Document elcerrito_gov_doc_00ed2bfec6

AGENDA BILL Agenda Item No. 7(A) Date: December 16, 2014 To: El Cerrito City Council From: Hilde Myall, Housing Program Manager Margaret Development Services Manager Melanie Mintz, Interim Community Development Director Subject: Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Update ACTION REQUESTED Receive a staff presentation pertaining to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, provide comment on the Draft Housing Element and authorize submittal of the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for State-level review as required pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300. BACKGROUND California Government Code Section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan to guide the physical development of the jurisdiction. The El Cerrito General Plan establishes a vision for the City’s long-term growth and enhancement, and provides strategies and implementing actions to achieve this vision. State law requires that General Plans address seven topics (or “elements”): Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Safety, Noise, Conservation, and Open Space. The City of El Cerrito Housing Element was last adopted and certified in 2012. The Housing Element is the only General Plan element that must be reviewed and certified by the state and the only element with a regulated update cycle. Along with all other Bay Area jurisdictions, the City must complete an update to its Housing Element by January 2015. The element must be adopted, after review the HCD, by City Council no later than May 31, 2015 to avoid State penalties. The Housing Element describes housing-related needs and resources in the community, particularly the availability, affordability, and adequacy of housing, and establishes a strategy to address housing needs for community members across the economic and social spectrum. Housing Element Components To meet statutory requirements, housing elements must include the following components: • Review and evaluation of the current Housing Element: a detailed description of accomplishments toward implementing the programs from the City’s current Housing Element, as well as an analysis of the continued appropriateness and feasibility of each program for the new planning cycle. • Needs assessment: a detailed analysis of demographic and employment/income trends, housing conditions and affordability, and special housing needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 2 • Constraints analysis: an examination of potential constraints to housing development including governmental factors such as land use regulations and non-governmental factors such as the cost of land and availability of financing. • Resources: a detailed inventory of land available for housing development and a demonstration of the City’s capacity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as well as a description of administrative and financial resources available to assist with the development, improvement, and preservation of housing in the community. • Policies, programs and quantified objectives: a plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, and mitigate and remove (to the extent feasible) constraints to housing development. ANALYSIS Update Process City staff and the housing element consultant, Mintier Harnish, initiated work on an update to the Housing Element for the 2015 to 2023 planning period in July 2014. Over the summer and fall, City staff and the consultant completed a public outreach process that included an online survey, two public workshops (held on July 19, 2014 and August 13, 2014) and a stakeholder round table discussion (held on November 20, 2014). The comments and feedback received are included as Appendix D of the Draft Housing Element (Attachment 1) and in the Addendum to the Draft Housing Element (Attachment As detailed in the schedule (Table the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element was released for public review on November 10, 2014. The draft was presented and discussed at the December 4, 2014 special meeting of the Planning Commission. Following this evening’s study session and pending City Council’s comments and authorization, City staff will revise the draft as appropriate and submit it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. Submission of the draft Housing Element to HCD starts a 60-day time period for HCD review, during which time staff and the consultant will work with HCD to answer and resolve any issues they may identify. Following receipt of a conditional compliance letter from HCD, the Housing Element will be revised as necessary to comply with HCD’s comments, and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. The adopted Housing Element will be resubmitted to HCD for final review and certification. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 3 Table 1. Housing Element Update Schedule Stage Time Frame Event/Milestone Gather information and develop draft Launched web page and online survey Saturday, July 19, 2014 Public workshop Wednesday, August 13, 2014 Public workshop Release and refine draft November 10, 2014 Release of draft Housing Element November 20, 2014 Stakeholder round table meeting December 4, 2014 Planning Commission special meeting December 16, 2014 City Council meeting HCD Review December 2014–February 2015 Initial HCD review (up to 60 days) CEQA Document December 2014–February 2015 Preparation & circulation of CEQA document Finalize and adopt Housing Element February/March 2015 Planning Commission CEQA and HE hearing to consider recommendation March/April 2015 City Council adoption hearing Certification June/July 2015 Final HCD review and certification (up to 90 days) Regional Housing Needs Allocation As shown in Table 2, the City has a total RHNA of 398 units for the 2014 to 2022 period. (Note: the RHNA period varies from the Housing Element planning period). The City has ample capacity to accommodate these units as demonstrated by the site inventory found in Appendix A of the Housing Element. For comparison, during the 2007-2014 period, the City received a RHNA of 431 units and a similar mix of affordability. New housing that is at various stages of planning, approval, and construction will offer 251 units that will count towards meeting the City’s RHNA in the 2014-2022 period. Vacant and underutilized sites can accommodate an additional 943 units. A majority of the sites are located within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (SPASP) Area. Before the Specific Plan was adopted, the majority of the sites within the Plan Area were designated Commercial/Mixed Use and zoned Community Commercial or Transit-Oriented Mixed Use (TOM), which allowed up to 35 units per acre and restricted ground floor residential. When the previous Housing Element was adopted, additional density (up to 45 units per acre) was allowed through the City’s Incentives Program or through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The previous Housing Element assumed 40 units per acre on these sites halfway between the maximum permitted density of 35 and the maximum permitted density with zoning incentives of 45). ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 4 The SPASP created two Transect Zones: TOHIMU and TOMIMU. The Plan contains a Form- Based Code (FBC) that includes land use regulations permitted uses), building height standards, and open space and parking requirements. However, there are no maximum permitted density standards within the FBC of the Specific Plan. Since the FBC significantly increased the allowed building heights, decreased parking and eliminated maximum densities, the City anticipates that future development densities under the Specific Plan will exceed the maximum permitted densities under the former General Plan designations and zoning. The Housing Element conservatively assumes the densities allowed under the former General Plan designations and zoning districts in order to estimate capacity on the sites within the Specific Plan. Furthermore, the SPASP allows ground floor residential within most of the Plan Area. Under state law, vacant and underutilized sites that allow a density of 30 units per acre or more can be assumed to be potentially appropriate for lower-income housing. Because some zoning districts within the City allow densities in excess of this “default density,” the City is able to show a surplus of potential unit capacity. While this analysis is appropriate for addressing state law, the City understands that density does not necessarily equate to affordability. The Housing Element includes policies and programs to assist in the development of affordable housing during the planning period. Table 2. Capacity to Accommodate the 2014-2022 RHNA Units by Income Level1 Total Units VL L M AM 2014-2022 RHNA 100 63 69 166 398 Units Under Construction 56 0 0 3 59 Approved Projects 30 38 13 111 192 Remaining Need 14 25 56 52 147 Potential Sites 849 17 77 943 RHNA Surplus/(Deficit) 810 (39)2 25 796 1 Very Low (VL), Low Moderate(M) and Above Moderate (AM) Income levels are defined in Table II-8, page 23 of the Draft Housing Element 2Covered by surplus capacity from lower-income categories Source: City of El Cerrito, 2014. Changing Trends The most recent Housing Element period (2007-2014) was largely marked by the tail of the economic downturn, the housing market downturn, and the subsequent recovery of both. When the housing market reached its bottom in 2009 it ushered in significant changes in the lending industry which impacted construction and mortgage loans. Coupled with historic lows in interest rates, these changes both created and hindered buying opportunities. Potential low- and moderate-income homeowners whose employment remained intact and who had savings found a unique opportunity to enter a housing market where they had previously been priced out. But the high rates of unemployment and the downturn in the housing market forced many homeowners into foreclosure and increased the demand for rental housing. Over the past three years, rents have increased significantly throughout the Bay Area, including in El Cerrito where average rental rates have increased 41% between 2010 and 2014 (Draft Housing Element, Figure II-3). ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 5 We are entering the new Housing Element cycle with an increased need for both ownership and rental affordable housing, a higher demand for homebuyer and tenant/landlord services and a need for strategies that help provide stability for renter households. Other recent events that affect the 2015-2023 Housing Element include the statewide dissolution of redevelopment agencies, continued high residential land prices and, as previously discussed, the City’s adoption of the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The update of the current Housing Element proposes programs and policies that reflect these changes and addresses the impacts they have on the City’s ability to preserve, improve, and develop housing for all economic segments of the community. Senate Bill 812, which took effect in 2011, amended State Housing Element Law to require an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. This evaluation is included in the draft Housing Element update. Goal, Policy and Program Changes from Prior Cycle (2007-2014) Housing Element Proposed goals, policies, and programs were modified from the current Housing Element based on: 1) Input from meetings and outreach events during the development of the draft Housing Element; 2) Actions taken to implement the 2007–2014 Housing Element; 3) Needs and issues identified in the needs assessment and constraints analysis; and 4) Changes in the availability of resources (e.g. loss of Redevelopment Agency Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund). Below is an overview of key changes to Housing Element programs. Programs Deleted (completed) Note: Program numbers refer to the 2007–2014 Housing Element Program 15.6 – Revised Zoning Ordinance to update the definitions of transitional and supportive housing as consistent with State law. Program 20.1 – Completed with adoption of Climate Action Plan Programs Deleted (no longer appropriate or relevant) Note: Program numbers refer to the 2007–2014 Housing Element Program 6.2 – Establishment of “pre-approved” second unit program. While the intent of encouraging secondary units remains a policy, a “pre-approved” second unit program does not appear to be practical given the many potential lot configurations and unit sizes within the City. Program 19.4 – Allow transitional and supportive housing in the CC zone. While the intent was to comply with State law, the program as stated was not consistent with the law. State law requires that transitional and supportive housing should be allowed by right in all residential areas and treated as a residential use subject only to the same ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 6 standards required of other residential uses of the same type. Repetitive with Program 17.1. Programs Added Note: Program numbers refer to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element H1.5. Develop and Propose Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance To help conserve the City’s existing supply of rental housing and help stabilize the City’s renter households at a time that rental rates are increasing significantly. H2.9. Local Affordable Housing Financing Source To help address the loss of Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Set-Aside Funds, investigate the potential for replacement sources for affordable housing such as a housing mitigation fee program. H3.7. Encourage Development of Housing for Persons with Disabilities Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010 (SB 812), which took effect January 2011, amended State housing element law to require the analysis of housing for the disabled to include an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. Based upon the evaluation contained in the Housing Element Update, staff is recommending this program. H3.8. Coordinate with the Regional Center of the East Bay Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010 (SB 812), which took effect January 2011, amended State housing element law to require the analysis of housing for the disabled to include an evaluation of the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. Based upon the evaluation contained in the Housing Element Update, staff is recommending this program. H5.1. Structure Fees to Incentivize Energy and Water Efficiency and Solar Energy Installation (Climate Action Plan Objective EW-1.1) To be consistent with and reinforce the City’s Climate Action Plan, the Housing Element Update incorporates the near-term objectives of the Climate Action Plan related to residential energy efficiency. H5.2. Continue to Seek and Establish Partnerships for Energy and Water Efficiency (Climate Action Plan Objective EW1.1) Same as above. H5.3. Implement Market Strategy to Encourage Resident Participation in Energy Efficiency Programs (Climate Action Plan Objective EW1.1) Same as above. