01/12/2022 Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Regular Agenda Packet
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Vanessa Ashford, Chair Greg Bozzo Michael Sanchez
Jasmine Ledesma, Vice-Chair Makhan (Mak) Gupta Laraine Spencer
Carissa Purnell
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ONLINE VIRTUAL PORTAL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361
MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter .
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering virtual teleconference
services on Zoom and Facebook Live. Additionally, written comments can be submitted by email to
Sandra Nava at Sandra.Nava@cityofgilroy.org .
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
WebLink:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82756387342?pwd=bG9DNHB2M2JNcXJlMGNHenpOVUg3QT09
Telephone: 1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 827 5638 7342
Passcode: 739175
TO VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/GilroyCityHallMeetings
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE HOUSING
AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TAKEN
THROUGH FACEBOOK LIVE.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Assembly Bill 361, the City will make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participat e in
this meeting, please contact the Housing and Community Development Technician 72 hours prior to the
meeting at (408) 846-0290. The hearing impaired may reach City staff through the California Relay System at
711 or (800) 735-2929.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
I. Call to Order - Welcome
a. Roll Call
b. Introductions
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda: PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED
BY EMAIL TO: sandra.nava@cityofgilroy.org , (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting
is reserved for persons desiring to address the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee on
matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special
circumstances. If Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action is requested, the Housing
and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material
provided by public members for Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee agenda item “public
comments” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy.
IV. Selection of 2022 Leadership
a. Presentation on role of Chair, Vice-Chair, and City staff
b. Committee discussion
c. Public comment
d. Recommended Action: Select Chair and Vice-Chair
V. Approval of Meeting Minutes (report attached)
a. Minutes from July 14, 2021 and September 8, 2021
b. Public comment
c. Possible Action: Motion to approve minutes
VI. Approval of 2022 Meeting Schedule (report attached)
a. Public comment
b. Recommended Action: Approve schedule
VII. Housing Element Update (report attached)
a. Report by Cindy McCormick
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Discussion
VIII. FY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing
Trust Fund Grant Funding Cycle Orientation (report attached)
a. Report by Sandra Nava
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Discussion
IX. Informational Items
X. Updates
CARES Act Small Business Relief and Rent Assistance Grants and Rent Relief Progress
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
XI. Future Agenda Items
February 16, 2022 Presentations from Applicants for FY 2022-23 and 2023-2024 CDBG and HTF
Grants
March 9, 2022 Approval of CDBG and HTF Grant Funding Recommendations
XII. Adjournment
The next regular meeting is February 16, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet on the City website at
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter .
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE.
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching it s decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task
forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance
assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s
view.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A
FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org .
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC)
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 – 6:00 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Vanessa Ashford, Chair Greg Bozzo Michael Sanchez
Jasmine Ledesma, Vice-Chair Makhan (Mak) Gupta Laraine Spencer
Carissa Purnell
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA ONLINE VIRTUAL PORTAL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF ASSEMBLY BILL 361
MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter .
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus, the City will be offering virtual teleconference
services on Zoom and Facebook Live. Additionally, written comments can be submitted by email to
Sandra Nava at Sandra.Nava@cityofgilroy.org .
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
WebLink:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82756387342?pwd=bG9DNHB2M2JNcXJlMGNHenpOVUg3QT09
Telephone: 1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 827 5638 7342
Passcode: 739175
TO VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/GilroyCityHallMeetings
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE HOUSING
AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TAKEN
THROUGH FACEBOOK LIVE.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Assembly Bill 361, the City will make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participat e in
this meeting, please contact the Housing and Community Development Technician 72 hours prior to the
meeting at (408) 846-0290. The hearing impaired may reach City staff through the California Relay System at
711 or (800) 735-2929.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
I. Call to Order - Welcome
a. Roll Call
b. Introductions
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda: PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED
BY EMAIL TO: sandra.nava@cityofgilroy.org , (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting
is reserved for persons desiring to address the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee on
matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special
circumstances. If Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee action is requested, the Housing
and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material
provided by public members for Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee agenda item “public
comments” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy.
IV. Selection of 2022 Leadership
a. Presentation on role of Chair, Vice-Chair, and City staff
b. Committee discussion
c. Public comment
d. Recommended Action: Select Chair and Vice-Chair
V. Approval of Meeting Minutes (report attached)
a. Minutes from July 14, 2021 and September 8, 2021
b. Public comment
c. Possible Action: Motion to approve minutes
VI. Approval of 2022 Meeting Schedule (report attached)
a. Public comment
b. Recommended Action: Approve schedule
VII. Housing Element Update (report attached)
a. Report by Cindy McCormick
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Discussion
VIII. FY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing
Trust Fund Grant Funding Cycle Orientation (report attached)
a. Report by Sandra Nava
b. Public comment
c. Recommended Action: Discussion
IX. Informational Items
X. Updates
CARES Act Small Business Relief and Rent Assistance Grants and Rent Relief Progress
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g & C o m m u n i t y
D e v e l o p m e n t
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
XI. Future Agenda Items
February 16, 2022 Presentations from Applicants for FY 2022-23 and 2023-2024 CDBG and HTF
Grants
March 9, 2022 Approval of CDBG and HTF Grant Funding Recommendations
XII. Adjournment
The next regular meeting is February 16, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet on the City website at
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter .
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE.
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching it s decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task
forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance
assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people’s
view.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A
FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org .
City of Gilroy
Housing Division
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC) Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, July 14 , 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order - Welcome
The meeting was called to order by Chair Vanessa Ashford at 6:00 p.m.
Roll call: Chair Vanessa Ashford, Greg Bozzo, Makhan (Mak) Gupta, Vice-Chair Jasmine Ledesma,
Laraine Spencer
Absent: Danny Van
City staff participating: Karen Garner, Community Development Director, Sandra Nava, HCD Technician
II, Robert Carrera, Management Analyst
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
Liaison Nava announced that the agenda was posted on July 9, 2021 at 12:17 p.m.
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda:
There were no public comments.
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
Motion to approve the minutes from the June 9, 2021 Meeting was made by Member Bozzo, seconded by
Member Gupta and unanimously carried 5-0.
There were no public comments.
V. Meeting Format after City Hall Reopens (Continued from June 9, 2021)
Karen Garner, Community Development Director, reported that City Council will ultimately decide for City
Commission/Committees the meeting format to be implemented after City Hall reopens to the public.
There were no public comments.
VI. Reassess Approved Work Plan
Members held discussion and agreed to maintain the current approved amended work plan.
There were no public comments.
VII. Staff Updates
Karen Garner, Community Development Director, provided a Housing Element Update.
Members were provided an update on the deadline and link for the HNRC vacancy recruitment.
There were no public comments.
VIII. Informational Items
Chair Ashford attended the July South County Homeless Task Force meeting, where discussion was held
on the closure of the Compassion Center Day Center site and the subsequent service gaps. She suggested
HNRC members research the closure and report back to the committee.
There were no public comments.
City of Gilroy
Housing Division
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
IX. Future Agenda Items
• FY 2020-2021 Progress Report of Grant Funded Public Service and Rehabilitation Programs
X. Adjournment
Chair Ashford adjourned the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting is August 11, 2021.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g D i v i s i o n
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Housing & Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (HNRC) Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order - Welcome
The meeting was called to order by Chair Vanessa Ashford at 6:00 p.m.
Roll call: Chair Vanessa Ashford, Greg Bozzo, Makhan (Mak) Gupta, Vice-Chair Jasmine Ledesma,
Carissa Purnell, Laraine Spencer
Absent: None
City staff participating: Karen Garner, Community Development Director, Sandra Nava, HCD Technician
II, Marco Romagnoli
II. Report on Posting of the Agenda
Liaison Nava announced that the agenda was posted on September 2, 2021 at 7:20 p.m.
