Planning regulations joint study session 05-02-15 - power point slides

Rules for Residential Development:
Regulations, Incentives, and Guidelines
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Study Session
May 2, 2015
City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session – May 2, 2015

2
• Introduction and Overview (10 minutes)
• Regulations and Guidelines for Unit Mix and Family‐
Friendly Design (90 minutes)
• Break (20 minutes)
• Incentives for Affordable and Ownership Housing,
Including Bonus Point System (90 minutes)
• Summary Comments, Wrap‐Up, and Next Steps
(10 minutes)
Agenda

Introduction and Overview
• Development Patterns
• Issues to be Addressed
• Available Tools
3City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session – May 2, 2015

Residential Development 1994‐2015
4
Unit Mix Owner/Rental

Total Units 2000‐2014 by Bedrooms
5
2,789
2,934
3,084 3,110
3,304 3,304
3,592
3,807 3,831
3,996 3,996 3,996 3,996 4,022 4,022
1,182
1,261 1,303 1,330
1,497 1,528
1,762
1,900
2,021 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,064 2,098 2,098
303 303 303 305 346 346 349 369 369 376 376 376 376 403 403
4,274
4,498
4,690 4,745
5,147 5,178
5,703
6,076
6,221
6,436 6,436 6,436 6,436
6,523 6,523
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Studio & 1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3+ Bedrooms
TOTAL

6
• Unit Mix (2 and 3+ bedroom units)
• Unit Size
• Family‐Friendly Design
• Affordable Housing
• Ownership Housing
• Development Bonus System
Issues to be Addressed

7
Available Tools
Tools
Attributes
Design
Guidelines
Incentives
(Bonus
System)
Develop‐
ment Impact
Fees
City Subsidies
Inclusionary
Zoning without
Incentives/
Concessions
State
Density
Bonus Law
Regulations/
Requirements
Unit Mix /✓ ✓
Family‐
Friendly Units  /✓ ✓
General
Residential
Amenities
 ✓
Affordable
Units (rental) ✓  /✓ X 
Affordable
Units (condo) ✓ /✓  
Ownership
Units ✓ X
 = already in place or in process ✓ = possibility to study /✓ = in place but could be enhanced X= prohibited

Family Friendly Housing
• Demographic Mix
• EUSD Enrollment Levels
• Unit Mix
• Unit Size
• Family Friendly Design Guidelines
• Discussion Questions

Household Characteristics
9
Average
household
size
Percent single
person
households
Families with
children as
percent of all
households
Residents
enrolled in
grades K‐12
Emeryville 1.73 53.5% 12.5% 6.1%
Alameda 2.48 31.0% 28.2% 14.7%
Albany 2.59 22.4% 43.7% 18.3%
Berkeley 2.27 36.8% 16.8% 9.4%
Oakland 2.52 35.8% 25.2% 15.5%
Piedmont 3.00 11.0% 44.6% 24.3%
Alameda County 2.76 26.9% 31.3% 16.4%
San Francisco 2.31 38.7% 16.7% 9.1%
Bay Area 2.72 26.6% 30.4% 16.3%
California 2.94 24.2% 32.7% 18.6%
United States 2.63 27.5% 29.6% 17.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Average

Dwelling Unit Characteristics
10
Average
Bedrooms
Per Unit
Studio and
1‐bedroom
units as
percent of
all units
2+ bedroom
units as
percent of
all units
3+ bedroom
units as
percent of
all units
Units in 10+
unit
buildings as
percent of
all units
Emeryville 1.34 61.6% 38.4% 7.0% 71.0%
Alameda 2.34 23.3% 76.7% 42.2% 21.9%
Albany 2.28 17.2% 82.8% 33.0% 27.8%
Berkeley 2.11 35.0% 65.0% 34.5% 24.6%
Oakland 2.10 31.8% 68.2% 35.1% 25.9%
Piedmont 3.44 4.3% 95.7% 82.8% 0.9%
Alameda County 2.48 21.5% 78.5% 49.6% 21.2%
San Francisco 1.86 40.5% 59.5% 28.1% 35.8%
Bay Area 2.55 19.9% 80.1% 52.9% 19.4%
California 2.58 17.7% 82.3% 54.3% 16.8%
United States 2.69 13.3% 86.7% 60.0% 13.0%