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 7 H5.4. Apply for Energy Efficiency Grants Same as above. H5.5. Pursue Participation in a Residential PACE Financing (Climate Action Plan Objective EW1.2) Same as above. H5.6 Encourage Home Energy Performance Reports (Climate Action Plan Objective EW1.3) Same as above. Planning Commission and Public Comment As the stakeholder meeting occurred after the publication of the Draft Housing Element, a summary of that meeting is provided here. On November 20th, staff hosted a stakeholder roundtable discussion on the Draft Housing Element. Local public agencies, community organizations, and developers and realtors active in the community were invited to participate and share their views. The meeting was attended by one representative from Stege Sanitary District who received a presentation on the Draft Housing Element and did not have formal comment. Any additional comments received to date following the publication of the Draft Housing Element are included as Attachment 2 to this agenda bill. In addition, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Draft Housing Element at a special meeting on December 4th. The action requested of the Planning Commission was to review, comment and recommend to City Council submittal of the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element to HCD. At the meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending that the City Council authorize submittal of the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element to HCD, including proposed technical revisions to Draft Housing Element Section I(E)(2) – Housing Needs Survey and Section II(B)(1)(a) – Historical, Existing and Forecast Growth, included as Attachment 3 to this agenda bill. The Planning Commission also recommended that staff review the City’s accessory unit program to investigate possible ways to incentivize the construction of accessory units, such as potential changes to development standards. In addition, the Commission requested that staff possibly consider voluntary residential design guidelines. The Planning Commission’s motion did not include a recommendation that these programs be added to the 2015-2023 Housing Element programs. Therefore, these two recommendations will be forwarded to the Interim Community Development Director for consideration to be added to the Community Development Department work plan. During the public comment on the Draft Housing Element, the Planning Commission heard from nine speakers whose comments are summarized in Attachment 2 to this agenda bill. ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) STRATEGIC PLAN CONSIDERATIONS Preparation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element update is consistent with El Cerrito Strategic Plan Goal A- Deliver exemplary government services and Goal C -Deepen a sense of place and community identity. The Housing Element update supports the City in ensuring that "programs and services are inclusive of people of diverse backgrounds" (Goal A) by providing a resource that presents demographic and economic data regarding El Cerrito's population, and by planning for the housing needs of residents at all income levels and including those with special needs. The Housing Element policies and programs reinforce the "promote strong neighborhoods" strategy (Goal C) and the "re-imagine underdeveloped and underutilized properties through advanced planning efforts that encourage investment and/or new development" strategy (Goal C) by an explicit focus on neighborhood preservation and encouragement of new housing development. As an element of the City's General Plan, the Housing Element update helps the City "plan for the needs of the community now and in the future" (Goal C) based on the eight year cycle of the 2014-2023 period. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update will require review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). During the circulation and review period of the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Update, staff and consultants will prepare and circulate the CEQA review document. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no direct costs associated with the action requested tonight. The Housing Element is a long-range planning and policy document. Potential funding sources for implementation of housing policy programs are presented in Section IV - Housing Policy Program of the draft document. The Housing Element is not a budget document and does not commit or appropriate funds. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The City Attorney has reviewed this agenda bill and the draft Housing Element update. At this time, the City Council is only being asked to authorize the submission of the draft update to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. Formal action on the Housing Element update will occur at a later date. City Council action by motion is sufficient. Reviewed by: Scott Hanin City Manager Page 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Page 9 Attachments: 1. City of El Cerrito Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element 2. Addendum to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, dated December 8, 2014 3. Proposed Planning Commission technical revisions to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, dated December 4, 2014 ---PAGE BREAK--- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94523-3034 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4379 http://www.el-cerrito.org December 16, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. 7(A) Draft Housing Element – Attachment 1 is available for review on the City’s website at www.el-cerrito.org/HousingElement Hardcopies are available for review at: Office of the City Clerk and The El Cerrito Library 10890 San Pablo Avenue 6510 Stockton Avenue El Cerrito, CA El Cerrito, CA (510) 215-4305 ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7( ) Attachment 2 City of El Cerrito Draft 2015‐2023 Housing Element Addendum I December 8, 2014 ADDENDUM This addendum to the Draft 2015‐2023 Housing Element contains public comment received after publication of the Draft Housing Element on November 10th, 2014 and through noon on December 8th, 2014. Agenda Item No. 7(A) Attachment 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page I 1 November 20, 2014 From: Anne Hersch, El Cerrito Resident To: El Cerrito Planning Commission 10890 San Pablo Ave El Cerrito, CA 94530 Re: Draft Housing Element for the 2015-2023 Planning Period Dear Planning Commissioners, I am excited to see the City of El Cerrito pursue an update of the Housing Element for the next planning period of 2015-2023. It is encouraging to see new mixed income housing developments under construction as well as the City working towards satisfying RHNA requirements. I commend the Planning Commission and the City for their efforts and accomplishments in the 2007-2014 planning period. As part of your update, I would respectfully request that the El Cerrito Planning Commission consider a draft policy to establish Residential Design Guidelines within the next planning period. The current draft Element provides a wealth of data and demographic information about the community, in particular the vintage of housing stock (p.42). Nearly 66% of the City’s housing stock was built before 1960 and reflect various architectural movements in the 20th century. There are examples of Craftsman, Tudor, Spanish Revival, Modernistic, Ranch, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary homes throughout the City. The diverse housing stock in El Cerrito makes the community unique compared to other local cities of comparable size. In some neighboring communities, the housing stock is more homogenous in design and less representative of architectural movements of the 20th century. Goal H1 “Existing Housing” of the draft Housing Element seeks to “Conserve and improve El Cerrito’s existing housing supply (p.103).” Residential Design Guidelines establish prescriptive standards for residential design (additions and new construction) and help to better ensure high quality and architectural compatibility with existing stock as well as seamless integration in the surrounding neighborhood. The Guidelines are typically utilized by property owners, designers/architects, City staff and decision- makers (where appropriate). Cities including Alameda, Albany, Pinole, Richmond, and Lafayette have established Residential Design Guidelines as an advisory policy. The Guidelines are advisory and would not change the current ministerial review process nor would it require any amendments to the municipal code. Draft policy and program language for “IV. Housing Program Policy” is included below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page I 2 Policy H1.7. Residential Design Guidelines. Preserve neighborhood character and encourage high-quality residential design throughout the City for new single family residential construction and additions to existing residential structures. Residential additions and new construction shall seamlessly integrate with the character of the neighborhood and the existing structure and complement the architectural, aesthetic, and physical qualities of existing neighborhoods. Implementation