HCD’s website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element Jing Yeo, Planning Manager

Page 2 ends

process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
Enclosure
Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 August 30, 2021

APPENDIX

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach: While the element provides an analysis for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) beginning on page 27, it generally does not address the requirement to provide an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) within the City. The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing.

Additionally, the analysis must also describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and include information on fair housing outreach capacity. For further guidance, please visit HCD’s AFFH in California webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

Integration and Segregation: The element includes data and analysis on integration and segregation by race and income. However, the element must also analyze segregation and integration by familial status and persons with disabilities.

Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Affluence: The element includes information relative to Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) but should also address concentrated areas of affluence. The combination of the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time at a local (e.g., neighborhood to neighborhood) and regional level (e.g., city to region).

Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement Risk: The element includes an adequate analysis regarding displacement risk. Additionally, the element should analyze the trends and patterns for overpayment (i.e. cost burden), overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, and persons experiencing homelessness.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 August 30, 2021
Local Data and Knowledge, and Other Relevant Factors: The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers. Also, the element includes meaningful analysis related to historical practices but should also discuss past, present and future investment practices and other information as appropriate.

Sites Inventory: The element includes a general conclusion of the site inventory relative to access to opportunity. However, the element should address all components of the AFFH (e.g., segregation and integration and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement). The analysis should also address sites for all income groups separately (e.g., lower, moderate and above moderate), whether conditions are improved or exacerbated and any isolation of the lower-income regional housing needs allocation.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Currently, the element identifies programs to promote and conserve affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to facilitate any meaningful change nor address affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The element includes quantification of ELI households but must also identify projected housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very lowincome households qualify as ELI households. Additionally, given the unique and disproportionate needs of ELI households, the element should expand its analysis to better formulate policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze tenure, cost burden, overcrowding and other household characteristics then examine the availability of resources to determine gaps in housing needs. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housingneeds.shtml.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 August 30, 2021

3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Stock Condition: The element identifies the age of the housing stock and provides basic ACS data on substandard conditions (beginning on page B-17).

However, it must also include analysis of the condition of the existing housing stock and estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable organizations. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/housing-stock-characteristics.shtml.

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since July 1, 2021. The element indicates (p. F-9) 1,670 approved and 756 pending units (before applying a 10 percent reduction) toward the RHNA but must also demonstrate the affordability of the units. Specifically, the element must assign these units to the various income groups based on actual or anticipated sales price or rent level of the units or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deedrestrictions) and demonstrate their availability in the planning period.

Realistic Capacity: The element must include an estimate of the number of units that can be accommodated on each site in the inventory. The estimate may rely on established minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units for each site was determined. The estimate of the number of units accounts for land use controls and sites improvements however does not support assuming maximum floor areas for every site. The element should include additional and clear supporting information on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. For example, the element could clearly list recent projects, the zone, acreage, built density, allowable density or floor areas, level of affordability and presence of exceptions such as a density bonus.

In addition, the element appears to assume residential development on sites with zoning that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. The element must account for the likelihood of nonresidential uses. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculation, policies, and program accordingly.

The element should include analysis based on factors such as development trends, performance standards or other relevant factors. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/siteinventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#zoning.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 August 30, 2021
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element does not adequately address this requirement. The element must include an analysis to demonstrate the potential for additional development within the planning period. The analysis shall consider factors including, the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. For example:
• the element should discuss recent redevelopment trends and how those trends relate to identified sites and categories (p. F-2) in the planning period; • denote the site categories in the inventory, including whether the site is a high potential site;
• discuss why some approved and pending projects do not have high potential and any impacts on their development in the planning period; • describe recent experience with developing some of the site categories and relate those characteristics to the inventory;
• identify all sites in the inventory with known development interest, expiring leases or other indicators of turnover in ownership that may lead to development;
• support the use of factors such as age of structure and assessor value ratio and reflect those values on a parcel basis; and
• include additional analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment in each of the categories
In addition, for your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.

Finally, the element identifies sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing policy has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). The housing element must be revised to include analysis, if necessary and a program.

