The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD Housing Policies Priorities Report PPTHOUSING POLICIES PRIORITIES REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING –JANUARY 21, 2020 OVERVIEW August 20, 2018 -Comprehensive Report on Housing – Staff directed to follow-up on four topics: Renter protection Short-term Rentals Housing for an aging population Challenges to the approval and development of housing OVERVIEW September 3, 2019 –Informational Report on Challenges to approving and developing housing. Covered: Approach (interviews, studies, resource gathering) List of challenges (11) List of recommended measures and actions (13) City Council directed staff to: Host public workshops for input Return to City Council with prioritization of recommended actions TWO HOUSING WORKSHOPS Workshop #1 –November 3, 2019 = focus on regulatory and zoning-related actions to streamline City review process Workshop #2 –November 14, 2019 = focus on inclusionary housing policy, housing trust fund and financing Attendees (35-45) polled on the list of recommended measures and policy recommendations HOUSING WORKSHOP #1 SURVEY RESULTS Strongly Disagree/ Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree/ Agree The City should consider changes to the Design Review Board to streamline the project review process 13%6%81% The City should make it easier for “infill” projects to receive a CEQA exemption.22%6%72% The City should reduce the requirements for site-specific technical studies for housing projects.28%13%59% The City should allow for modest increases in building height and eliminate residential density limits as part of the form-based code being developed in the Downtown Precise Plan.19%10%71% The City should provide affordable housing projects a faster process to receive approvals.16%16%68% The City should make it harder to file a non-substantive appeal.29%13%58% HOUSING WORKSHOP #2 SURVEY RESULTS Strongly Disagree/ Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree/ Agree The City should adjust its Inclusionary Housing requirement 20%0%80% The City should allow in-lieu fee payments for a portion of a project’s Inclusionary Housing requirement 20%3%77% The City should provide a menu of alternative options for developers to meet their affordable housing requirements 3%0%97% The City should reduce, temporarily waive, or defer payment of development/impact fees 7%3%90% The City should offer Air Rights on City-owned Property for Housing Development Projects 10%0%90% PRIORITIZING POLICY REVIEW & ACTION Based on survey results, timing obligations and urgency, policy review and actions are prioritized as follows: Currently underway Ready for City Council review and action Phase 1 –anticipated Spring/Summer 2020 Phase 2 –anticipated Fall/Winter 2020 Phase 3 –anticipated 2021 On-hold MEASURES (POLICIES) CURRENTLY UNDERWAY Policy #1: Continue the “Planning Commission First” review process sequence to streamline review Policy #2:Support the “Form-Based Code” for the Downtown Precise Plan Policy #3:Streamline CEQA/Environmental Review Policy #4:Reduce Requirements for Technical Studies Policy #5:Streamline Pre-Application “Concept” Review MEASURE READY FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Policy #6: Administration of City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Presented for review tonight as a separate agenda item PHASE 1 MEASURES SPRING-SUMMER 2020 Policies #7 & #8: Adopt Changes to City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee Policy #9:Adopt “By-Right” Zoning for 100% Affordable Housing Projects Policy #10:Adopt New Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance PHASE 2 MEASURES FALL -WINTER 2020 Policies #11: Consider Changes to Design Review Board Policy #12:Adopt Update to City’s Density Bonus Ordinance PHASE 3 MEASURES 2021 Policies #13: Changes to Payment of Development Impact Fees Policy #14:Support City/Developer Partnerships MEASURE ON-HOLD Policy #15: Raise Appeal Fee and Change Appeal Process Appeal fee will be studied with Citywide Master Fee Schedule Update –2020-2021 OPTIONS FOR TONIGHT & RECOMMENDED ACTION Accept report and provide direction as recommended by staff; Accept report and provide direction to staff recommendations; Do not accept report; or Direct staff to return with more information QUESTIONS PLACEHOLDER SLIDES Streamline Planning and DRB Process Offer a more informal Pre-Application review process for housing projects + waive fee (Santa Rosa) Shift the order of public forum review - “Planning Commission First” = refines DRB focus of review Options presented for DRB Eliminate (Mill Valley) = NO Shift role and authority (Novato) = NO Appoint DRB liaison to review smaller housing projects Support Form-Based Code for Downtown Precise Plan Establishes general site parameters for form through maximum building height and FAR. . . No density limits Can include a menu of acceptable architectural styles/themes Streamlined review per State law