Program Policies Implemented Potential Funding Responsibility Time Frame Program H1.7 Residential Design Guidelines. Establish Residential Design Guidelines. The Guidelines shall be utilized by applicants, architects, designers and City staff and decision makers (where appropriate) when evaluating residential additions and new construction. The intent is to maintain the same ministerial review process for residential construction. The Guidelines will provide more specific detail and examples to further illustrate design components which are detailed in Section 19.06.030 of the El Cerrito Municipal Code. H1.1 H1.7 Staff time Community Development Department 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page I 3 Section 19.06.030 “Development Standards” of the El Cerrito Municipal Code contains development standards for residential design. Provisions H-K further detail standards for entrance placement, façade articulation, windows and trim, and the design of building additions. The Guidelines could include illustrations and photographs of appropriate design and inappropriate design to demonstrate expectations for compliance with these Code provisions. Residential Design Guidelines from the City of Albany are included for reference. While the Planning Commission does not conduct design review, it is within the Commission’s purview to recommend policies and implementation for the next planning period. I encourage the Commission to include this draft policy to further preserve and protect the housing stock that makes El Cerrito eclectic. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Hersch El Cerrito, CA Enclosure: Albany Residential Design Guidelines 1997 Albany Residential Design Guidelines 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS AND NEW HOMES Community Development Department 979 San Pablo Avenue Albany, CA 94706 (510)528‐5760 (510)528‐5407 fax www.albanyca.org APPROVED BY ALBANY CITY COUNCIL: APRIL 20, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Acknowledgements Albany City Council Marge Atkinson, Mayor Joanne Wile, Vice Mayor Farid Javandel Robert Lieber Peggy Thompsen Planning and Zoning Commission Peter Maass, Chairperson Andrea Gardner, Vice Chairperson David Arkin, Design Review Guidelines Committee Head Philip Moss Leo Panian Design Review Guidelines Subcommittee Doug Donaldson, Guidelines Photographer Dennis Fox, Architect Ed Fields Mathew Friedman, Architect Hegedus Jan Hitchcock Lauren Maass, Architect Jorge Rico, Architect Gary Samonsky, Architect Mimi Vankirk, Architect Andrew Woolman, Architect Planning Staff Ann Chaney, Community Development Director Jeff Bond, Planning and Building Manager Amber Curl, Associate Planner Lilly Jacobson, Planning Intern ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 INTRODUCTION 1. Purposes and Goals of the Guidelines 2. Use of the Guidelines 3. Design Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission 4. Variances THE ESSENTIALS 1. The front yard is the house’s “contribution” to the street 2. Every house needs a useable front porch 3. Garages should have single‐car doors and be attractive 4. Increasing the livability of your home 5. Dormers and bays are encouraged 6. Trim and details give a house warmth and character 7. Building materials 8. Green Building 9. Second‐units and Multi‐family housing 10. Landscaping is an important aesthetic element of home design Contents ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Introduction Purpose and Goals of the Guidelines The City of Albany is a small, walkable, urban community in an urban area, approxi‐ mately 1.7 square miles in size. The City was subdivided in the 1920’s into 2,500‐5,000 sq. ft. lots with smaller homes, many of which are nonconforming by current develop‐ ment standards. There is a rich and diverse range of architectural designs found in the city, for example, California Bungalows, Tudor, Mission, modern/contemporary, etc. In the late 1920’s, Charles MacGregor was a predominant developer, building more than 1,500 homes in the city. His homes are today referred to as “MacGregors.” There is a warm, small city feel in Albany that is unique in the Bay Area, and that is enjoyed by existing residents and attractive to new residents. The design guidelines have been created to assist applicants, neighbors, staff and commissioners in understanding and applying Albany’s Planning and Zoning Code while also communicating the City’s design goals through explanations and examples of high quality solutions. The intent of the guidelines is to provide specific design elements that encourage thoughtful development, interaction between neighbors and a sense of community in an urban environment. The guidelines are meant to enhance, and not restrict architectural creativity in a city where there is no one dominant architectural style. It is acknowledged that there are a variety of budgets, needs and desires by residents, which all need to be balanced to provide high quality homes that are a pleasure to live in as well as live among. Thoughtful application of the guidelines and a sensitive design that is well detailed, using quality materials, reduces the potential for conflict. Applicants are highly en‐ couraged to talk to neighbors about their development needs, options and design pro‐ posals. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 The City’s Planning and Zoning Code Section 20.24.020 provides the development standards for all residential zoning districts, which include all setbacks, height, FAR, and other requirements. Compliance with the Code’s development standards im‐ proves the likelihood of a favorable outcome in the Design Review process. Project development proponents such as architects, designers, homeowners, contrac‐ tors and developers should use the guidelines to plan additions or new develop‐ ment. Planning staff will rely on the guidelines as a basis for providing and sup‐ porting recommendations for design changes. The Planning and Zoning Commis‐ sion will use the guidelines as a basis for approving or denying applications for de‐ sign review of residential projects. Finally, neighbors of project proponents may utilize the guidelines to understand the City’s design criteria and goals. It is suggested that applicants make an appointment to meet with City planning staff early in the design process for details on the Planning and Zoning Code and these Use of the Guidelines ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Design Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission A public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission is required for the review of any addition over 400 sq. ft. or any second‐story addition. (Additions over 240 square feet may trigger City parking requirements.) All public hearings are required to be noticed to neighbors of the project 10‐days before the hearing date. Administra‐ tive public hearings are required for single‐story additions, under 400sq.ft. For all projects requiring Design Review, neighbors within a 100’‐300’ radius will be noticed of the public hearing. Municipal Code Section 20.100.050 is the legislative code section regarding “Design Review.” Many different aspects of a project may be discussed during a design re‐ view hearing. The following are prevalent issues that are often discussed and appli‐ cants will want to keep in mind while designing their projects: • Floor‐Area‐Ratio (FAR), which is the total building square footage (total of the square footage of all of the floors) divided by the site size square footage (site area). The intent of an FAR requirement is to guide the mass of buildings. Municipal Code Section 20.24.050 is the legislative code sec‐ tion regarding “FAR.” There are several adjustments to gross square foot‐ age allowed per the code. • Fire sprinklers are required for projects that include renovations or addi‐ tions that are equal or greater than fifty percent or more of the existing floor area and the sum of the existing and new floor area is 1,500 sq. ft. or more. • Landscape and hardscape should be complementary and reflect the char‐ acter of the home. • Privacy, the location of windows