City-Owned Sites: The element must include additional discussion on each of the Cityowned sites identified to accommodate the RHNA. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 August 30, 2021
Zoning Appropriate for Lower-Income Households: The element must demonstrate densities appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. For communities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for Santa Monica), no analysis is required. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3).) Otherwise, an analysis must demonstrate appropriate densities based on factors such as market demand, financial feasibility and development experience within identified zones. The element states (page F-13) that sites identified for lowerincome households can accommodate densities greater than 30 units per acre; however, the inventory assigns maximum densities less than 30 units per acre toward the lower-income RHNA. As a result, the element should explain how these sites can allow up to 30 units per acre or more (without exceptions), include analysis as described above or programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): ADUs may be counted toward the RHNA based on past permitted units in the prior planning period, affordability, resources and incentives and other factors. The element organizes recent ADU trends into three categories: inprogress, permits issued and completed. Based on communications, these categories are mutually exclusive; however, the element should clarify that ADUs are not counted across multiple categories. Also, while information on in-progress may be utilized to inform the potential for ADUs in the planning period, the analysis should be based on permitted ADUs and the in-progress information should be ancillary to permitted ADU.

Finally, for your information, HCD records indicate permitted ADUs of 20 in 2018, 30 in 2019 and 27 in 2020. These numbers are significantly less than the City’s assumptions. The element should reconcile these numbers and adjust assumptions as appropriate
Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. While the element lists some recent development on smaller sites, it should relate these trends to identified sites. For example, almost all of the recent developments, particularly developments 100% affordable to lower-income households, had at least 30 units but the element should also discuss typical sizes on identified sites. This analysis should also relate zoning and allowable densities from recent projects to identified sites. Further, many sites appear to necessitate consolidation. As a result, the element should demonstrate the potential for consolidation. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the sites inventory should be adjusted as needed and programs should be added or modified.

Infrastructure: The element should clarify sufficient existing and planned total infrastructure capacity (water and sewer) to accommodate the RHNA and include programs, if appropriate.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 August 30, 2021
Water Sewer Priority: Water and sewer service providers must establish specific procedures to grant priority water and sewer service to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65589.7.) Local governments are required to immediately deliver the housing element to water and sewer service providers. The element should discuss compliance with this requirement and if necessary, add or modify programs to establish a written procedure by a date early in the planning period. For additional information and sample cover memo, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/other-requirements/priority-for-water-sewer.shtml.

Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element must demonstrate the BTV, MUC, and PL zones have sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. This analysis should address typical parcel sizes, opportunities for redevelopment or reuse, proximity to transit, services and hazards. In addition, the element should describe how emergency shelter parking requirements comply with AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statutes of 2019) or include a program to comply with this requirement.
• Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.) or add or modify programs. Specifically, section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element indicates the City modified its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADUs. However, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, the department discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, standards for ADUs and JADUs established by converting floor areas of existing structures, as found in section 9.35.025. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with State law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state requirements surrounding ADU Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 August 30, 2021
development; see link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearch/docs/adu_december_2020_handbook.pdf. Please also note that any applications for an ADU / Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) permit must be permitted in accordance with current state law, regardless of the City’s adopted ordinance.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land-use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land-use controls independently and cumulatively with other land-use controls. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including planning and impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply, cost, timing and affordability. While the element identifies these fees, the City should also analyze the impacts of these fees and include programs as appropriate. For example, the element should address planning fees for conditional use permits. The element should also address the total fees for 3-Unit/Condominium developments (page E-38) and typical multifamily development. Finally, the element should evaluate the cumulative impact of fees on development costs instead of sales prices. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/fees-and-exactions.shtml.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element describes the Development Review Permit (DRP) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) discretionary processes (pages E-43, E-44) but must also analyze impacts on housing cost, supply and approval certainty. For example, the analysis should address approval findings such as “…both compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods”, “…expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality.”, “inferior quality” “…cause the nature of the local neighborhood or environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value.”, and “… compatible with developments on land in the general area.” Based on the findings of the additional analyses, programs may need to be added or modified to address identified constraints.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: While the element notes the City is not subject to SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), conditions may change in the 6th Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 August 30, 2021
cycle planning period. As a result, the element should clarify whether the City has a written procedure and if not, add or modify programs as appropriate.

Codes and Enforcement: While the element provides a general description on implementation of the building code, the element must also identify any local amendments to the building code and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability
On-/Off-Site Improvements: The element describes the City may require on- and offsite improvements but should also identify and analyze the actual standards for impacts on the cost and supply of housing. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/codes-and-enforcement-on-offsiteimprovement-standards.shtml.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include analysis of potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, as follows:
• Reasonable Accommodations: The element should generally describe and analyze approval findings for reasonable accommodation. • Group Homes for Seven or More Persons: The element appears to indicate that some group homes for seven or more persons are excluded from single-family zones and subject to a conditional use permit. The element should specifically analyze these constraints for impacts on housing supply and choices and approval certainty and objectivity for housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.
• Definition of a Family/Household: The element defines a Household as “One or more persons living together in a single dwelling unit, with access to and use of all common living and eating areas and all common areas and facilities for the preparation and storage of food and who maintain a single mortgage, lease, or rental agreement for all members of the household (page E-32).” The element should analyze the provision to “maintain a single mortgage, lease, or rental agreement for all members of the household”, whether this is a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.