Emeryville Development Patterns

Emeryville Population Over Time
16
228
1,016
2,613
2,390 2,336
2,521
2,889
2,686 2,681
3,714
5,740
6,882
10,080
0
2,500
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

3+ Bedroom Units in 10+ Unit Buildings
17
R² = ‐0.5344

Variables vs. 10+ Unit Buildings
18
Variable
Correlation
coefficient
Predicted
value
Actual
value
Average Household Size ‐0.2387 2.02 1.73
Percent single person households +0.4288 47.5% 53.5%
Families with children as percent of all households ‐0.1844 17.9% 12.5%
Residents enrolled in grades K‐12 ‐0.2484 8.5% 6.1%
Average bedrooms per unit ‐0.5918 1.30 1.34
Studio and 1‐bedroom units as percent of all units +0.7303 58.0% 61.6%
2+ bedroom units as percent of all units ‐0.7303 42.0% 38.4%
3+ bedroom units as percent of all units ‐0.5311 6.5% 7.0%

Families with Children in 10+ Unit Bldgs
19
R² = ‐0.1844

20
• Emeryville’s household and dwelling unit characteristics
can be explained by its historical development patterns.
• Specifically, these characteristics are largely due to the
very high percentage of units in large apartment and
condominium buildings of 10+ units.
• The high percentage of large residential buildings
should not be a deterrent to attracting more families
with children.
Conclusions

EUSD Enrollment Levels

EUSD Enrollment Forecasts
23
Actual

API Test Scores, Alameda County
24
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Sunol Glen Unified
Piedmont City Unified
Pleasanton Unified
Fremont Unified
Castro Valley Unified
Alameda City Unified
Livermore Valley Joint Unified
Berkeley Unified
Newark Unified
New Haven Unified
San Lorenzo Unified
Oakland Unified
Hayward Unified
San Leandro Unified
Emery Unified

Family and School Trends 1990‐2013
25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1990 2000 2013
EUSD K‐12 Enrollment
Families with Children
Residents Enrolled in K‐12 School
3+ Bedroom Units

Where Emeryville Children go to School

27
To Increase EUSD Enrollments:
• School District Should:
– Increase test scores above San Leandro
– Offer programs to increase attractiveness
• City Should:
– Increase park space
– Provide family‐friendly neighborhood shopping
– Provide programs for youth
– Provide family‐friendly housing

Unit Mix ‐ “Student Yield”
28
Forecast
Scenario
Assumptions about
EUSD’s Reputation
Student Yield
(Students per
Unit)
Percent
Increase in
Student Yield
Percent
Families with
Children
Alternative 0 No change 0.07‐0.08 n/a 12.5%
Alternative 1
Test scores exceed those
of Oakland, Hayward,
and San Leandro
0.11 60% 20%
Alternative 2
Test scores similar to
high‐performing districts
(i.e. Piedmont)
0.18‐0.19 100‐140% 25%‐30%

Unit Mix – Families vs. Bedrooms
29
R² = 0.3264

Unit Mix – Families vs. 2+ Bedrooms
30
R² = 0.3380
20%
50%

Unit Mix – Families vs. 3+ Bedrooms
31
R² = 0.2808
20%
10%

Unit Mix Needed to Meet Various
Families with Children Targets
32
Families with Children as
Percent of All Households 2+ Bedroom Units* 3+ Bedroom Units
12.5% (existing) 38.4% 7.0%
20% (60% increase) 50% 10%
25% (100% increase) 65% 30%
30% (140% increase) 80% 50%
* Inclusive of 3+ bedroom units.