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda:
There were no public comments.
IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
The Chair explained that the meeting minutes were not included in the agenda packet. Motion to continue
the approval of the July 14, 2021 meeting minutes to the October 13, 2021 meeting was made by Member
Gupta, seconded by Member Ledesma and unanimously carried 6-0.
There were no public comments.
V. FY 2020-2021 Q3-Q4 Progress Reports for Grant Funded Public Service and Rehabilitation Programs
Karen Garner, Community Development Director, provided an overview on the progress of the Community
Development Block Grant and local Housing Trust Fund grant funded programs in FY 2020-2021 and the
impact COVID-19 had on the ability of some programs to meet their goals.
There were no public comments.
VI. Staff Updates
Karen Garner, Community Development Director, provided information on the public comment period for the
Draft FY 2020-2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) and referred to the
link to view the document.
Members were informed that Council will return to in-person City Council meetings on September 13, 2021;
there will not be a virtual option at this time, however, the public may call in. City Council will direct staff as
to when committees may begin conducting in-person meetings.
There were no public comments.
VII. Informational Items
Karen Garner, Community Development Director, informed members that Council will consider opening a
recruitment for the vacant HNRC seat at its September 13, 2021 Council meeting and informed that details
will be available on the City’s website if approved by Council.
C i t y o f G i l r o y
H o u s i n g D i v i s i o n
7 3 5 1 R o s a n n a S t r e e t
G i l r o y , C A 9 5 0 2 0
Members were informed of the proposed year-long Housing Element update timeline. Staff will provide
Council a calendar describing proposed community engagement opportunities. The HNRC and community
feedback received will assist the City in putting a new affordable housing policy in place.
There were no public comments.
VIII. Future Agenda Items
Housing Element Update
IX. Adjournment
Chair Ashford adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
The next Regular Meeting is October 13, 2021.
Housing &
Neighborhood Revitalization Committee
2022 Regular Meeting Schedule
6:00 p.m. – Every 2nd Wednesday
Gilroy City Council Chambers (or virtual per AB 361, as necessary)
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Wednesday, February 9, 2022 (moved to February 16, 2022)*
Wednesday, February 16, 2022*
Wednesday, March 9, 2022
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Wednesday, June 8, 2022
Wednesday, July 13, 2022
Wednesday, August 10, 2022
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
Wednesday, October 12, 2022
Wednesday, November 9, 2022
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
TO: Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee
FROM: Cindy McCormick, Customer Service Manager
DATE: January 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Housing Policies Update
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this report is to provide the HNRC with an update on three housing topics:
Housing Element update, potential affordable housing policy, and adopted objective
design standards for multi-family projects and for Senate Bill 9 projects. This report and
the attachments have been provided as an informational item, and no further action is
needed at this time from the HNRC. Staff will be at the meeting to answer any questions
the HNRC may have. Questions may also be sent to staff ahead of th e meeting to allow
for additional research as needed
2023-2031 Housing Element: On June 21, 2021, staff provided the City Council with an
update on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023 -2031 planning cycle and
discussed next steps regarding an update to the City’s Housing Element. The attached
staff report provides a general overview of the components of a Housing Element and
notable housing element law changes that apply to the 2023 -2031 update. Please note
that the tentative timeline provided in the attached report was delayed in terms of the
initial study sessions with the Council and HNRC, which are likely to occur in Spring 2022.
On October 18, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with Michael Baker
International (MBI) to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element. MBI’s experience in
Southern California with the 6th cycle update process will be invaluable, given extensive
requirements related to community engagement, affirmatively furthering fair housing
laws, and increased scrutiny of the sites inventory. MBI also prepared the City’s 2020-
2025 Consolidated Plan in 2020 and understands what has and hasn’t worked in Gilroy
in terms of resident and stakeholder participation.
MBI is currently working on a Community and Stakeholder Outreach & Engagement
Strategy and outreach materials with a potential study session scheduled with the
Council, Planning Commission, and HNRC in spring 2022. The HNRC will be informed
once a specific date has been confirmed for the study session. Community engagement
will occur throughout 2022. Staff also anticipates bringing draft policies to the Council,
Planning Commission, and HNRC in late summer 2022.
2 of 2
Affordable Housing Policy: On October 25, 2021, the City Council had a preliminary
discussion on potential housing policy options for Gilroy. No decisions were made at the
meeting; however the Council did direct staff to conduct further analysis on the potential
policies presented to the Council, including an inclusionary housing policy option (e.g.,
similar to our Neighborhood District requirements) and an affordable housing incentives
policy (e.g., density bonus incentives beyond state law; incentivize micro units, ADUs,
and missing middle housing). The attached staff report provides background information
on the City’s existing housing policies and a brief discussion of each policy option.
Additional information will be provided during the Spring and Summer 2022 study
sessions. An Affordable Housing Policy could be adopted as part of the City’s 2023-2031
Housing Element Update, which involves extensive community outreach.
Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Objective Design Standards: On October 18, 2021, the
City Council adopted the linked Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family
Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. Objective design standards are required
standards that regulate site and structure design only. Projects must also comply with all
applicable building permit requirements, zoning code requirements , and development
standards such as height, setbacks, floor area ratio, etc. The attached City Council staff
report includes additional information that may be of interest to the HNRC.
Senate Bill 9 Objective Design Standards: On December 13, 2021, the City Council
adopted the linked SB9 2-Unit Objective Design Standards Policy and SB9 Lot Split
Objective Design Standards Policy. Subject to certain requirements, SB9 allows
ministerial (staff level building permit) approval of a proposed housing development
containing no more than 2 residential units (e.g., duplex) in single-family residential
zones or a subdivision of one (1) single-family residential lot into two (2) lots. The
policies took effect on January 1, 2022. Staff is already receiving inquiries regarding
SB9 and has created a webpage on the City’s website for further information:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/930/Senate-Bill-9-SB9. The attached City Council staff
report includes additional information on SB9 that may be of interest to the HNRC.
CONCLUSION: For additional information, please review the links and attachments to
this staff report. This report, links, and the attachments have been provided as an
informational item, and no further action is needed at this time.
Attachments:
06-21-21 Council Staff Report – Housing Element Next Steps
10-18-21 Council Staff Report – Housing Element Contract
10-25-21 Council Staff Report – Affordable Housing Policy (preliminary discussion)
10-18-21 Council Staff Report – Multi-Family Objective Design Standards Policy
12-13-21 Council Staff Report – SB9 Policies
Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy
SB9 2-Unit Objective Design Standards Policy
SB9 Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on Housing Element Workplan and Status of Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Distribution
Meeting Date: June 21, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Karen Garner
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive report and provide staff direction regarding Council expectations for the
2023-2031 Housing Element.
2. Direct staff on whether to appeal the ABAG RHNA distribution (equity adjustment) for
the City of Gilroy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Council with an update on the City’s
draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle, recently
approved by ABAG, and to discuss next steps regarding an update to the City’s
Housing Element.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION UPDATE
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) overview : Since 1969, the State of
California has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing
needs of everyone in our communities. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
process is used to determine how many new homes, and the affordability of those
homes, each city and county must plan for in its Housing Element. Cities do not need to
ensure these homes are built, but do need to minimize governmental constraints, and
put the proper zoning in place, so the private sector can build the housing.
In consultation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined that the Bay
Area must plan for 441,176 new housing units from 2023 to 2031. On May 20, 2021, the
ABAG Executive Board approved the Final RHNA Methodology and Draft RHNA
Allocations. Gilroy’s draft allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle is 1,773 housing
units, including 669 very low-income units, 385 low-income units, 200 moderate income
units, and 519 above-moderate income units. Notably, while the overall number of units
has increased, as it has for all cities across the state, the City of Gilroy received a
higher percentage of very low- and low-income units, under an “equity adjustment”
factor. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, the City may file an appeal to
modify Gilroy’s allocation.