6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 August 30, 2021
Time between Approval and Building Permit: The element must analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits and any hinderance on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

7. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Farmworkers: The element states (page B-33) Santa Monica does not support the agriculture industry and there is no need for farmworkers. Farmworkers from the broader area and those employed seasonally may have housing needs. As a result, the element should at least acknowledge the housing needs of permanent and seasonal farmworkers at a county-level (e.g., USDA county-level farmworker data) and include programs as appropriate.

8. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
The element identifies certain “at-risk” projects and provides basic analysis and assessment but should also expand the list of eligible entities. Qualified entities are public and private non-profit corporations known to the City to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units. For more information, please see https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/preserving-existing-affordablehousing.shtml.

B. Housing Programs

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 August 30, 2021
• Shortfall of Sites: The parcel listing indicates some sites will need to be rezoned to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation. If so, program(s) must specifically commit to acreage, allowable densities and anticipated units. In addition, if necessary, to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households, program(s) should specifically commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). • Program 1A (Streamlined Approvals for Housing Projects): This program should clarify the allowance of by-right developments for sites identified in previous cycles if the project includes at least 20 percent affordable housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2.
• Replacement Housing Requirements: The housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3)).

The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c)(3). • City-Owned Sites: Program 2B (Right of First Offer Ordinance): The program should go beyond explore and commit to establish an ordinance or some other similar mechanism. Program 2E (Affordable Housing on City-owned/Publiclyowned Land) should go beyond assessing properties and commit to steps and a schedule to facilitate development on City-owned sites. In addition, if zoning at appropriate densities is necessary, Program 2E should commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

2. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Program 2F (New Affordable Housing Finance Programs): While this program commits to leveraging new sources of state, federal and philanthropic funding for special needs housing, it should go beyond exploring new financing tools and commit to pursue and assist with funding or support funding applications on a regular basis (e.g., at least annually). In addition, the program should include regular outreach (e.g., at least annually) to developers of affordable housing and explicit commitment to assist in the development of housing affordable extremely low-income (ELI) households. Program actions could include prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to ELI households and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, to address the identified housing needs for ELI households.

For additional information, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11 August 30, 2021
As noted in Findings A5 and A6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and non-governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition:
• Program 1B (Streamline the Architectural Review): While the program commits to adopt new streamlining procedures, it should include specific commitments to address identified constraints such as approval findings as noted in Finding A5. • Program 1D (Explore Reducing or Eliminating Parking Requirements): In addition to exploring changes to parking requirements, the program should commit to actual modifications of parking requirements.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element requires a complete analysis of AFFH. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs to affirmatively further fair housing. In addition, Program 4D (Rezoning Selected Portions of R1 Zone Neighborhoods) notes historical practices have perpetuated segregation and hinder fair access to housing. As a result, the program should go well beyond exploring options and must commit to meaningful and sufficient actions to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities. These actions should not be limited by the regional housing needs allocation and must include metrics and milestones as noted under Finding A1.

5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
Program 3C: Facilitate the Conservation of Restricted and Non-Restricted At-Risk Housing: This program commits the City to annual monitoring of its affordable housing stock at-risk of conversion to market rate. The program should be revised to commit the City to noticing residents and owners of potential conversion dates, coordinating with qualified entities for potential purchase, and to seek funding assistance specifically for these type projects.

Review of the City of Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 12 August 30, 2021
C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
The element provides a summary of quantified objectives starting on page 95 of the policy document. These objectives include new construction and rehabilitation but must also include conservation objectives by income group. Conservation objectives may include the variety of strategies employed by the City to promote tenant stability and the preservation of units at-risk of conversion to market rate uses. In addition, the element includes rehabilitation objectives for approximately 58 units in the 8-year planning period, and HCD encourages the City to reconsider increasing these objectives.

D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(8).) The element describes the City took a two-part approach to public participation: (1) outreach meetings and (2) inter-department collaboration. Based on communications between HCD and the City, public participation was much broader to include all economic segments of the community. The element should describe these efforts, results and how comments were incorporated into the element.

E. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) For your information, some General Plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. For example, a jurisdiction must address environmental justice in its General Plan by the adoption of an environmental justice element, or by the integration of environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives into other General Plan elements upon the adoption or next revision of two or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (h).) In addition, the safety and conservation elements of the General Plan must include analysis and policies regarding fire and flood hazard management and be revised upon each housing element revision. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g).) Also, the land-use element must identify and analyze disadvantaged communities (unincorporated island or fringe communities within spheres of influence areas or isolated long established legacy communities) on, or before, the housing element’s adoption due date. (Gov. Code, § 65302.10, subd. (b).) HCD reminds the City to consider these timing provisions. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.
6/14/2022 1
Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA
Technical Memo
Background
Jurisdictions are allowed to use ADUs to help satisfy their RHNA requirements; however, the process is somewhat different than other aspects of the sites inventory. The standard method is to estimate the number of ADUs that will be developed in the planning period, then distribute those estimated units into each of the income categories.

Estimating Production
The estimate should be based on the average number of ADU building permits issued each year, multiplied by eight (because there are eight years in a housing element cycle). Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2018, when state law made it easier to construct the units. This is generally considered a safe harbor.

There is a small amount of flexibility in the calculations. If numbers were low in 2018 (or 2019) but were high in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a jurisdiction could potentially use 2019-2021 or 2020-2022 as the baseline.

Because this is outside the safe harbor, these calculations would need to be bolstered by a logical explanation for the methodology, e.g., the jurisdiction further loosened regulations in 2019.

Projecting a higher number of ADUs than what has been demonstrated through permit approvals in recent years may be possible, but more challenging. A slightly larger number may be warranted if a robust, funded, and clear plan to increase production has been put in place. However, you are strongly encouraged to coordinate with HCD before deviating from the standard methodology.

ADU sites are not listed in the site inventory, rather they are summarized and tallied in their own subsection.
6/14/2022 2
Determining the Income Distribution
ABAG conducted an analysis of ADU affordability and concluded that in most jurisdictions, the following assumptions are generally applicable. Many jurisdictions are choosing to use these numbers in lieu of conducting their own affordability analysis.

Table 1. Percent of ADUs Affordable to Different Income Categories Percent Income Category
30% Very low income
30% Low income
30% Moderate income
10% Above moderate
Please contact your County Collaborative Technical Assistance Provider for more information on affordability. A few key points are summarized below:
• Use building permits issued for the estimate.
• Jurisdictions do not need to list the addresses for potential ADUs. • Make sure the assumptions in your Housing Element match the numbers reported in past year APRs.

Please visit the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance page for more information, including a webinar that covers this topic.

Sample Housing Element Write Up
The following is what a jurisdiction might include in their sites inventory section of the housing element.

Since City amended its ordinance in 2019, the number of ADUs permitted has significantly increased. City’s ordinance goes beyond state law and allows 1,200 square foot ADUs. Additionally, the City website has an entire section devoted to ADUs with clear information about the standards and approval process. On average, the building department provides comments to completed ADU applications in 10 days. 2018 is not used as a base year because the old ADU standards were very restrictive and the City did not have much information on its website. Production has been consistently higher since the new ordinance went into effect.

Since 2019, the City has issued an average of 12.75 ADU permits per year, as listed below.

Year Building Permits
2017 2
2018 1
2019 10
2020 15
2021 10
2022 16 (estimate based
on first 6 months)
6/14/2022 3
Based on the annual average of 12.75 ADU permits per year since 2019, the City is projecting 102 ADUs being permitted over the eight year planning period and is using ABAG’s survey data to distribute the projected units by income category:

Income Category Percentages Totals
Very low 30% 30
Low 30% 31
Moderate 30% 31
Above moderate 10% 10
Based on these calculations, the City is able to meet approximately 1/7 of its RHNA through ADUs, and must accommodate another 598 units on the sites detailed in the sites inventory. See table below for a summary:

V Low Low Mod Above Mod Total
RHNA 200 200 100 200 700
Pipeline / Approved Units 0 0 0 0 0
ADUs 30 31 31 10 102
Remaining RHNA 170 169 69 190 598
ADUs and Level of Scrutiny of Other Sites in Housing Elements Cities that are heavily dependent on redevelopment sites (or technically nonvacant sites) face more scrutiny in their lower income sites inventory. ADUs can help some cities avoid this additional scrutiny/analysis. To simplify: if greater than 50 percent of the lower income RHNA can be satisfied by vacant sites, under construction (pipeline) projects, and projected ADUs, cities can avoid the higher standard.