Unit Size
33
Studio 1‐Bedroom 2‐Bedroom 3‐Bedroom
Average size of units built in
Emeryville 1994‐2015
426 818 1,186 1,231
Family Friendly Design
Guidelines, February 2015
Draft – Minimum
900 1,100
Guidelines, April 2015 Draft
– “Undesirable” Examples
975 –
1,035
1,320
Guidelines, April 2015 Draft
– “Desirable” Examples
1,100 –
1,263
1,300 –
1,437
Santa Cruz Affordable
Housing Guidelines –
Minimum
400 550 850 1,050

34
• Emeryville Design Guidelines adopted in December
2010 have a general policy, with some specific points.
• Amendment to Guidelines to address Family Friendly
Housing reviewed by Planning Commission in June 2013
and February 2015, and approved on April 23, 2015.
• Amendment scheduled to be considered by City Council
on May 19, 2015.
Family Friendly Design Guidelines

35
• Site & Building Design (examples)
– Provide units with two, three or more bedrooms.
– Provide ample exterior play areas visible from units.
– Provide in‐unit laundries or common laundry areas.
• Unit Design (examples)
– Provide only one master suite.
– Separate sleeping areas from living areas.
– Dining and living areas should have ample room for all
household members to gather.
– Hallways should be wide enough for children to play.

36

37
• Should a minimum percentage of 2+ bedroom and/or 3+
bedroom units be required in new Multi‐Unit Residential
development? If so, what percentage?
• Should 2+ bedroom units (including 3+ bedroom units) be
required to comply with the Family Friendly Design Guidelines?
If so, should the guidelines only apply to required 2+ bedroom
units, or should they also apply to additional 2+ bedroom units
that are not required?
• Should minimum unit sizes be established? If so, what sizes?
• Should there be any exceptions to requirements for unit mix,
family friendly design, and minimum unit size? Is so, what
should be the basis for such exceptions?
Discussion Questions

38
Break

Affordable Housing/Ownership Housing
• Affordable Housing
• Ownership Housing
• Proposed Incentives and Development
Bonus System
• Discussion Questions

Average Monthly Rents 2000 ‐ 2013
40
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
2010 2011 2012 2013
3 bedroom
2 bedroom
1 bedroom
Studio
31% increase
2010‐2013
12% increase
2010‐2013
26% increase
2010‐2013
26% increase
2010‐2013

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) 2014‐2022
41
Income Category Percent of AMI* Number of Units Percentage of Total
Extremely low Less than 30% 138 9.2%
Very low 30% to 50% 138 9.2%
Low 50% to 80% 211 14.1%
Moderate 80% to 120% 259 17.3%
Above moderate More than 120% 752 50.2%
Total 1,498 ‐‐
* AMI = Area Median Income
Source: City of Emeryville Housing Element 2015‐2023

Percent of RHNA Met 2006‐2014

43
• Previous Affordable Housing Set‐Aside Program (inclusionary
zoning) required 9% moderate income and 6% very low income
units for rental housing.
• Palmer decision means this is no longer legal for rental. (There is
still a 20% moderate inclusionary zoning requirement for
condominiums.)
• Elimination of Redevelopment results in less affordable housing
money for cities.
• Affordable Housing Impact Fee established in 2014 is $20,000
per unit or 6.9% low income units.
• Staff proposes “voluntary inclusionary zoning”, where developer
gets development bonus for providing affordable units.
Affordable Housing Tools

Turnover vs. Renter‐Occupied Units
44
R² = 0.3656

Owner‐Renter Status of Units

46
• Many households cannot afford to own, and are vulnerable to rent
increases that may cause them to have to move.
• Low‐ and very‐low income ownership units are prone to financial
distress due to HOA dues, utility costs, etc.
• EUSD study found that families with school age children are
attracted to rental housing, as they often cannot afford to buy.
• Building more ownership housing does not necessarily result in
owner‐occupancy.
• What is the appropriate mix between owner and rental housing?
Issues with Ownership Housing