The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2021. Staff is seeking direction
from the Council on whether to appeal. However, appeals are historically unsuccessful,
and the City’s total RHNA is in proportion to its share of the region’s total households, a
key factor in the equity adjustment methodology. Therefore, staff is recommending that
the City Council not appeal Gilroy’s RHNA distribution.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
The Housing Element is part of Gilroy’s General Plan and identifies policies and
programs to meet the housing needs of the city’s current and future residents. State law
(Government Code Sections 65580-65589.8) requires that every city and county in
California adopt a Housing Element, approximately every eight years. In addition, HCD
reviews and certifies Housing Elements to ensure they meet all requirements of the law.
Gilroy’s 2015-2023 Housing Element was certified by HCD in December 2014. The
2023 – 2031 Housing Element must be certified by HCD no later than January 2023.
The update process will include multiple community outreach meetin gs and at least two
public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council (Draft and Final
documents).
Housing Element Overview : The Housing Element will include the following:
1. Housing Needs Assessment: Analyze Gilroy’s demographic and housing
trends and conditions.
2. Constraints Analysis: Analyze and address existing and potential governmental
and nongovernmental constraints to the development of housing.
3. Evaluation of Past Performance: Assess Gilroy’s progress in implementing the
policies and programs from the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element.
4. Housing Sites Inventory: Identify housing sites available for development or
redevelopment in Gilroy, ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to address
Gilroy’s 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
5. Policies and Programs: Establish policies and programs to address Gilroy’s
identified housing needs.
6. Community Outreach and Engagement: Conduct a thorough program of
community engagement, with a particular focus on outreach to Gilroy’s
traditionally underrepresented groups, including, but not limited to groups
identified in the City’s Environmental Justice chapter of the 2040 General Plan.
Notable Housing Element Law Changes: Assembly Bill (AB) 686 was signed into law
in September 2018 and creates new requirements in Housing Element Law.
Accordingly, the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element update process is expected to be more
time intensive and rigorous than previous cycles. In addition to receiving a higher
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as described earlier in this report, it will be harder
to identify sites that can count towards accommodating the 2023-2031 RHNA planning
cycle. New requirements mean there will be increased scrutiny on small (0.5 acre or
less), large (10 acre or more) and non-vacant/redevelopment sites. General
characteristics of suitable sites include adequate zoning, infrastructure availability, and
likelihood of being redeveloped at the necessary density. If the City cannot identify
adequate sites as defined by the State, the City will need to rezone sites accordingly.
In 2018, California adopted new requirements for jurisdictions to Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing (AFFH). Starting in January 2021, California law also requires that
Housing Elements include an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Housing Elements
must factor the AFH into the housing sites inventory and include goals, policies and/or
programs to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities. Changes in rules related to the sites inventory and affirmatively
furthering fair housing will also require more community outreach than in the past. In
collaboration with Santa Clara County and six other cities in the County, a draft AFH
has been prepared and is expected to be brought to the City Council for consideration
later this year.
All new legal requirements will lead to a lengthier and more costly process than in the
past. Fortunately, some of these additional costs will be absorbed through Gilroy’s
participation in the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative. Through the
Collaborative, Baird & Driskel Community Planning consultants will assist City staff in
completing portions of the sites inventory, affirmatively furthering fair housing
requirement, and community outreach. Furthermore, some of the administrative burden
of hiring a Housing Element consultant will be minimized through ABAG’s cooperative
bench, a procurement process that has already vetted qualified consultants on behalf of
bay area cities. Another benefit of this cooperative bench is the fact that several cities
across the bay area are having a difficult time finding a consultant to prepare their
Housing Element, due to the anticipated amount of work associated with new state
requirements.
The following table illustrates a rough estimate of the Housing Element update timeline.
The tentative schedule includes a study session with the City Council in September
2021 to receive direction on drafting an affordable housing ordinance and what form it
might take (e.g. provide incentives for voluntary inclusion of affordable units versus
require a minimum % of affordable units for projects that fall with a specific threshold ).
The tentative schedule also includes public hearings with the Planning Commission and
the City Council to review a draft document (Spring 2022) and then adopt the final
Housing Element (Fall 2022).
Tentative Housing Element Update Timeline
Request proposals through the ABAG Cooperative Bench July 2021
Execute contract with consultant August 2021
City Council Study Session September 2021
Housing & Neighborhood Rev. Comm. Study Session October 2021
Develop and implement community engagement program July 2021 through 2022
Complete initial research/trends/past progress/constraints Summer/Fall 2021
Complete Sites Inventory Summer/Fall 2021
Draft Housing Element Programs and Policies Fall 2021
Prepare Draft Housing Element Winter 2022
Prepare CEQA analysis March 2022
Hold Commission / Council hearings (Review Draft) April-May 2022
Revise draft per Council direction May-June 2022
Preliminary State HCD review July-Aug. 2022
Revise plan per State HCD, if needed Sept-Oct. 2022
Hold Commission / Council hearings (Final Adoption) Oct-Nov 2022
Submit for State HCD certification November 2022
Complete rezoning, as necessary Early-Mid 2023
FISCAL IMPACT
The total budget required for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is significantly higher than
in previous cycles due to state legislation regarding identifying adequate sites to
accommodate RHNA, and increased community outreach associated with Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing requirements. The City has approximately $124,000 in LEAP and
REAP grant monies1 to fund the Housing Element. The FY22-23 approved budget
includes an additional $400,000 as needed depend ing on the level of CEQA review and
rezoning associated with the findings from the sites inventory analysis.
NEXT STEPS
In August 2021, Staff will return to the City Council for approval of the scope of work,
budget, and associated consultant contract to update the City’s Housing Element.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In addition to advertising this agenda item on the City’s website, staff has created a
dedicated webpage for the Housing Element Update. The webpage includes a link to
sign up for email updates.
1 Grant funds for the Housing Element update include approximately $71,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
funding and approximately $53,000 in Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) funding.
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: 2023-2031 Housing Element Award of Contract
Meeting Date: October 18, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Award a Contract to Michael Baker and Associates in the amount of $306,155 for
preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and authorize the City Administrator to
execute the contract and associated documents.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2021, City staff provided the Council with an update on the City’s draft
Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the 2023-2031 planning cycle and discussed
next steps regarding an update to the City’s Housing Element. At that time, staff noted
that new legal requirements will lead to a lengthier and more costly process than in the
past. Staff also noted that several cities across the bay area are having a difficult time
finding a consultant to prepare their Housing Element, due to the anticipated amount of
work associated with new state requirements.
On August 26, 2021, City staff released a request for proposals (RFP) to prepare the
2023-2031 Housing Element. In addition to advertising the RFP on the City’s Bid
Posting webpage, staff sent the RFP to nine (9) consultants, including six (6) from the
City’s on-call planning services consultant list1 and three (3) from the ABAG cooperative
procurement bench2. The City received two (2) proposals as briefly described herein.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the preferred consultant’s
proposed scope of work and budget, and to recommend the City Council authorize the
City Administrator to execute a contract with Michael Baker International for preparation
of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
ANALYSIS
The Request for Proposals (RFP) identified the City’s desire to retain the services of an
experienced consultant team to prepare a new Housing Element for the 2023-2031
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning period, related rezoning (optional
task if necessary), and environmental review (the level of CEQA analysis needed would
be determined following completion of the Sites Inventory analysis).
Project Proposals: The City received two (2) proposals. Both proposals were from
consultants from the City’s On-Call Consultant Selection List1 and who were vetted by
ABAG through the Cooperative Procurement Bench. EMC Planning group has
approximately 30 years of experience with the City of Gilroy, including for example
preparation of the Environmental Impa ct Report for the 2040 General Plan. Michael
Baker International has approximately 10 years of experience working with the City of
Gilroy, including preparation of the City of Gilroy 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan.