For example: If the lower income RHNA is 100 and there are ten units under construction and sites for ten vacant units, a jurisdiction can avoid the heightened scrutiny if ADU projections are at least 31 units for the housing element period. (Half of 100 is 50. 10 under construction plus 10 vacant plus 31 ADUs is 51, or greater than 50.)
From: Dana Gross
To: General Plan
Subject: Opposing proposed affordable housing- Fight for current residents quality of life Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 2:56:52 PM
Hello,
I’m an very opposed to the disproportionate growth being forced on our small community.

Our town council needs to educate all residents on what is going on. I only heard about this through Nextdoor.

Every resident should have been notified and continued to be notified about these changes that would completely change our little town.

The proposed number of additional housing units is very high in proportion to our very low population, so this one size fits all approach does not work in a community like ours.

Hillsborough is a town with only single
family homes and schools in it. There aren’t any multi family units and due to the very high fire risk and limited water resources, adding that many new residents would put a great strain on our town. Not to mention our schools and infrastructure cannot support this type of growth.

Hillsborough does not have accessible bus lines and mass transit options that affordable housing residents need to rely on.

Our city council needs to fight for the residents of Hillsborough to preserve our towns charm and liability, like they did in Marin and Atherton. What options have you explored to create an exemption for our town? I would like an honest response to this question.

Thank you for hearing my strong thoughts on opposing the addition of multi family housing in Hillsborough and look forward to hearing what you’ve done to fight to preserve our small town as it is.

Sincerely,
Dana Gross
Sent from my iPhone
From: Nicole De Lancie
To: General Plan
Subject: Resident Call FYI -
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:05:36 PM
Hi Team,
I just spoke with Silvia homeowner of subject address and wanted to have the convo on record.

She called with great concern wanting to know about the forthcoming “very low-income development project” planned for Town – stating that she isn’t sure how the Town could allow homeless people with mental illness live in Town and how they would transport themselves, and how that could decrease her property value.

I assured her that there was not just some large development being built out of nowhere.

And that what she may have heard information about was called the Housing Element Update.

I gave her the website of the Housing Element Draft, told her about Thursday’s open house as well as the one on 9/6, and explained to her that:
the Housing Element Advisory Committee, made up of Town residents, had been working with Town staff this past year on the State mandated Housing Element (554 units) which is a plan (currently in FIRST DRAFT form) to update our zoning code to allow for potential more dense development on sites that met certain parameters (again pls see website and document text for all specifics) – and that the choice to develop a site still lies in the property owners purview.

She had said that about 9 residents all happened to meet on the street one day while walking and they were all very fearful of the coming “very low housing development”. She said the neighbors were from the Churchill, Privet, and Eugenia area.

She thanked me for my time and my very general explanation of the process, reason why this was being done, and better understanding of what “the plan” is – her initial fears were calmed by our conversation.

She said she would share this with other residents when she saw them.

She also said that she would try to make the 9/6 open house.

Best,
Nicole De Lancie
Building and Planning Division
Town of Hillsborough
650.375.7411
650.375.7415 fax
Town Hall Hours: Mon - Thurs 8:00am - 5:00pm / Fri: 8:00am - 12:00pm From: Irina Auerbuch
To: General Plan
Subject: Questions for the Housing Element Committee and for August 18th Meeting Date: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:23:20 PM
Hello,
My name is Irina Auerbuch and I live on Butternut Drive, which is five houses up from the back fence of Strawberry Estate.

I see that the Housing Element Plan is proposing building a high number of low and moderate income units on this estate.

My questions are:

Who the low and moderate income units are supposed to be for? Only for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other city employees?
How will the land be obtained? Are the owners of the estate willing to sell the land? How will the builder be chosen?
Will Butternut Drive become the main traffic artery from this new development to 280? What is the timing for the plan?
I hope you will be able to include answers to these questions on August 18th meeting agenda.

Thank you.

Irina Auerbuch
From: Tim Guleri
To: General Plan
Subject: Objections to the DRAFT Housing element update Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 3:16:15 PM
Dear Hillsborough Managers,
Please enter my comments below into the record for tonight’s meeting Re Agenda number 9.

I am writing to object to the draft on the Housing Element Updates.

Re-zoning residential areas should be off the table, certainly until the Town has met its extremely high burden to demonstrate that all other options have been entirely exhausted.

