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

2,7892,934

3,084 3,1103,304 3,304

3,5923,807 3,831

3,996 3,996 3,996 3,996 4,022 4,022

1,182 1,261 1,303 1,3301,497 1,528

1,7621,900

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

4,2744,498

4,690 4,745

5,147 5,178

5,703

6,0766,221

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

FeesCity 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


3+ bedroom units as


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

2,6132,390 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 1.73Percent 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 1.34Studio 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 aboutEUSD’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 1Test scores exceed those of Oakland, Hayward, and San Leandro

0.11 60% 20%

Alternative 2Test 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 Units12.5% (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‐BedroomAverage 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

Family Friendly Design Guidelines, April 2015 Draft – “Undesirable” Examples

975 –1,035 1,320

Family Friendly Design 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

Family Friendly Design Guidelines• 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

Family Friendly Design Guidelines


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 TotalExtremely 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 IncomeSource: 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) HeightProject 1 65 (65 units/acre) 81,250 (1.87) 40 feetProject 2 100 (100 units/acre) 125,000 (2.87) 55 feetProject 3 135 (135 units/acre) 168,750 (3.87) 75 feet

Effect on Three Hypothetical ProjectsSite 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 0Proposed 0 0 0 0

Project 2 Existing 0 0 0 0Proposed 50 43 43 50*

Project 3 Existing 100 87 100 100Proposed 100 94 100 100** Would also require provision of affordable and/or ownership units.


52

Public Benefits and Bonus Points

Public BenefitMaximum 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

Stations35

(8) Transportation DemandManagement (TDM)

35 (17) Mechanical Equipment Concealed inPenthouse 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

Government & Nonprofit