Creates a local preference, incentivizes particular housing types, establishes a minimum percentage for special needs units, analyzes constraint of the inclusionary requirements. The policy is somewhat contradictory--committing to increase a variety of unfunded inclusionary requirements while also committing to study the potential market constraint such requirements might cause. Ideally a study happens first.
Establishes program to subsidize deed-restricted ADUs
Provides ministerial review for projects meeting certain criteria, including any multi-family project that includes 20% lower-income housing. SB 35 without the constraints!
From the project description of the Crestmoor, 300 Piedmont Avenue, there will be only single-family homes, and only (8) homes will be affordable, but it does not state what AMI will be eligible for the homes. Since these are single-family homes, San Bruno is putting most of, if not nearly all, of the density burden on District 4. I would like to see the number of designated homes for affordable housing increased and/or policies prohibiting short-term rental and imposing escalating fees on vacant units to address these concerns.
From the project description of the Crestmoor, 300 Piedmont Avenue, there will be only single-family homes, and only (8) homes will be affordable, but it does not state what AMI will be eligible for the homes. Since these are single-family homes, San Bruno is putting most of, if not nearly all, of the density burden on District 4. I would like to see the number of designated homes for affordable housing increased and/or policies prohibiting short-term rental and imposing escalating fees on vacant units to address these concerns.
Commits to ballot measure allowing two ADUs in high-resource neighborhoods
I would like to see a mandate for affordable housing on the identified pieces of land, with eligibility for single-person households of 70-80% AMI and an increasing eligibility percentage of household size.
Fee reduction for lot mergers for larger multi-family projects.
Amends Ordinance No. 1284, San Bruno's local density control initiative, to allow two homes per lot by right in single-family neighborhoods and increase densities in the downtown area
Rezones for denser multi-family housing on some significant opportunity sites, including Tanforan, a defunct mall that could accommodate as many as 1,500 new homes--or more, with density bonus.
They are pretty much just words. A clear strategy needs to be set in place to accomplish this goal. Nothing even has to be done for another four years. I would like to see clear milestones they intend to hit and a clear implementation plan. If there are challenges and barriers set in place that need to be addressed before concrete action plans can be developed, they should be made clear to the community.
I would like to see a mandate for affordable housing on the identified pieces of land, with eligibility for single-person households of 70-80% AMI and an increasing eligibility percentage of household size.
According to the minutes: Conduct a Joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session on SB 79 Implementation Evan Schieber presented the item. The Planning Commission asked what the process for developers to apply through SB79 was. The Council asked what the timeline would be for developers who were ready to start the process. Kelly Beggs informed them that they would follow a typical entitlement pathway. They asked how the public was being notified and encouraged staff to reach out to the community on different platforms. There was one public comment in support of increasing San Brunos height limits
HCD told them that they didn't do their re-zoning correctly, but only required small changes. They should get re-certified soon.
County grand jury has recently found that ADU-heavy housing-element strategies are bad. TBD whether the grand jury finding will matter to HCD.
Three general policy changes were discussed:
Housing for special needs: Board discussed a number of options that would strengthen the element's language regarding supportive/accessible housing. One such revision they seemed in favor of regarding lowering minimum parking requirements for housing for disabled individuals. The board agreed that that policy "made sense."
The Board ultimately pushed final decisions on these measures to the next meeting. The Board also discussed how the supervisors intended to allocate their Measure K money, but I didn't stick around for that.
It was a general public study session where feedback was provided to support more affordable housing in our city in support of state laws
William Gibson - presented on (reduced) constraints, concerns from community re housing, HE goals, # of pipeline projects and ADUS. Commissioner comments. Inappropriate parcels should be identified directly to him.
Comments by Green Foothills, community members, including advocate for senior housing and advocates against sprawl. Commenters focused on the numbers being high and incorrect assumptions (e.g. ADUs = housing and all vacant SFH lots will be built out).
Commission voted to submit as-is to the Board of Supervisors (did not respond to any of the public comments).
There were less than ten attendees, but all were pro-housing. The initial presentation gave a lot of context upfront on what was a housing element, the history of our housing supply, and the numbers we are now required to hit.
They requested feedback on the proposed sites, our thoughts on other potential sites. They also had us discuss policies and programs we thought were going well, improvements to be made and any new ideas.
It was a highly interactive and productive meeting. In the next meeting (May 26th), they will use the information gained in this meeting to discuss further how we plan to meet our housing needs.