Once again, we are playing defense, when we should be playing offense (like Atherton) We need to

1. eliminate the buffer in our plan or reduce it to no more than 15%,

2. eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones and the overlay zone in favor of expanding the ADU/JADU allocation,

3. subsidize housing for police, fire, teachers, and town staff, and

4. learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing, and band together with them to fight for our common interests
Let's please put in the work, and do the right things to preserve our town and not destroy property value [by just talking the easy path out.]
Best
Tim Guleri
From: Patrick Shannon
To: Lisa Natusch; General Plan
Cc: Larry May; Al Royse; Sophie Cole; Christine Krolik
Subject: Comments to affordable housing plan
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 2:59:40 PM
Council members:

Please enter my comments below into the record for tonight’s meeting Re Agenda number 9.

Hillsborough is an entirely residential community. That is Hillsborough’s hallmark. We have all paid a premium on our homes for that aesthetic environment. The Town must exhaust every possible option to preserve that environment and avoid “re-zoning” any residential area.

The astronomically high new housing allocation to Hillsborough is a problem of the Town’s own making and the burden is on the Town to fix it without undermining the character of the Town or impairing our property values. The Town should have negotiated with surrounding areas to adjust the allocation to commercial areas in other jurisdictions or it should have been contested as it is 6-fold the prior allocation to Hillsborough over the last allocation cycle, notwithstanding the fact that the population is decreasing in California. Other similar communities have half the allocation of Hillsborough or even lower, such as Atherton and Belvedere.

The Town must solve this problem by exhausting every option to create housing on Town-owned property first, including Town Hall, the district office, the building and planning office, the construction yards, etc. Then on any non-residential property such as Nueva and Crystal schools, the Hillsborough Racket Club, etc. Then on any open space where a portion could be utilized or segregated subject to negotiation and even purchase.

ADUs and SB 9/10 units should be prioritized to increase housing but with legally enforceable restrictions to preserve Hillsborough’s character to the maximum extent feasible.

Re-zoning residential areas should be off the table, certainly until the Town has met its extremely high burden to demonstrate that all other options have been entirely exhausted.

MIf the state Housing and Community Development agency rejects Hillsborough’s plan, then Hillsborough should contest that and only resort to the last ditch option of re-zoning residential areas if legally required to do so and only on an egalitarian basis where the burden is distributed equally across all areas in Town, subject to safety exclusions such as fire and evacuation risks and infrastructure constraints.

The proposed RD1 Re-zoning is grossly inefficient. It would supposedly create 232 new opportunities but only generate 15 units. Why rezone 99% of the homeowners’ properties for 7% yield? Why Re-zone 99% of the Town when it would only contribute 2% of the overall solution? It makes no sense.

The RD1 re-zoning could be eliminated if Hillsborough set a buffer of 18%. The HCD did not “strongly recommend” a buffer of 20%, rather they dropped a “helpful hint” for jurisdictions to consider a buffer with a low range of 15%.

If Hillsborough imposed a buffer of 17% or 94 units then the plan would generate 648 units which is 17 units off 20% (665) and would more than eradicate the need for any re-zoning for parcels 10 acres or less - which affects 99% of the residents.

Los Altos Hills set a buffer of 15%. Hillsborough should similarly set a maximum buffer of 15%.

Regards,
Patrick Shannon
From: Sean J
To: Lisa Natusch
Cc: General Plan
Subject: Comments on HEAC recommendations
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 12:14:21 PM
Dear Lisa,
Please have the below statement “read” during tonight’s council meeting. Thank you! ————————
Dear Council Members,
I completely concur with the opinions below as expressed by Aaron Zornes and other Hillsborough community members.

In particular, the current HEAC draft plan will:

Open the floodgate to far more negative impacts than what may be needed to address the state mandate, with a point of no return
Unfairly impact residents that are near the proposed overlay zones Target the US-280 corridor that is a high fire hazard zone right next to the crystal springs trails, which should have been exempted as in the case of other cities/areas with high fire hazard.

Please kindly consider the suggestions below to improve the draft plan and minimize the negative impacts to our beautiful town.

