The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCD Challenges to Housing Development PPTCHALLENGES TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING –SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 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 INFORMATIONAL REPORT Status report on housing production Current housing activity and interest Opportunity for update on housing legislation (2018-2019) Challenges to approving and developing housing Approach List of challenges List of recommended measures and actions HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Units built during last RHNA cycle (2007-2014)= 171 units Units built under current RHNA cycle (2015-2018)= 141 units Housing development approved and under review; potential housing developments Report Attachment 2 Housing Projects 360 units approved; 177 senior assisted living unit 300+ units under review APPROACH TO ASSESSING CHALLENGES Interviewed six (6) local and regional developers Interviewed reps from Chamber of Commerce, Marin Builders Assn, attorneys, other stakeholders Interviewed staff + collected best practices from other cities Completed review of inclusionary housing requirements and Planning review process Prepared Surface Parking Lot “Air Rights” Study Collected data/information; revisited Grand Jury report on housing barriers FINDINGS – WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? CHALLENGES 1.City and Entitlement Review Process 2.Design Review Board (DRB) Process 3.CEQA/Environmental Review Process and Practices 4.City Affordable/Inclusionary Housing Requirements 5.Downtown Property Constraints and Zoning Limits 6.Parking Requirements CHALLENGES 7.Loss of Other Governmental Sources for Housing Subsidies 8.Layers of Regulatory Requirements 9.Development and Impact Fees 10.Land and Construction Costs 11.Public Controversy and Opposition WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDED MEASURES AND ACTIONS? Recommended measures would require varying actions Confirmation-no formal action (already implementing) Require further study Municipal code amendments Resolution addressing Policy or Practice 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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) 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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) 7. 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 8. 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 9. 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 10. 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 11. Pursue State Funding Opportunities SB 2 Planning Grant filed with HCD SB 5 (in process)-access to tax increment revenues to fund affordable housing (similar to former RDA) SB 102/AB 101 -$300K allocated to San Rafael for more planning grants + awards for “pro-housing” communities AB 73/SB 540 –establishing Housing Sustainability Districts and Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone 12. 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 13. 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 RECOMMENDATION Accept Report Provide Direction on Staff Recommended Measures and Actions QUESTIONS 1. STREAMLING PLANNING/ENTITLEMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 2. DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN FORM-BASED CODE AND CEQA STREAMLINING 3. STREAMLINING CEQA/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4. REDUCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL STUDIES 5. CHANGES TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS 6. CHANGE ADMINISTRATION OF HOUSING FUND 7. REDUCE/WAIVE DEVELOPMENT & IMPACT FEES 8. AMEND DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE 9. ADOPT NEW ADU ORDINANCE 10. SUPPORT CITY/DEVELOPER PARTNERSHIP 11. PURSUE STATE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES 12. ADOPT “BY-RIGHT” ZONING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS 13. RAISING APPEAL FEE AND CHANGE APPEAL SCHEDULING PROCESS PLACEHOLDER SLIDES POPULATION & HOUSING Population = 60,651 Housing Units = 23,906 Mean household size = 2.3/hh (owners); 2.68/hh (renters) Median age = 40.2 years (lower than County = 44.5 years) 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