compared to neighboring windows should be thoughtfully considered. • Respectful design, considering neighbors’ views and daylight can help make your project go smoother and maintain good relations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Variances Variances are “exceptions” to zoning requirements that may be granted to projects with unusual or unique physical circumstances. For example, an odd shaped lot, to‐ pography constraints, etc. Findings, found in Municipal Code Section 20.100.040, must be made in order to grant a variance. The findings that must be made relate to physi‐ cal circumstances on a property that distinguish the property from other nearby prop‐ erties. Since most parcels in Albany have a similar size, shape, and topography, vari‐ ances are seldom approved. The Planning and Zoning Code can, however, in some cases, provide flexibility in respect to parking, setbacks, building height, etc. The 10 Essentials The following guidelines have been deemed important elements of residential design in the City of Albany. Planning & Zoning Commissioners will be considering these as they review projects. This does not mean that every one of these is directly applicable to every project and site, but some attention paid to the spirit of each Essential is strongly recommended. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 1. The Front Yard is the House’s “Contribution” to the Street Narrow frontages in Albany create an urban environment in which the streetscapes pro‐ vide areas for neighbors to interact. Short, decorative fences, arbors, and porches are all encouraged to create attractive, and inviting en‐ trances to homes. See Municipal Code Section 20.24.110 for size limitations. Landscaping of the front yard dictates the character of the entire street block. Consider using higher qual‐ ity building materials, archi‐ tectural detail, or special ac‐ cents in the entry areas to emphasize the entrance. Existing and pro‐ posed trees should be shown on Design Review submittals. Arbor at Entrance Attractive Landscaping and Low Wall Low Landscaping ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 2. Every House Needs a Useable Front Porch Porches create the transition between the public street and private home. Covered porches can be part width or full width. The front elevation is the most visible façade of the home. Details such as the porch materials, railing, architectural style, etc., can all contribute to the aesthetics of the front façade. Front porches contribute to the warmth of a street block. Thus, en‐ closing or remov‐ ing existing porches is not en‐ couraged. Zoning: porches and decks are included in floor‐ area‐ratio calcula‐ tions when there are 3 or more sides (a roof counts as a side, the floor does Zoning: Open porches can en‐ croach 6’ into the front or rear yard. Stairs should be gracious and in proportion to the porch, and structured stairs are not allowed to project beyond 6’ into the front yard. Steps on grade may be built within the setback. Attractive and inviting front porch Decorative front porch ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 3. Garages and Parking are Important Considerations on Albany’s Small Lots As a result of a voter‐approved amendment to the Planning and Zoning Code, two off‐street parking spaces are required for an increase of 240 sq. ft. or more of habit‐ able space. The parking spaces can be provided in a variety of ways including tan‐ dem, open, covered or enclosed, in the side or rear yards. Where front yard parking is permitted, it should make an aesthetic contribution to the street (pervious parking, stone, cobble pavers, or any material that improves the existing paving) and mitigate visual im‐ pacts of a vehicle parked in the front yard. Attached garages should not be more than 40% of the building width. Single‐car garages are preferred, but if a two‐car garage is proposed, it should have sepa‐ rate garage doors. The style of the garage door should be consistent with the home. Various types of materi‐ als such as steel, glass, sculpted wood, etc are acceptable. A special exception is required to ex‐ empt a required parking space or to provide parking in the front yard. See Municipal Code Section 20.28.030 for parking dimensions, exceptions, etc. Decorative pavers Carriage Style Garage Doors ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Whenever feasible, residents should pull the garage back from the front façade as much as possible, and minimize the width of the driveway and curb cut. Where practical, residents should locate curb cuts to maintain on street parking spaces. See item #10 “Bay Friendly Landscaping” for more suggestions. … A Few More Things to Consider with Parking and Garages…. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 4. Increasing the Livability of Your Home Removing interior walls, extending bays and dormers, and expanding the first floor are all options for creating more space Extra care should be taken when approaching floor‐area‐ratio limits. Projects that exceed 0.45 floor‐area‐ratio may be subject to extra study in the design review of the project and the analysis of its impacts. In designing additions and new homes, neighboring homes should be considered in regards to preserving privacy and reducing overall impacts. The addition should be well integrated into the existing home, such that it looks like it was part of the original structure, or is a well designed, well proportioned and complementary addition. The roofline is important. Low eave lines, plate heights and sloped ceilings are all en‐ couraged to reduce mass. There is no rule for where a second‐ story shall be located. Topography, depth, setbacks, sun orientation, etc are all important considerations in deciding the optimal location for an addition. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Lifting a home and building habitable space on the ground floor can be a viable option in certain circumstances. Potential issues include the overall height, propor‐ tions of stairways, and seismic strength. Compliance with the Planning and Zoning Code and Design Guidelines is still re‐ quired. For attic spaces within sidewalls, low‐plate heights and sloping ceil‐ ings can achieve interior volumes without adding excessive height and bulk to an addition Roof types and slopes should be consistent and complementary with the overall character and style of home. FYI: Solar access California State law seeks to eliminate any unrea‐ sonable barriers to the installation of solar energy. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 5. Dormers and Bay are Encouraged Dormers can add visual interest and reduce the bulk of a second‐ story while still providing in‐ creased interior space, and in some cases can be built within the existing roof framing. Bay windows are allowed to en‐ croach into required setbacks (see Municipal Code 20.24.060). Bays add to the character of the home and break up wall planes. Dormers and bays can be an affordable way to create space without the added cost of new foundations. In Albany, the width of bays cannot exceed 25% of any wall plane, and may extend to the floor. Curved Bays Squared Bays Tall Dormers ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 6. Trim and Details Lend a House Warmth and Character Trim and details should be consistent in style, regardless of whether the architectural style of the home is to change or remain the same. True divided lights or surface ap‐ plied simulated muntins are strongly encouraged and required when featured on the front façade. FYI: Non‐thermally bro‐ ken metal windows will conduct heat out of a home through the frame, and are therefore discouraged. Regarding win‐ dows: the surface of the glass shall be recessed at least 2” from the wall plane to provide an ade‐ quate shade and shadow, unless ap‐ proved otherwise by the Planning Commission in De‐ sign Review. Window and door place‐ ment have a huge impact on the aesthetics of build‐ ing facades. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Handrails and guardrails should be well proportioned and integrated into the de‐ sign. Shutters, when used, should be sized to cover the windows they are adjacent to, and are ideally functional. Where traditional trim details are being util‐ ized, actual sills (drip ledges) should be used as well. Decorative architectural details that are present on the existing home can be repeated on the addition. Details such as eaves, brackets, awnings, trellises, decorative vents, etc., are expected to add character and architectural interest to a home. Decorative brackets Vents as an architectural element 2” window recess from face of wall Ornamental Railing ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 7. Choose Building Materials that are Durable and Attractive Only quality materials, both aestheti‐ cally and environmentally, should be considered. The weight and finish of a building material can change the overall appearance of a home. Finishes contribute to the overall appearance of the house. New materials should be at least consistent with, if not better than the original finish materials. Building materials do not necessarily need to match those of the existing, or be consistent throughout the home. Multiple building materials can be acceptable and even desirable when proportioned and distrib‐ uted well. Materials should not terminate at the corners of the building. Two different widths of horizontal wood Wood Composite Lap siding and stucco: different but com- plementary ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 8. Green Building is a Prerequisite of Every Albany Home FYI: Passive solar design can maximize the energy effi- ciency of a home with simple consid- erations such as home placement, window coverings, landscaping, etc. Solar panel placement is important. They should be located in areas that provide maximum functionality and sun exposure, and be installed in an aesthetically appropriate manner. Panels should be integrated into the overall design and parallel the roof slope when feasible. They should be shown on installation Design Review Submittal. A total of at least 50 points on Built It Green’s rating system are needed for every project, regard‐ less of size. See www.greenpointrated.org Note: 50 Albany Greenpoints does not necessarily earn an official ‘greenpoint rated’ project. Contact Build It Green to earn the certificate. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 FYI: Local Incentives Points include seismic upgrades, projects that minimally in‐ crease the size of the home, planting of a new street tree, and other priorities (see the Greenpoints list). Insulation, quality windows, weather‐stripping, etc. are all easy ways to increase the en‐ ergy efficiency. Salvaged materials support the reuse of existing re‐ sources, can be of lower cost, and may provide unique design elements. RECYCLED INSULATION ENERGY‐EFFICENT APPLIANCES I‐JOISTS/ENGINEERED LUMBER Say ‘no’ to vinyl siding. The City has a policy against the use of vinyl siding for both environmental and aesthetic reasons. No‐maintenance materials are often a false economy. They cannot be repaired or main‐ tained, and have a limited life. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 9. Second‐units And Multi‐Family Housing As a result of a voter‐approved amendment to the Plan‐ ning and Zoning Code, two off‐street parking spaces are required for both second‐units and multi‐family housing units, regardless of the size or number of bedrooms. There are specific floor‐area‐ratio, height and daylight plane requirements for multi‐family housing that differ from those for single‐family homes. Second units are en‐ couraged, and whether detached or attached, should complement the home and be inte‐ grated into the overall design. Smaller multi‐family projects should be ap‐ proached, in regards to design, like “big houses”. Second units are limited to 650 sq. ft. and require a park‐ ing space. See the Municipal Code 20.20.080 and 20.28.030 for re‐ quirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 10. Landscaping is an important aesthetic element of home design Pervious paving materials other than concrete are encouraged. Hollywood strip driveways are en‐ couraged. Native, drought‐resistant plants are preferred. Consult the Bay‐Friendly Landscaping Guidelines for types of plants, irrigation, and maintenance. (www.stopwaste.org) Integrated pest management is rec‐ ommended to mitigate insects, plant diseases, weeds, and other pests without the use of pesticides Conservation of water can be imple‐ mented by designing on‐site water col‐ lection, and by using recycled or grey water Above: A City street median containing Native, drought resistant plants, using Bay-Friendly Land- scaping. Bay-Friendly Landscaping Water cistern ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Community Development Department 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8th, 2014 FROM: Hilde Myall, Housing Program Manager SUBJECT: Summary of Public Comments Received at December 4th, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting on the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element On December 4th, 2014, the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission held a special meeting to review and comment on the City of El Cerrito Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element. At that meeting, the Planning Commission heard public comment on the Draft Housing Element. Following is a summary of public comment received at the meeting. Speaker Summary of Comment Elizabeth “BJ” Thorsnes, El Cerrito resident and owner of El Cerrito rental properties As a landlord, she did not receive notice and was not aware of the preparation of the housing element. There needs to be better communication (by the City) with landlords. She does not charge market rents and views operating rental property as a service industry. Regarding the Draft Housing Element , the vacancy rate of 3.5% (pg. 39, Table II-26) is too high. The real vacancy rate is lower. Need better data. The rents presented in Table II-31 (pg.42) are low and not representative of rental rates today. Need better data. (Note: more recent rental data from 2014 is presented in Figure II-3, pg.43.) Regarding a proposed Eviction for Cause Ordinance, it is an arduous and onerous requirement and not friendly to existing small business owners. Woody Karp, Project Manager for Eden Housing, Inc., a non-profit affordable housing developer Eden Housing already follows Eviction for Cause procedures in its property management. Eden Housing thinks it is an appropriate protection and due process for tenants. Regarding the proposed housing policy programs, an inclusionary ordinance and a housing mitigation fee would be helpful in providing a local resource to create more affordable housing. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 of 3 Anne Hersch, El Cerrito resident Would like the Planning Commission to consider a draft policy to establish residential design guidelines. I believe they are consistent with Housing Element Policy Goal H1 of conserving existing housing, the City would have the 8 year period (of the 2015-2023 Housing Element) to implement, the request is for a voluntary program that would not change existing review requirements, request does not require changes to El Cerrito Municipal Code. (Also see written comments of Nov. 20, 2014 included in the Addendum to the Draft Housing Element.) Tom Panas, El Cerrito resident Speaking in support of policies to encourage housing for persons with developmental disabilities. Persons with developmental disabilities are often, by definition, low income. The Draft Housing Element has very little specificity about the types of housing needed for persons with developmental disabilities. The Draft Housing Element should include a goal to meet the housing needs for the identified number of households with developmentally disabled persons in El Cerrito. Pleased to see the energy conservation goals and programs included in the Draft Housing Element. (Also see written comments of Dec. 4, 2014 included in the Addendum to the Draft Housing Element.) Nick Arzio, El Cerrito resident Question regarding data on average household size (pg. 18). Jeff Levin, El Cerrito resident and Policy Director of East Bay Housing Organizations Appreciate the work that went into the Draft Housing Element and think it is excellent. It is clear that the need for affordability is a pressing issue. To bring home what it means to be very low-income, a 4- person household with two wage-earners earning twice the minimum wage brings home $45,000/year. They are at 50% of area median income. The (San Pablo Avenue) Specific Plan is appropriate for encouraging new development. Suggest adding language to Goal H1.2 (Discourage the conversion of residential uses to non-residential uses) to ensure that some kind of relocation assistance would be provided to any displaced households. Speaking in support for Housing Policy Program H1.5- Eviction for Good Cause. Please note that it does not tie landlords’ hands. Speaking in support for Housing Policy Program 2.8 - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and H2.9 – Local Affordable Housing Financing Source, such as a housing mitigation fee program. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 of 3 Howdy Goudey, El Cerrito resident Regarding the housing element connection to SB 375 climate change goals, I appreciate that new development is encouraged to be energy efficient but need to have a goal that new development have low embodied-carbon technologies. It is a slow process to get greenhouse gas reductions. We should strive for low emissions associated with new construction. Speaking in support of tying density and infill development to low embodied-carbon and preservation of open space. I realize there are competing interests, such as affordable housing. (Also see written comments of Dec. 8th, 2014 included in the Addendum to the Draft Housing Element.) Elizabeth “BJ” Thorsnes, El Cerrito resident, El Cerrito rental property owner (In response to earlier comments regarding Eviction for Good Cause.) This is a small landlord vs. big organization issue. We need a dialog about this. I view operating rental property as a service industry. Baker Lyon, Project Manager with Resources for Community Development, a non-profit affordable housing developer Appreciate the City’s support for affordable housing. Speaking in support of inclusionary housing and looking into the feasibility of a housing mitigation fee program. Nick Arzio, El Cerrito resident Regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, there are income level targets, but what are the requirements or targets for the square footage of housing units? (Note: The Regional Housing Needs Allocation does not establish targets for housing unit size. To the extent there are targets, minimums or maximums, they are determined by each local jurisdiction through its municipal code and planning policies.) Nick Galloro, El Cerrito resident Question regarding the methodology of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation distribution by income level. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dec. 8th, 2014 Dear Mayor Friedman and City Council Members, I appreciate the work that went into developing the draft housing element for the 2015-2023 cycle, and the public process that proceeded it. I agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to include explicit, and more detailed, policy direction regarding the modification of zoning and code criteria toward the purpose of further encouraging accessory units in residential areas, with the possibility for more aggressive concessions to prevailing parking standards, etc for residences in close proximity to BART stations and rapid bus services. Code provisions for high architectural quality (but still typically movable) “tiny” house accessory units should also be explored. Given the SB375 climate change context associated with the Housing Element and the regional housing allocation process, it is important to consider the embodied green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction of new housing units. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) does not include these emissions in its accounting. None the less, it is important to actively minimize the embodied GHG emissions associated with construction in order to reduce the GHG payback time and fully realize the emission reduction targets associated with measures SC-1-4, as envisioned in the CAP. A single large building can have hundreds to thousands of tons of embodied GHG emissions. This can delay the positive impacts of new housing for years with the possibility of seriously crippling the potential for TOD infill measures to deliver on their projected GHG savings. Embodied GHG emissions for construction should be identified as an important policy area to study and actively constrain. Following an earlier comment I submitted, I was pleased to learn that the General Plan already calls for encouraging a diversity of housing types including co-housing. This is great, but co-housing deserves more than a single mention in our guiding documents. This type of housing brings many ancillary community benefits including projects that originate with a dedicated group of community-minded individuals that will help drive and define an outstanding project for which they have a long term commitment, taking away the risky element of speculating on housing demand/type and the process of attracting the ultimate occupants. Housing policies should include reaching out to co-housing developers and individuals forming prospective co-housing groups to actively incentivize this type of development. I support the exploration of development impact fees contributing to the funding of affordable housing efforts. While I understand there is a limit to the additional costs of development that can be imposed upon market housing projects, it would be a meaningful leadership statement to recommend that infill/TOD development voluntarily consider purchasing conservation easements in nearby agricultural and open space locations. Infill/TOD or so called “smart” growth principles promise to take pressure off of sprawling sub- urban development elsewhere, but the only way to assure that this holds true is to make formal, binding arrangements. This could actually have a marketing potential for the developer to attract prospective occupants, as well as provide an opportunity to build local community ties, understanding, appreciation, inter-reliance and economic exchange. If the City partnered with local land trusts like the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust, it could also help foster a "sister" community inter-reliance relationship and enhance economic exchange within the county, while simultaneously serving to direct development in appropriate priority development areas, as well as conserve land in appropriate priority conservation areas. It wouldn’t amount to a large number of additional units, but there is still intriguing potential for the idea of incorporating "tiny house" type facilities on public (mostly park?) land in the City. The occupants could be part/full time City employees (or perhaps non-profit foundation employees?) that provide care-taking of the public spaces surrounding their small living space, improving safety and community interactions, as well as potentially improving maintenance, while providing a modest, inexpensive place to live (part of the compensation for the services provided in the park, meaning the City or foundation cost for labor, would be lower). This idea essentially leverages the land value of public spaces to get more done, without compromising the character of the public spaces. Instead there is a strong potential to enhance them. A similar idea was recently proposed by the Mayor-elect of San Jose. ---PAGE BREAK--- While it may sound controversial, it would be valuable to include policy statements to explore potentially aggressive measures to encourage redevelopment in the San Pablo Specific Plan area. The area has consistently suffered from under-utilization of key “down town” commercial and high density residential areas. While private property rights are strong, there should be an appreciation of property responsibilities, too, when those properties form