for housing development near transit Incorporate Downtown Parking & Wayfinding study measures Address historic resources = more streamlined CEQA/environmental review Streamline CEQA/Environmental Review Process and Practices Few remaining undeveloped sites; mostly urban in-fill GP 2040 EIR for Downtown Precise Plan -= more detailed, which facilitates “tiering” for site development review Rely more on the use of CEQA “exemptions” (e.g., Categorical Exemption 15332-urban infill) Reduce Requirements for Certain Technical Studies Update of historic resource inventory for Downtown will reduce need for future site-specific studies If “LOS” method of traffic review is retained, limit requirement for technical traffic studies to larger projects Consider Changes to City’s Affordable Housing Requirements Offer a “menu of options” (Honolulu) Lower/reduce BMR requirement from 20% to 15% Allow in-lieu payment Allow lower inclusionary amount + in-lieu fee payment Change affordability range Temporarily lower requirement to 10% or “pause” requirement until housing construction catches-up DOWNSIDE Consider Changes to Use and Administration of Housing Fund Current fund balance = $1.3 million (+1 million pending) Update of “nexus” study being pursued subject to SB 2 Grant Eliminate fractional fee for residential projects as an incentive housing development When fund balance reached a certain balance, release a “call for applications” (competition) Allow market rate developer to apply required in-lieu fee to a specific affordable housing project (promote partnership) Consider Reducing/Waiving Development and Impact Fees Allow housing developer to defer fee payment to prior to building occupancy Allow a payment plan Provide a fee reduction for market rate housing projects containing inclusionary unit Sharply reduce fees for a specified time period (Santa Rosa) DOWNSIDE Amend Density Bonus Ordinance Current ordinance has worked successfully with projects requesting a bonus that does not exceed 35% (State cap) Current ordinance allows bonus exceeding 35% = fully discretionary and w/out specific guidance to negotiate Amend ordinance to update and simplify Adopt New Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Currently operating under State law (no local ordinance) New local ordinance in-the-works; will consider. . . Combining ADU and JDU regulations Eliminate off-street parking requirements for ADUs citywide, except in areas where Fire Dept service/access is challenging Allow “tiny homes” Allow ADU as a “bonus” unit on duplex and multiple- family residential properties Support City/Developer Partnership to Facilitate Housing GP 2040 Program H-14a –Air Rights Development Surface Parking Lot Air Rights Study –assessed seven Downtown City-owned parking lots; assumes. . . Opportunities range from seven to 33 units (no bonuses) Make air rights available at no cost to developer for 100% affordable project Retain public parking but require no parking for housing Lot #1 5th Avenue at Loosens Place Estimated 11-12 units without a density bonus Adopt “By-Right” Zoning for Affordable Housing Projects SB 2 Planning Grant – Establishing “by-right” zoning for 100% affordable housing projects in High Density Residential (HR-1) Districts Pilot development project covered under this effort = Homeward Bound’s new emergency shelter + 32 housing units (very low income) 190 Mill Street Consider Raising Appeal Fee and Change Scheduling Process Appeal fee has not been adjusted in decades + appeal process can add significant time to process Current appeal fee for resident (non-applicant) = $300 Study raising appeal fee as part of Master Fee Schedule Update Amend code to require that appeal hearing date be set within five working days of appeal filing POPULATION & HOUSING AGING POPULATION <18 22% 18-34 18% 35-44 15% 45-54 14% 55-64 11% 65+ 18% POPULATION GROWING MORE DIVERSE 99.1%97.5%92.8% 83.8% 75.8%70.6% 0.9%2.5%7.2% 16.2% 24.2% 29.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 POPULATION & HOUSING INCOME TENURE –OWNER VS RENT Under $20,000 13% $20,000- $49,999 21% $50,000- $99,999 24% Over $100,000 42%52%48%Owners Renters HOUSING STOCK 46% 10% 9% 33% 2%1-unit, detached 1-unit, attached 2-4 units five plus units mobile homes 2000 or later 4%1990s 8% 1980s 12% 1970s 18% 1960s 23% 1950s 19% 1940s 6% 1939 or earlier 10% AFFORDALE HOUSING INVENTORY Population Served San Rafael Marin County Public Housing 40 496 Seniors 256 1,126 Family 680 2,791 Disabled 84 207 Permanent/Supportive Housing 52 337 Transitional & Shelter 185 336 Homeownership (BMR for-sale units 117 832 TOTAL:1,414 6,125 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ADUs (Second Units) regulated since 1983 Approximately 200 citywide Major change to State-mandated ADU laws in 2017 (relaxed) Trend prior to 2017 = 4-6 ADUs approved/year Trend after 1/2017 = 30 ADUs in 2017; 27 ADU apps YTD Junior Second Units = approved ordinance in 2016 Updated local ordinance forthcoming this fall