Proposal Evaluation: In accordance with the RFP and the City’s standard evaluation
and scoring criteria, proposals were evaluated based on the consultant’s understanding
of the scope of services; qualifications and experience; references; overall quality of the
response to the RFP; and cost proposal. The proposals were reviewed and scored
separately by the Community Development Director (Karen Garner) and the project
planner (Cindy McCormick). The strengths and weaknesses of each consultant team
were discussed, and the individual scores were averaged to determine the preferred
consultant team. The total average score and budget for each consultant is provided in
the table below.
1 On February 22, 2021, the City Council approved the On-Call Consultant Selection List for Planning
Services, Environmental Reviews and Historical Evaluations (21-RFQ-CDD-330).
2 Bench Consultants were screened by ABAG/MTC for minimum qualifications including, but not limited to
Housing Element preparation, experience developing plans, policies, and programs related to housing
production and resident protections, hourly rates, and quality of reference checks.
Rank Consultant Name Total
Score
Total Base
Budget
Budget with
all options
1
Michael Baker International (MBI)
Base Budget: $224,855
Rezoning Option: $12,150
MND/EIR Addendum: $30,000
Market Scenario Test Option: $7,130
Study Session Option: $7,020
Contingency: $25,000
97
$224,855
$306,155
including all
options
2
EMC Planning Group
Base Budget: $335,453 (301,247)3
Rezoning Option: $10,475
Initial Study/ND: $39,850
Potential Hazards Update: $27,500
Spanish Translation: $17,732
90
$335,453
(301,247)3
$431,010
(396,804)3
including all
options
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Michael Baker International (MBI), for the
following reasons:
1. Although both consultants have completed Housing Elements for the 5 th cycle,
only MBI has completed preparation of Housing Elements for the 6th cycle,
pending HCD approval4. Additionally, MBI’s subconsultant has prepared
approximately 15 Housing Elements for the 6th cycle. Experience with the 6th
cycle update process will be invaluable, given extensive requirements related to
community engagement, affirmatively furthering fair housing laws, and increased
scrutiny of the sites inventory.
2. MBI’s experience preparing the City’s 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan in 2020 can
be used as a starting point for discussion on potential Housing Element
programs. Community engagement from that effort also brings lessons learned
on what has and hasn’t worked in Gilroy in terms of resident and stakeholder
participation.
3. MBI’s proposal includes a dedicated Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH) chapter. In their experience working on the 6th cycle update for other
cities, MBI understands HCD’s expectations regarding the new and extensive
AFFH requirements for the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
3 EMC offered to reduce their sub-consultant budget by $34,206, given staff’s concerns about
subconsultant overhead costs.
4 Housing Elements for the County of San Diego, City of Redlands, City of Lakewood, City of Escondido,
and San Juan Capistrano have been completed and are pending HCD review and approval.
4. MBI’s proposal reflects their intent to ensure that the eight Guiding Principles
described in the 2040 General Plan are used “as a road map to incorporate the
spirit of the first seven Principles into the eighth — Support Housing Options”,
illustrating their understanding that economic growth, fiscal strength, and public
safety, etc. are also an important component of Gilroy’s vision for the future.
5. MBI’s proposal includes an in-house team of experienced “housing planners”, as
illustrated in their key team member summary, without a heavy reliance on
subconsultants that drive up the budget with additional overhead costs.
6. MBI provided the lowest bid and the greatest flexibility and options for how the
budget can be utilized (e.g., consolidating one or more of the HNRC, Planning
Commission, and/or City Council meetings5 to avoid unnecessary repetition).
MBI’s cost proposal also included a 10% contingency.
Proposed Scope of Work
Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination: At the project kickoff meeting, the
MBI project team and City staff will review and refine the scope of work and discuss
expectations and assumptions. MBI and City staff will also review the project schedule
and list of critical tasks needed to proceed toward adoption by the January 31, 2023
statutory deadline. MBI will work with staff to integrate tasks, as feasible, to potentially
reduce the overall project timeline and provide a buffer for unexpected delays.
NOTE: Staff will share Council feedback received during the October 25 th study session
introducing potential concepts for an affordable housing policy. This early feedback will
serve as a starting point for task 2 (community engagement ) and task 3 (research and
analysis / goals, policies, and quantified objectives). Council’s initial feedback can also
be used to structure the content of the recommended study session described in the
“optional scope components” section of this staff report.
Task 2 – Community Outreach and Engagement: This task includes the community
and stakeholder outreach and engagement strategy; outreach materials, translation,
interpretation; and community outreach/engagement meetings and activities.
Task 3 – Research and Analysis: This task includes evaluation of 2015-2023 Housing
Element goas and accomplishments; housing needs assessment; Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); housing resources and sites inventory; housing
constraints; and the Housing Plan (goals, policies, and quantified objectives). An
administrative draft report and findings will be prepared by the consultant for staff
review, prior to preparation of the draft Housing Element.
Task 4 – Draft and Final Housing Element documents: This task includes
preparation of the Draft Housing Element; Public Hearing presentations of the Draft
5 The cost proposal assumes “virtual” consultant presentations at study sessions and public hearings,
however the budget can be adjusted to accommodate in-person attendance, as desired by the Council.
Housing Element to the HNRC, Planning Commission and City Council; review of public
comments, preparation of responses and revisions; coordination with HCD during their
60-day review; and preparation of a Final Draft to address HCD’s initial comments.
Task 5 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): It is not yet known whether
the City has adequate sites to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA; however the recent adopti on
of the 2040 General Plan (GP) may provide adequate capacity to avoid rezoning to
meet the City’s RHNA. Therefore, it is possible the Housing Element could be adopted
with preparation of an Addendum or a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration (M/ND). If
rezoning is necessary, or other findings in the Initial Study are deemed significant and
unavoidable, a more robust environmental document would be required.
The recommended budget amount ($306,155) includes up to $30,000 (above the
baseline budget) for preparation of an MND or an Addendum to the 2040 GP EIR. If
required, an Amendment to the 2040 GP EIR would likely range closer to $150,000.
However, if a full EIR is required (unlikely), the additional fee would likely range from
$150,000 to $250,000. Staff should have a relatively firm idea of the level of CEQA
analysis needed at the beginning of the 2022 calendar year. Staff will return to the
Council should it be determined that a more robust CEQA analysis and corresponding
budget adjustment is needed.
Task 6 – Housing Element Adoption and Certification: This task includes
presentation of the Final Draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element at public hearings
before the HNRC, Planning Commission, and City Council. After Council adoption, the
Housing Element update must be submitted to HCD for its final review. MBI will serve
as the City’s liaison with HCD and will assist the City in achieving certification of the
Housing Element. Any additional unanticipated changes required by HCD would be
charged as a time and materials budget.
Optional Scope Components: MBI included four optional budget items, totaling
$56,3006, that staff has included in the recommended budget of $306,155. If any of
these optional budget items are deemed unnecessary, the unspent budget could be
allocated towards other tasks including in-person meetings (see assumptions below),
additional outreach, or other tasks agreed to by the City and the consultant.
Virtual Study Session: MBI recommends a single or joint study session before
the HNRC, Planning Commission, and/or City Council early in the process to seek
input on specific key issues and opportunities, and key components of the Housing
Element Update. A key objective is to review, prioritize, and strategize the specific
accomplishments, timelines, and resources for the programs/goals. Budget: $7,020
CEQA MND/EIR Addendum: As provided in the CEQA discussion, it is anticipated
that the Housing Element could be adopted with preparation of a Negative
Declaration (M/ND) or an Addendum to the 2040 GP EIR. Budget: $30,000
6 The budget includes a time and materials estimate.
Market Scenario Test: Given increased HCD scrutiny on the housing sites
inventory, this option is intended to provide a rationale to justify the redevelopment
of certain non-vacant, commercial or mixed-use sites. A proforma analysis(es)
could be used to test the viability of different development scenarios including
housing types and densities. Budget: $7,130.