47
Proposed Incentives and Bonus System

48

49

50

51
Units (Density) Floor Area (FAR) Height
Project 1 65 (65 units/acre) 81,250 (1.87) 40 feet
Effect on Three Hypothetical Projects
Site Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet)
Density in Units per Acre
(Base/Bonus)
FAR (Base/Bonus)
Height Limit
(Base/Bonus)
Existing 100/135 3.0/4.0 55’/75’
Proposed 65/135 2.0/4.0 40’/75’
Density FAR Height TOTAL
Project 1
Existing 0 0 0 0
Proposed 0 0 0 0
Project 2
Existing 0 0 0 0
Proposed 50 43 43 50*
Project 3
Existing 100 87 100 100
Proposed 100 94 100 100*
* Would also require provision of affordable and/or ownership units.

52
Public Benefits and Bonus Points
Public Benefit
Maximum
Points Public Benefit
Maximum
Points
(1) Public Open Space 50 (10) Neighborhood Centers 35
(2) Sustainable Design 35 (11) Small Businesses 35
(3) Alternative Energy 50 (12) Public Art 20
(4) Water Efficiency 35 (13) Public Parking 35
(5) Energy Efficiency 35 (14) Bike Station 35
(6) Public Improvements 50 (15) Significant Structures 35
(7) Utility Undergrounding 50 (16) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging
Stations
35
(8) Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
35 (17) Mechanical Equipment Concealed in
Penthouse or Inside Building
20
(9) Family Friendly Housing 50 (18) Universal Design 50
(19) Flexible Public Benefit N/A*
* As deemed appropriate by Planning Commission or City Council.

53
• Bonus points for public benefits would be contingent upon
provision of affordable and/or ownership housing.
• Points for public benefits could be increased in recognition of
expense of affordable/ownership housing.
• Alternatively, public benefits could be eliminated and points
awarded solely for affordable/ownership housing.
“Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning”

54
• For rental projects, required affordable housing should be a mix of
very‐low, low, and moderate income, proportional to the City’s
RHNA numbers.
• For ownership projects, required affordable housing should be
moderate‐income, higher than the base inclusionary requirement
of 20%.
• Ownership projects should have a requirement that CC&Rs stipulate
a certain percentage of owner‐occupancy.
• If a condo project is operated as a rental project, rental affordability
requirements should apply.
• Developer could be given choice of rental or ownership
requirements above.
“Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning”

55
• Mandated by State; included in Planning Regulations; rarely used.
• Density bonuses for at least 5% very low income, 10% low income,
or 10% moderate income in common interest development.
• Maximum bonus of 35% for 11% very low income, 20% low income,
or 40% moderate income.
• City must provide one, two, or three unspecified “incentives or
concessions”, depending on percent of affordable units.
• Staff suggests developer should have choice of State Density Bonus
Law or City bonus system, but not both.
State Density Bonus Law

56
• Should affordable housing and/or ownership housing be made a
prerequisite for earning a development bonus?
• Should the base FAR, height, and residential density be lowered
to require more projects to earn development bonuses?
• What is the appropriate mix of rental and ownership housing?
Should all future projects be required to be ownership in order
to earn development bonuses?
• What percent of units at various levels of affordability should be
required for rental and ownership projects? Should this be
proportional to the level of bonus being requested?
• What other changes to the development bonus point system
are desired?
Discussion Questions

57
• Housing Committee Review of Regulations, Incentives & Guidelines:
Wednesday, May 6, 6:00 p.m.
• City Council consideration of Family‐Friendly Design Guidelines:
Tuesday, May 19, 7:15 p.m.
• Planning Commission consideration of Planning Regulations and General
Plan amendments:
May ‐ June
• City Council consideration of Planning Regulations and General Plan
amendments:
June – July
• Planning Regulations and General Plan amendments take effect:
30 days after final passage by City Council
Next Steps

58
Thank You

Planning regulations joint study session 05-02-15 - power point slides

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Planning regulations joint study session 05-02-15 - power point slides

Similar to Planning regulations joint study session 05-02-15 - power point slides (7)

More from E'ville Eye

More from E'ville Eye (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Planning regulations joint study session 05-02-15 - power point slides