Sean Jiam
, Hillsborough
IN OUR OPINION, THE CURRENT PLAN AS PRESENTED LAST WEEK WILL NEEDLESSLY:

1. Change the character of the town for the worse and negatively affect our life savings

2. Compromise further our infrastructure problems including water supply, wildfire evacuation plans, and more

3. Increase our wildfire risk from dire to unwise and catastrophic

4. Create even more danger for (increased number of) pedestrians and wildlife among our dark and winding roads, many with no sidewalks, and

5. Create hazards and nuisances due to increased traffic and projected construction AMONG THE SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE THE DRAFT PLAN, WE URGE OUR TOWN TO:

1. Learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing and engage with them to fight for our common interests

2. Eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones and the overlay zone in favor of expanding the ADU/JADU allocation

3. Subsidize housing for police, fire, teachers, and town staff

4. Get creative and practical in increasing number of units on the large parcels by adding more than one ingress/egress to meet fire evacuation requirements, and

5. Foreswear unduly burdening so-called “transit corridor” ¼ mile within US-280 from being targeted for highest density housing
From: Dennis Moore
To: General Plan
Subject: Objections to the draft housing element update Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 6:16:17 PM
Folks -
First, let me say that I'm so appreciative of the effort that staff, Council members, and the HEAC participants put into the work to provide input to the Housing Element update.

However, I have some objections to the resulting draft, based on things I've learned independently since I participated in HEAC (e.g., Los Altos Hills and Atherton differences with our plan, San Bruno subsidies), as well as feedback from other Hillsborough homeowners with whom I've spoken. As I understand it, for example, Los Altos Hills is not including a 20% "no net loss" buffer, but rather a 15% buffer - HEAC members were told a smaller buffer would not be acceptable to CA HDC. Atherton's plan is composed, as far as I can tell, 100% of ADU's and JADU's, which HEAC members were also told would be unacceptable to CA HDC. San Bruno is working with developers to build housing with subsidies in place for district teachers. I'm surprised this information was not shared with the HEAC - did no one on the consulting team, staff, or on the Council know about how these other similar towns are responding? I do remember asking at least in one HEAC meeting and in at least one survey response what other towns were doing, and did not get this information.

Objections and new proposals
The current plan needlessly:

1. will change the character of the town for the worse,

2. will negatively affect our life savings,

3. is being considered with no possible way of solving the infrastructure problems including water supply,

4. will take our fire risk from dire to unwise and catastrophic,

5. will create even more danger for pedestrians among our dark and winding roads many with no sidewalks, and

6. will create nuisances due to traffic and construction, My suggestions to revise the draft plan:

1. eliminate the buffer in our plan or reduce it to no more than 15%,

2. eliminate the RD-1, RD-2, and RD-3 zones and the overlay zone in favor of expanding the ADU/JADU allocation,

3. subsidize housing for police, fire, teachers, and town staff, and

4. learn what other towns like Hillsborough are doing, and band together with them to fight for our common interests.

The longer version follows.

Given new information about what is being done in towns similar to ours, I think we should reduce the "no net loss" buffer from 20% to 15%, as was done in LAH, or even lower if we find that other towns are submitting with smaller buffers. This will reduce our required target by at least 28 units from 665 to no more than 637. This should not be objectionable to HDC - if it is, perhaps we can fight, band together with other towns like ours, and only amend and resubmit only as a last resort.

With that reduction, we can eliminate the RD-1 zone from the plan across all of Hillsborough. Leave the current RD zone, with its current definition, in place for all of Hillsborough. My fear is that - some year down the road - there will be a push to reduce the street frontage (including with "flag lots"), lot sizes, or setbacks in order to make this zoning more attractive to developers, and I don't want that day to come. The RD-1 zone was producing only an estimated 15 units, and a reduction of our buffer from 20% to 15% means we don't need those units. Again, if HDC rejects, we can argue our cause, band together with other similar towns to fight HDC, and only resubmit if absolutely required.

Given the information from Atherton, our submission to HDC should eliminate the RD-2, RD-3, and overlay zoning, delivering our full RHNA allocation only with ADU's and JADU's. We can justify a higher target by saying we will allow one JADU and two ADU's for lots >= 1 acres, will allow one ADU/JADU within existing home "footprints" and one ADU outside the current building's footprint for lots < 1 acre in size, will allow "amnesty" for existing structures that do not qualify, and will promote ADU/JADU construction throughout the town. Again, someday down the road, someone may push to reduce the limit on lot sizes in the RD-3 zone from 10+ acres down to 1.5 acres, flooding our town with McMansions, construction, noise, traffic, and new students, all without the infrastructure to handle any of this. Our first submission, like Atherton's, should be purely based on ADU's and JADU's, plus building on vacant lots. Again, if HDC objects, we can argue, band together with similar towns, and fight - or resubmit if that fails.