Rezoning: If it is determined that existing sites cannot meet the City’s RHNA,
rezoning to higher densities would likely be required. MBI will work with staff to
identify suitable sites and rezoning scenarios, including zoning options,
assumptions and development trends, the likelihood of development, and projected
yields ability to meet the RHNA. Budget: $12,150.
Contingency. The budget includes an approximate 10% contingency to account for
unforeseen circumstances or miscellaneous change orders. These funds can only be
used with prior City authorization and would be billed on a time and materials basis.
Assumptions and Exclusions: Major assumptions include the following:
Rezoning and CEQA analyses beyond the respective $12,150 and $30,000
allocation would require a budget adjustment to be approved by the City Council.
Consultant attendance at meetings and hearings will be virtual unless the budget is
adjusted to accommodate in-person meetings on a time, travel, and materials
basis. The Council could increase the budget to accommodate in-person meetings.
Otherwise, Staff would work with the consultant to stay within the budget through
cost savings in other areas (e.g., consolidating HNRC, Planning Commission, and
City Council in-person meetings).
Additional assumptions and exclusions are included on page A-12 and A-13 of the
MBI proposal.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, award a Contract to Michael Baker
International in the amount of $306,155 for preparation of the 2023-2031 Housing
Element and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated
documents.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Award the contract to EMC Planning Group. Staff does not recommend this option
primarily because EMC has not prepared a housing Element for the 6th RHNA
cycle which has significantly different legal requirements than the 5th cycle.
2) Reject all proposals. Staff does not recommend this option as this would delay the
start of the Housing Element which is anticipated to take longer to prepare than
previous cycles due to additional requirements related to community engagement,
affirmatively furthering fair housing, and the sites inventory.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total budget required for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is significantly higher than
in previous cycles due to state legislation regarding identifying adequate sites to
accommodate RHNA, and increased community outreach associated with Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing requirements.
The total recommended contract amount is $306,155. The City has $103,603 in LEAP
and REAP grant monies7 to fund the Housing Element, leaving a $202,552 balance.
The FY22-23 approved budget for Community Development includes adequate funding
in Contractual Services to cover the balance.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Council’s approval, the contract will be executed, and Staff will work with the
consultant to refine the scope of work (e.g. virtual versus in-person meetings) and
project schedule.
Attachments:
1. MICHAEL BAKER_No. 22-RFP-CDD-464_proposal
2. EMC Planning Group_22-RFP-CDD-464__proposal
3. MBI Agreement for Housing Element Services 10.11.21
4. Exhibit B - Scope of Work
5. Exhibit C - Milestone Schedule
6. Exhibit D - Budget
7 Grant funds for the Housing Element update include $71,000 in Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) funding and
$36,203 in Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) funding.
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Affordable Housing Policy
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide feedback/direction to City staff.
POLICY DISCUSSION
On February 20, 2021, the City Council held its annual goal-setting workshop to review
goals for Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year 2023 and provide direction to staff in th e
development of their upcoming two-year workplan. On March 29, 2021, the Council
included a goal to “Ensure Availability of Safe, Affordable Housing for all Gilroy
Residents” as part of the FY22-23 workplan. The Council also included the development
of an “Inclusionary Housing/Affordable Housing Incentive (in-lieu fee) Policy” as a core
activity within the Community Development Department’s FY22-23 workplan.
An Affordable Housing policy could take the form of an Inclusionary Housing policy, an
Affordable Housing Incentives policy, or a combination of both. An Inclusionary policy
would require all residential developments over a certain size to restrict a certain
number of units as affordable, while an Affordable Housing Incentives policy would take
a “carrot versus stick” approach to meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) and other affordable housing goals by incentivizing and reducing
barriers to build affordable housing.
The purpose of this study session is to present the Council with a menu of housing
policy options for discussion and direction on which options are preferred by the Council
for further analysis. Staff will then review Council’s preferred option(s) with the City’s
Housing Element consultant as a starting point for draf ting the goals, policies, and
quantified objectives section of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
BACKGROUND
The following background information on the City’s existing housing policies and
regional housing needs may be helpful when considering housing policy options for
Gilroy.
2015-2023 Housing Element: The current Housing Element has a number of goals that
can help guide the Council’s policy direction. It should be noted that the City’s Housing
Element consultant will be reviewing all of the 2015-2023 goals as part of the research
and analysis component of the Housing Element update. Although the 2007 -2014
Housing Element included an action item (Action 4-2.8) to consider adoption of
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a 20 percent affordable housing requirement
for all new residential developments of ten (10) or more units, the City did not pursue
the Inclusionary Ordinance during the 2007-2014 planning period and did not carry
forward that action item to the 2015-2023 planning period. However, the 2015-2023
Housing Element did include policies to incentivize affordable housing and incentivize
other types of housing such as micro units. Staff has highlighted some of these policies
here:
Policy H-1.G (Study Micro-Units): The City shall conduct a study of the appropriateness
of “micro-units” in Gilroy and the existing barriers in the Zoning Ordinance to the
provision of micro-units. Based on the findings of the study, the City will make a
determination of the appropriateness of micro -units in Gilroy and, if determined
appropriate, identify methods for eliminating barriers, and establish appropriate
development standards.
Policy H-2.A (Develop Affordable Housing Incentives): The City shall review and revise,
as appropriate, current incentives and regulatory concessions available to developers
for the development of affordable housing throughout the city, and especially within the
Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan area and Neighborhood District. Incentives and
regulatory concessions may include, but are not limited to parking reductions, and
reduced setbacks.
Policy H-2.G (Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households): The
City shall review and incorporate appropriate regulatory incentives, financial incentives,
and other policies that encourage the development of housing units for extremely low-
income households. The City shall encourage and support the development of housing
for extremely low income households within future affordable housing projects through
various strategies and programs that may include: assistance with entitlement
processing; and modifying development standards and granting concessions and
incentives for projects that provide housing for lower income families.
2015-2023 RHNA: The City has met its low-income and above-moderate income RHNA
targets but remains deficient in the very-low and moderate-income categories. Gilroy’s
success in meeting and exceeding the low-income category is due to the federal Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program that has been used by developers of
affordable housing in Gilroy.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2015 – 2023)
Income Level Unit
Allocation
2015 – 2019
Units
2020
Units
Total Units
Permitted
Units Remaining
Very Low
(31 – 50% AMI)
236 63 76 139 97 VL
Low
(51 – 80% AMI)
160 487 80 567 0 Low
Moderate
(81 – 120% AMI)
217 24 15 39 178 Mod
Above Moderate
(Above 120% AMI)
475 1,124 172 1,196 0
Total Units: 1,088 1,698 243 1,941 275 Remaining
as of 12-31-2020
2023-2031 RHNA: The City’s draft RHNA for the 2023-2031 planning cycle is 1,773
units, including 669 very-low income units (38%), 375 low income units (22%), 200
moderate income units (11%), and 519 above-moderate income units (29%). If the City
adopts an affordable housing incentives policy, it could aim to require or incentivize
units in the very-low income category, given the City’s large allocation and past difficulty
in obtaining this category of units. If the City adopts an inclusionary housing policy, the
income categories and minimum percentages could generally match the 2023-2031
RHNA income categories (e.g., at least 38% of the affordable rental units shall be in the
very-low income category), however, as previously noted, whereas federal tax incentive
programs encourage construction of low-income housing, no programs currently exist
for very low income. Thus, financing of such units is more challenging and often
requires other forms of creative financing or subsidies.