the core of a community. It seems reasonable to explore the potential for an “under-utilization” parcel tax or fine/fee to encourage desired development outcomes or transfers to those with development intentions, in appropriate priority areas. In order to be more flexible and not too punitive, a variety of approved temporary uses could be implemented to avoid the new costs associated with being “under utilized.” Under-utilization would have a definition something like “no business or residential use for more than 50% of the year.” Older lower density/intensity uses would be grandfathered in, as long as they were consistently active. It is great that property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing of energy efficiency and renewable energy home installations are identified, however as El Cerrito is one of the last communities in the Bay Area to enroll in these programs, I encourage it to be prioritized for rapid adoption, hopefully much sooner than the 2016 time frame stated in the draft document. A few other editorial comments about the draft: The numbers used match opportunity sites in the map figures do not correctly correspond to the numbers in the property descriptions in the text. A vacant flag lot at 6823 Moeser (where a previous residence existed but was never rebuilt after burning down) was not included in the inventory of opportunity sites. The Council’s 1715 Elm decision was in August, not June. Sincerely, Howdy Goudey 635 Elm St. El Cerrito, CA 94530 References: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/GLA_Construction_Scope_3_Embodied_Greenhouse_Gas_Acco unting_and_Reporting_Guidance_vFinal_1.pdf http://living-future.org/research http://www.gglo.com/insight/embodiedcarbon.aspx http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/ http://www.cohousing.org/ http://www.cohousingpartners.com/ http://www.cohousingco.com/ http://www.whdc.com/ http://www.brentwoodaglandtrust.org/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Attachment 3 1 of 2 Subject: Planning Commission Revisions to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element Update On December 4th, 2014 at a special meeting of the City of El Cerrito Planning Commission, the Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion recommending the following revisions to the Draft 2015- 2023 Housing Element: Pages 13-14. Section I. E. 2. Housing Needs Survey As part of the 2015‐2023 Housing Element Update, the City of El Cerrito developed an online survey to gather feedback about community housing and to help ensure that the City’s Housing Element reflects the vision and priorities of the El Cerrito community. The Housing Survey included 12 questions that asked respondents about their current housing situation as well as their views on El Cerrito’s housing issues more generally. The survey also gave opportunity for respondents to contribute written comments on El Cerrito’s housing or other topics. The survey was publicized through announcements at the Housing Element workshops, through the City’s website and through a press release to local print and online media. There were 44 responses to the survey. The on-line survey received a total of forty-four responses, of which forty-three (97.7%) self- identified as currently living in El Cerrito. Forty-three responses from a census population of 24,000 residents represents a response rate of less than 0.2%. The survey response is not assumed to be a statistically relevant representation of the views of the city’s population. However, the results of the survey and written comments offer insight into the views of the people who made the effort to complete the survey and are included in Appendix D. There were a range views in terms of how respondents see the City’s housing needs. Twenty seven percent of respondents identified “more shops, cafes, restaurants within walking distance” as the most important factor that would improve their current housing situation, followed by “home improvements/repairs to existing home” for twenty three percent of respondents. There was a common theme that expense or affordability was the most significant housing issue facing El Cerrito. Twenty six percent of respondents viewed “lack of affordable housing for middle to moderate income households” as the most significant housing issue, twenty one percent indicated the “expense of housing,” and sixteen percent of respondents felt that “lack of affordable housing for lower income households,” as well as sixteen percent of respondents indicating that “lack of housing options” were the most significant issue. In terms of future housing growth, fifty one percent of respondents indicated they would favor an approach to accommodating future housing units that combined the addition of single‐family homes, promotion of mixed use housing along San Pablo Avenue, encouraging in‐law units and new townhomes. Twenty nine percent of respondents felt that the best improvement to housing within El Cerrito would be “more housing near El Cerrito Plaza BART and del Norte BART stations,” followed by twenty three percent of respondents who felt the best improvement would be “more affordable rentals for low to moderate income households.” Respondents were given an option to provide written comments on El Cerrito’s housing or other topics. Eight of the 44 respondents provided comments voicing a range of viewpoints, including a desire for more active and walkable commercial areas, more affordable single‐family housing and townhomes near transit and commercial areas, more in‐law units rather than multifamily housing, and more mixed‐use housing, as well as a desire to see more businesses in the City and improved ---PAGE BREAK--- Agenda Item No. 7(A) Attachment 3 2 of 2 middle and high school education. Of the total respondents to the survey, 66 percent owned their home, 81 percent lived in a single‐family home and a majority (56 percent) spent less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Page 15-17. Section II.B. a. Historical, Existing, and Forecast Growth The City of El Cerrito is one of 19 cities in Contra Costa County. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that Contra Costa County’s population in 2014 was 1,087,008. Table II‐1 shows historical population estimates for change in El Cerrito in 10‐year increments from 1940 to 2010 as reported in the decennial US Census. El Cerrito was incorporated in 1917, and the City’s population increased steadily until the 1960s. The greatest increase occurred between 1940 and 1950, in which the City experienced an average annual growth rate of 19.3 percent. Between 1960 and 2010 the City’s population has fluctuated within 10%. A possible explanation for the reported slight decline between Between 1960 and 1980 could be the population declined as the City reached build‐out and household sizes declined. A possible explanation for the modest increases from 1980 to 2010 could be El Cerrito’s population began to increase again slowly beginning in 1980 due to an influx of residents seeking lower housing costs and larger home sizes. Between 1990 and 2010 2000 the US Census reported that the City gained 482 680 residents, an increase of 3.0% from the 1990 figure increasing from 22,869 to 23,171. Figure II‐1shows annual estimates of El Cerrito’s population growth since 2000 as reported by the California Department of Finance. These figures are derived from the decennial US Census figures, then adjusted annually based on information from the county on residential building activity. Much of the 4.0% total population growth reported for experienced in El Cerrito since 1990 has resulted from infill development, redevelopment, and changes in household size. The reported estimate of El Cerrito’s population Although El Cerrito’s population declined between 2002 and 2007, it has been steadily increasing since 2008 and is currently (2014) estimated at 24,087. Revise Figure II-1 Population Trends (page 17) so the y-axis starts at zero. Note: All document page, section and figure references are to the City of El Cerrito Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, released November 10th, 2014.