In order to benefit our town, it will be desirable for as much of the new housing units to be occupied by those who work here - after all, this whole state process is (as far as I understand it) based to some significant degree on the idea that workers cannot find affordable housing near where they work. Therefore, I proposed that we investigate what other localities are doing (e.g., San Bruno) to encourage developers to create housing which can be affordable to our Hillsborough police, CCFD fire/EMT staff permanently assigned to fire stations in our town, Hillsborough public school teachers, and Hillsborough town staff. As needed, we can find a way to subsidize their housing while they work in and serve our town in these essential capacities, perhaps by a bond measure, or with fees and surcharges of some kind.

Lastly, based on the lack of information I received during the HEAC process so far, I suspect we do not have sufficient information about what other towns like ours are doing. I'm surprised that the consultants we are paying did not raise these facts as options to HEAC even when asked, and that staff must not have known given the lack of information we received for example on what is being done in LAH and Atherton. Scientia potentia est (knowledge is power), and lack of knowledge is weakness. We need to learn more about what other towns like ours are doing, and we need to work with other towns like ours in our mutual interest.

I would appreciate this comment being referenced in any submission we make to HDC or other public agencies, be read during the upcoming August 8 city council meeting, and be included in the minutes for the upcoming August 8 city council meeting. It's unfortunate that this vital topic for our town is so late on the agenda; perhaps Mayor Royce could postpone some of the less urgent items (such as the resolutions of appreciation, presentation by Peninsula Clean Energy, the resolution relating to the Mack E Mickelson Therapy Pool, the resolutions regarding public works vehicles, the resolution accepting the 3D Tech contract, and the designation of the delegate and alternates from the town for an upcoming conference).

Perhaps those items could be covered later in the agenda. Based on my discussions with other Hillsborough homeowners, I suspect there will be a lot of feedback that residents want to give regarding the Housing Element draft update.

I appreciate your consideration of this feedback, and am confident that we all share a common desire to preserve Hillsborough as the special place that it is, and that we all came here to share in. Thanks!
-----
Dennis Moore
August 04, 2022
Dear Hillsborough City Council:

We are writing on behalf of South Bay YIMBY regarding Hillsborough’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. As a regional pro-housing advocacy group, South Bay YIMBY works to ensure cities adopt housing elements that are fair, realistic, and lawful.

Per §8899.50(a)(1) of state code, Hillsborough's housing element must affirmatively fur‐ ther fair housing, which entails 'taking meaningful actions... that overcome patterns of se‐ gregation.'
The City of Hillsborough is uniquely positioned to affirmatively further fair housing, as Hillsborough is a wealthy, exclusionary city that researchers with the Othering and Belong‐ ing Institute at UC Berkeley identify as highly segregated from the rest of the Bay Area.

This socioeconomic segregation is caused by the exclusionary cost of housing in your com‐ munity, where an average home, as of April 30th, costs $5,644,000, which is only afford‐ able to someone earning a salary of $814,000, meaning only the richest 1% of house‐ holds can afford to settle down in your community. To put a finer point on the level of affluence in your city, the average home in your city costs more than French castles and private islands in the Caribbeans. It is thus no coincidence that your city is 38% whiter than the rest of the Bay, as well as 93% less black and 17% less brown than the rest of the Bay Area.

In a 2021 report entitled 'Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination in the Housing Market,' economic advisors for the White House outline how exclusionary zoning, like yours, causes segregation. Your exclusionary zoning pushes low income children to live in less resourced areas, which begets worse life outcomes from health to income. The research is clear: exclusionary zoning violates your duty to further fair housing.

To take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation, we recommend you:

1. End apartment bans in high opportunity areas. This will give middle and working class families the opportunity to share in the resources your rich neighborhoods enjoy. As of 2020, your city banned apartments in 100.0% of high opportunity residential areas.

2. Accommodate 1262 low income homes in your site inventory. While substantially larger than the floor of 244 low income homes required by RHNA, 1262 is the number of homes required to bring the proportion of low income families in your city in line with the rest of the Bay Area. While this number is large enough to be politically challenging, it will always be politically challenging to overcome segregation, as AFFH requires.

Thank you,
Salim Damerdji, South Bay YIMBY
Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
San Mateo County
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, CA 94010
13 INFORMATIONAL

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ITEM SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE
SUMMARY: The City Manager will provide an informational update related to Town projects, events and activities of interest to the community.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: This informational item is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5) as ongoing administrative or organizational activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS: None
PREPARED BY: Ann Ritzma, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: For information only; no action required.

Hillsborough City CouncilSeptember 12, 2022

Hillsborough City Council
September 12, 2022