Neighborhood District (ND) Policy: The purpose of the Neighborhood District (ND)
land use designation is to encourage compact, complete, neighborhood-style
development. The ND land use designation is generally applied to vacant land that is
currently outside the City’s Urban Service Area but within the City’s Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) area. The UGB area applies to land within the Planning
Boundary/Sphere-of-Influence that is intended for urbanization at some point in the
future.
Prior to approval of annexation and other land use entitlements, a Specific Plan must be
prepared for the entire Neighborhood District area. The Specific Plan is implemented by
the Neighborhood District Zoning District and the Neighborhood District policy, which
provide further guidance on topics including phasing of development, location and mix
of uses, site and architectural design, affordable housing, circulation, and open space.
Each Neighborhood District (ND) development is required to construct a minimum of
fifteen percent (15%) of its units at affordable prices. Affordable housing units are
integrated throughout the Master Plan or Specific Plan area, rather than clustered in
affordable housing pockets. Although the RDO process (described next) is no longer in
effect, the ND policy was structured to provide “a higher number of points” to projects
with a “higher percentages of affordable units”. The ND policy also allows the potential
for a “reduction in City development standards (e.g. zero-lot line developments,
clustered housing on smaller lots, and smaller unit sizes).” The Glen Loma Specific Plan
area is a successful example of how the ND policy has resulted in affordable housing
units in Gilroy. Other areas with the ND designation include the Wren/Hewell area at
the north end of town, currently under review by LAFCO, and an area at the south end
of Gilroy near the Sports Park. These sites are shown on the Gilroy 2040 Land Use
Map.
Residential Development Ordinance (RDO): The City’s RDO policy is no longer in
effect due to state legislation (e.g., SB330), however there are components of the policy
that could be carried forward to a new affordable housing policy. The RDO policy was
set up very similar to what an Inclusionary policy might look like. For example, it
included resale controls to ensure that the dwelling units remain affordable to very low,
low, and moderate-income households. Rental price controls would be restricted for a
minimum of 55 years while ownership units would remain affordable for a minimum o f
30 years. The RDO policy also specified the minimum percent in each affordability
category (e.g., no more than 30% of the affordable units can be in the 100%-120% AMI
category1).
1 Note; The RDO categories were not structured in the same manner as RHNA (e.g., 100-120% versus
80-120%)
Density Bonus Ordinance: Government Code sections 65915 through 65918, known
as the density bonus law, were enacted to encourage developers to build affordable
housing by requiring local governments to provide meaningful incentives in exchange
for those affordable units. The required incentives include both a density bonus and
exceptions from City development standards. To qualify for these incentives a
developer must commit to make available a certain percentage of the units affordable to
moderate, low, or very low-income persons. The amount of the density bonus is based
on the level of affordability provided, using a sliding scale provided by density bonus
law. In addition, exceptions from one or more of the City’s development standards are
based on the percentage of affordable units provided. The City implements the density
bonus state law through Section 30.46.40 of the Gilroy City Code which simply
references Government Code Section 65915 et seq.
ANALYSIS
Inclusionary Policy Option
An Inclusionary policy would require all residential developments over a certain size to
restrict a certain number of units as affordable and would be in line with what many
other jurisdictions throughout California have implemented to help achieve RHNA goals.
The 2007-2014 Housing Element suggested that 20% of all units in a 10+ unit
development be affordable; however as provided in the attached spreadsheet, a 15%
requirement is most common in Santa Clara County with triggering thresholds ranging
from one (1) to 10-unit developments. A 15% requirement would also be consistent with
the City’s existing Neighborhood District policy. The 15% requirement is commonly used
in part due to an inclusionary housing policy established by the City of San Jose in
2013. The City of San Jose conducted an economic feasibility study when developing
the program and determined that a 15% affordability requirement would be
economically feasible for developers. There are many variables considered as part of
economic feasibility including land costs and expected sales prices and rental rates,
some of which are likely very different for Gilroy as compared to San Jose. Council may
consider conducting an economic feasibility study before determining a specific
percentage of affordable units and would be strongly recommended should Council
wish to consider an affordability requirement above 15%.
As provided in the background, an Inclusionary policy would allow the City to control
how long the units would remain affordable and what percentage of the units would be
required in each income category. The Inclusionary polices could be applied city-wide or
they could be applied to certain areas (as done for the neighborhood district zone) or
certain types of projects (e.g., Planned Unit Developments). Given that developers are
typically seeking exceptions to City Code (e.g., reduced setbacks, reduced minimum lot
sizes), applying inclusionary requirements to PUD projects would help ensure that the
City is realizing a benefit when granting PUD exceptions. For example, an Inclusionary
policy could require that all proposed PUDs with 10 or more units provide at least 15%
of those units as affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income persons, where the
minimum number of affordable units is rounded up. Alternatively, the City could
incentivize affordable units in PUDs by offering a suite of development standard
exceptions that are tied to the number of affordable units offered (see Incentives
discussion).
Most jurisdictions offer developers one or more alternative ways to satisfy their
inclusionary housing requirements. The most common alternative is to pay a fee in lieu
of constructing units on-site. In lieu-fees2 may be combined with housing trust funds and
other funding sources to help finance the construction of affordable housing off site or
subsidize units to increase the level of affordability. However, cities often set fees well
below the actual cost of building on-site units, which makes in-lieu fees more attractive
to developers and less likely to result in a substantive quantity of affordable units. For
this reason, some cities intentionally set the fee at a level that is intended to discourage
the use of the fee option.
Additionally, the Council may decide to only allow in-lieu fees under certain
circumstances. For example, as provided in the attached spreadsheet of Inclusionary
policies in Santa Clara County, some cities only allow in-lieu fees in projects with 6 or
fewer units/acre, while other cities require Council approval for in-lieu fees for projects
over a certain unit threshold. It is recommended that a housing in-lieu fee study be
conducted if the Council wants to consider in-lieu fees under certain circumstances.
Staff can provide the Council with an estimate of what an in-lieu fee study would cost at
the next housing element study session.
While Inclusionary policies are a common tool cities use to meet their RHNA targets,
they may have unintended consequences such as lower quality materials in the
construction of units, fewer amenities or higher prices of market -rate units as means to
off-set reduced income potential of affordable units.
Incentives Policy Options
An Affordable Housing Incentives policy would take a “carrot versus stick” approach to
meeting the City’s RHNA. A Housing Incentives policy could target specific housing
types such as micro-units, accessory dwelling units, or missing-middle housing
(duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes), or it could target specific needs such as extremely low-
income households, large households, and senior households. The City could also
incentivize developments within specific areas such as the Downtown Specific Plan
area or the mixed-use zoning district along First Street.
Bonus Concessions beyond state law: Although the Density Bonus state law allows
concessions for construction of affordable units, the City could create a menu of
additional concession items that a developer could choose from depending on the level
2 In-lieu fees are different than linkage or impact fees, which are structured to require
fees instead of constructing onsite inclusionary units.
of affordability provided (e.g., extremely low-income units). This type of program could
be applied City wide or only to certain areas or certain types of development such as
PUDs where the developer is asking for exceptions to the City’s development
standards. Additional thought and analysis would be needed on the types of
concessions that would be feasible and acceptable in Gilroy. For example, while parking
exceptions may be appropriate near high quality transit stations such as BART and
Light Rail, they may not work as well in a suburban city like Gilroy where residents are
more likely to drive to large employment centers in more urbanized bay area cities.
Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units: The Santa Clara County Collaborative has
received preliminary agreement from HCD to allow cities to count ADUs towards RHNA
as follows: 30% above moderate income, 30% moderate income, 30% low-income, and
10% very-low income. Previously the city was counting all ADUs under the moderate -
income category. ADUs therefore represent a great option for meeting Gilroy’s RHNA in
both the current RHNA planning cycle 3 and the upcoming 2023-2031 planning cycle.
One way to incentivize ADUs is to provide residents with a jump-start on designing their
ADU. Some cities have partnered with local architectural and engineering firms on
developing stock ADU plans that could be purchased by a homeowner for a reduced
price with options to customize for a higher price. If this housing incentive option is
desired by the Council, staff can begin reaching out to local architects and enginee rs for
interest and feedback.
Incentivize Micro-units: As provided in the background discussion, the current housing
element provides that the City should consider the potential for micro-units in Gilroy,
identify methods for eliminating barriers, and establish development standards for
micro-units, if such housing is determined to be appropriate for the City. For example,
the City could look at the appropriateness of allowing micro -units in the City’s high-
density residential districts and the mixed-use district along the First Street corridor.
Micro-units are currently undefined in the City Code and may have widely varying
definitions depending on the cities in which they are built. For example, a micro -unit in
San Francisco may be much smaller than a micro-unit in Gilroy. Micro-units could be
thought of as a tiny house or a small studio space with a private bathroom and a small
kitchenette. Alternatively, it could be located in a building with a communal kitchen
space for multiple micro-units. The City does not have minimum floor area standards, so
micro-units are not prohibited by the code; however, there are no incentives for a
developer to propose micro-units in Gilroy. Micro-units could help the City meet its
RHNA because theoretically a developer would build more small units and fewer larger
units on a property so long as the unit count meets the density allowance.
Incentivize Missing Middle Housing: Missing middle housing generally includes
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts which are generally more affordable
(by design) since the units tend to be smaller and higher in density than single -family
3 Staff has also been notified that the City can retroactively count ADUs to these expanded categories for
the entire 2015-2023 RHNA cycle.
dwellings. Cottage Courts are undefined in the City Code but could be described as a
group of small, 1-to-2 story detached structures arranged around a shared court visible
from the street, and accessible to the front entrance of each dwelling unit. The Santa
Clara County Collaborative is working with HCD to determine if cities can count smaller
units such as duplexes towards moderate and lower-income RHNA units (as being done
with ADUs). Missing middle housing units are generally held under one ownership4 and
therefore typically provide rental housing with the owner living off -site or on-site in one
of the units. These types of units could potentially be used for senior group housing or
to accommodate multi-generational households.
Missing middle housing typologies are taking the forefront in housing legislation like SB
9 and planning efforts such as ABAG’s Missing Middle Working Group where incentives
and development standards for missing middle housing are being explored. The City’s
General Plan/Objective Design Standards consultant is also currently drafting a white
paper on the potential for missing middle housing in Gilroy as part of the SB2 funding
grant. If this housing incentive option is desired by the Council, staff will return to the
Council with further analysis on where missing middle housing would be appropriate
and what types of incentives or development standards would be needed to
accommodate missing middle housing (e.g., setbacks and height requirements). For
example, the City could amend the City Code to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes to
be approved ministerially so long as the project complies with objective design
standards. Currently, the city requires an Architectural and Site Review Permit for
residential developments having two (2) or more total units on a single parcel 5.
Incentives are a great way to encourage a specified type of housing, however they may
not result in long-term affordability since they generally lack restrictive covenants that
maintain their affordability over an extended period of time.
Community Outreach: Community outreach will be an important component of
developing an Affordable Housing policy to ensure that the City is meeting the needs of
existing residents. Policies to encourage or require affordable housing will be discussed
with residents, service providers, and development stakeholders to ensure a broad
perspective from the community is considered. Any affordable housing policy will also
be reviewed by the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee and the
Planning Commission at meetings that are open to the public. An extensive community
engagement program will be developed as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element
update.
Anti-displacement Standards: The Council may want to also consider anti-
displacement standards to protect city residents, regardless of the type of policy
adopted. While cities and counties are expected to remove governmental constraints to
increase housing production, there may be unintended consequences, including
4 Cottage courts would likely be a for-sale product type but could be rented out.
5 ADUs are an exception to this requirement.
displacement of low-income residents when neighborhoods are redeveloped.
Gentrification can occur where land is less expensive and older, lower-density or under-
utilized housing stock is redeveloped into a new, higher-density housing project that
brings wealthier wage earners willing to pay higher housing costs and rents. However,
there are a variety of tools available to revitalize neighborhoods wi thout also gentrifying
them. Additional detail can be provided at a future council meeting, but the most
prevalent types of anti-displacement tools are rent control, just-cause eviction
ordinances, relocation agreements, and tenant option to purchase agree ments.
Further Analysis: The information provided in this report is intended as a broad
overview of a complex and multi-faceted issue. An effective affordable housing policy
that meets the needs of Gilroy will require further research, data analysis, outr each, and
input from the community. This includes census and demographic data, economic data
and analysis of state housing laws. With the many new and modified state housing
laws, such as those related to density bonus, ADUs or more recently SB 9 that ca n
allow a lot split or additional units on a single-family lot, an analysis of each of these is
necessary to anticipate how they support affordable housing in Gilroy and how they can
work in tandem with local policies to maximize opportunities. As data and information is
gathered and analyzed, it will help point towards affordable housing policies that will
best serve the needs of the Gilroy community.
Council Direction:
To help provide direction to staff at this early stage, staff recommends that council
provide feedback on the outcomes they would like to achieve with an affordable housing
policy and any aspects that are particularly important for consideration. For example,
some outcomes for an affordable housing policy might be;
Meet RHNA goals set by the state.
Identify and incentivize developers, nonprofits or other partners who can provide
or assist in providing affordable housing.
Provide a wide variety of affordable housing types that are integrated throughout
the city.
Inclusionary Policy Option: If the Council desires an Inclusionary policy, staff
recommends that it be modeled after the City’s Neighborhood District policy and former
RDO policy. Staff will return to the Council with further analysis on the different
components of an Inclusionary policy and make recommendations such as minimum
size threshold (e.g., developments with 10 or more units), percent set aside (e.g. 15%),
affordable category set aside (e.g., match 2023-2031 categories), and in-lieu fees
including circumstances where an in-lieu fee is not recommended (e.g., developments
with 7 or more dwelling units). Council may also provide direction to staff on an in-lieu
fee study (recommended if in-lieu fees will be considered) and an economic feasibility
study (to support percent set aside).
The Council may find the attached spreadsheet of Inclusionary policies in Santa Clara
County cities to be helpful for providing direction.
Incentives Policy Option: If the Council would like to explore incentivizing housing
through one of the suggested options or another type of incentive proposed by the
Council, staff will return to the Council with further analysis. If this option is selected,
staff requests that the Council provide direction on which incentives should be further
analyzed:
Bonus Concessions beyond state law
Incentivize Accessory Dwelling Units
Incentivize Micro-units
Incentivize Missing Middle Housing
Other Incentives
Hybrid Option: At the Council’s direction, staff can return to the Council with further
analysis on both an Inclusionary policy and an Incentives policy that includes one or
more incentives selected by the Council.
NEXT STEPS
As provided in the October 18, 2021 staff report for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
contract, Staff will share Council feedback received during the October 25th study
session with the City’s Housing Consultant. Council’s feedback on potential concepts for
an affordable housing policy will serve as a starting point for task 2 (community
engagement) and task 3 (research and analysis / goals, po licies, and quantified
objectives). It is also anticipated that further discussion and refinement of the potential
housing policy options will be discussed during the recommended study session to
occur early in the Housing Element update process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The study session was advertised on the City’s Housing Element update webpage and
through the City’s social media outlets including Friday’s email express newsletter.
Attachments:
1. Santa Clara County Inclusionary Policies
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential
Objective Design Standards City Policy
Meeting Date: October 18, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
Promote Economic
Development
Activities
☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-
Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed -use residential and
multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy, as amended by the Planning
Commission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to state law, the City cannot deny a housing development project based on
subjective reasoning. Therefore, the City has drafted an objective design standards
policy that would apply to all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential
developments in Gilroy. The objective design standards have been drafted to help
ensure that housing development projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum
design expectations. There are several benefits to the adoption of objective design
standards, including but not limited to providing clear and consistent standards that help
increase consistency in decision making and minimize delays in the planning
entitlement process.
POLICY DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)1, the City cannot disapprove, reduce
the density of, or make infeasible (e.g., through conditions of approval), a housing
development project that is consistent with local objective development standards.
Legislative intent indicates that conditions that would give rise to a specific, adverse
health or safety impact finding would occur infrequently. Furthermore, SB 330 (Housing
Crisis Act of 2019) amended the HAA, such that projects that have undergone a
preliminary application review, shall only be subject to the objective standards in place
at the time of the preliminary application review, subject to certain exceptions.
State law defines objective standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective
judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external
and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development
applicant and public official prior to submittal.”
Examples of objective standards in the City’s 2001 Multi-Family Residential Design
Policy include:
• Minimum of two different building materials shall be used on each building
elevation (e.g., stone, wood, masonry, or metal).
• Minimum of two colors per elevation plus a trim and roof color.
Examples of subjective standards from that document include:
• Architectural facades rich in detailing add to the character of the neighborhood.
• All elevations of each building shall be architecturally interesting.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy was awarded $160,000 in grant funding2 to create objective design
standards for mixed-use and multi-family residential projects in Gilroy. Objective design
standards were identified by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) as a priority policy area for the funding. The City hired a consultant
to complete this work with oversight from city staff.
1 Government Code Section 65589.5
2 California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act
On May 3, 2021, an interim set of objective design standards was approved by the City
Council, with an expectation that a more comprehensive set of standards would return
to the City Council for final approval, following review and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission.
On September 2, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered
the staff report and written public testimony related to the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential
and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. The Commission
continued the item to allow staff to return to the Commission with recommended edits to
the draft policy in response to public comments. On September 16, 2021, the Planning
Commission reviewed and accepted staff’s recommended edits in response to public
comments and further recommended that the City Council adopt a resolut ion adopting
the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design
Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and multi-family residential development
projects in Gilroy, as amended by the Planning Commission.
Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is exempt from CEQA review
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is
exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered by the common sense exemption that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact
to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is
not subject to CEQA.
ANALYSIS
Given state limitations on the City’s discretionary review of housing development
projects, it is critical to adopt objective design standards that help ensure that residential
projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design expectations. In addition to
complying with state law, there are several benefits to developing and implementing
objective design standards. These benefits are discussed below:
Increase consistent decision making: Objective design standards help increase
consistency in decision making. With no interpretation or personal preference,
developers will receive consistent direction from project to project and year to year,
even when there is staff turnover.
Minimize applicant delays: Objective design standards will provide development and
design professionals with clear and concise language that help minimize delays,
associated with the need to redesign a project to meet City expectations.
Better utilize staff resources: Just as important as minimizing costly delays to
developers, objective design standards that are easy to comprehend and implement
reduce the amount of time that staff must work with an applicant to design a project that
meets the City’s expectations. This allows staff to approve or recommend approval of
projects in a timelier manner, thereby enabling staff to have more time for
accommodating other customer’s needs.
Promote Good Design: Community design is an important component of the General
Plan. As provided in the Land Use Element, [t]asteful development projects, well-
designed pedestrian spaces, beautiful landscaping, and a lack of visual clutter create an
appealing community for residents and visitors. Gilroy has many areas with excellent
community design characteristics, and others that need attention.
Effective, enforceable, and reasonable policies must be put in place to help ensure that
Gilroy is an attractive place to live and visit. A primary goal for the objective design
standards was to create design standards that would promote good design p rinciples
while still allowing sufficient room for creativity, by not being overly prescriptive (e.g.,
paint colors). Another goal was to develop standards that would minimize the potential
for the type of bad design and safety issues that has plagued some of the City’s larger
residential developments.
As provided in the intent statement preceding many of the objective design categories,
the standards are intended to:
• create an attractive, welcoming, safe, and active interface between private
development and the public realm;
• create a human-scale environment and buildings that are compatible with and
enhance the surrounding area;
• create a sense of place with buildings that are cohesive, well-crafted, and enhance
the public’s experience;
• ensure that buildings include a variety of color palettes and textures with durable
and attractive materials that contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development
and the neighborhood;
• provide pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists with safe and efficient site access and
circulation; and
• ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common
facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a safe environment, and
enhance the pedestrian experience
General Plan Consistency
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
LU 3.3
Residential Building Orientation
Encourage new residential development
to orient buildings toward streets or
public spaces to actively engage the
community and provide complete
neighborhoods.
The objective design standards
implement this policy by
requiring residential entries to
face the public street and non-
residential units to have
transparent glazing. Additional
requirements for end units and
corner buildings also implement
this policy.
LU 3.8 Multi-Family Residential Design
Policy
Encourage new multi-family
development to incorporate distinctive
site and architectural design that also
respects existing and surrounding uses.
The objective design standards
implement this policy through
requirements related to
entryway design, corner
treatments, building and roofline
articulation, and minor and
major massing breaks
depending on building length.
LU 4.10
Outdoor Activities
Encourage outdoor cafes and other
outdoor activities in appropriate
commercial areas, especially
Downtown, to create vibrant public
spaces and maximize pedestrian
activity.
The objective design standards
implement this policy by
including an option to satisfy the
requirement related to corner
buildings by incorporating a
publicly accessible
courtyard/plaza or outdoor
seating for public dining.
LU 7.3 Compatibility with Adjoining Uses
Encourage development and
redevelopment of higher-density mixed-
use development within mixed-use
districts and along corridors to be
compatible with adjacent land uses,
particularly to residential uses through
site and architectural design techniques
that establish transitions between uses
and minimize negative impacts.
The objective design standards
implement this policy by limiting
height or requiring façade
stepbacks, depending on the
building setback from adjacent
residential uses.
Goal LU 8 Support growth and development that
preserves and strengthens the City’s
historic, small-town character; provides
and maintains safe, livable, and
affordable neighborhoods; and creates
beautiful places.
The objective design standards
implements this goal by
requiring: variation in the design
of taller buildings; massing and
roofline breaks for wider
buildings; and a patio, porch, or
stoop for all ground floor
residential units. There are also
several standards that address
crime prevention through
environmental design.
LU 8.13
Limit Light Pollution
Encourage measures to limit light
pollution from outdoor sources, and
direct outdoor lighting downward and
away from sensitive receptors.
The objective design standards
implement this policy by
requiring lighting to be recessed
or hooded, downward directed,
and located to illuminate only
the intended area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Request that staff and the consultant modify the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential
and Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy with specific
direction on what modifications are needed.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The City of Gilroy was awarded $160,000 in grant funding3 to create objective design
standards for mixed-use and multi-family residential projects in Gilroy. The work
associated with creating the objective design standards policy was fully funded by the
grant; therefore, no additional funding is needed.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to state law, the City has drafted the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and Multi-
Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy for all mixed-use residential and
multi-family residential development projects in Gilroy. Such standards are critical to
help ensure that residential projects in Gilroy conform to the City’s minimum design
expectations. There are several benefits to the adoption of objective design standards,
including but not limited to promoting good design principles that have the intent to
create attractive and safe neighborhoods with human-scaled buildings that create a
sense of place and are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Other
notable benefits include providing clear and consistent standards that help increase
consistency in decision making and minimize delays in the planning entitlement
process.
NEXT STEPS
If any modifications are proposed, staff and the consultant will amend the draft objective
design standards based on a consensus of the City Council. Following the City
Council’s adoption of the Policy, staff will post the Policy on the City’s website, advertise
the Policy through the City’s social media, and email a copy of the Policy to the
Planning Department’s list of interested stakeholders.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
3 California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), the 2018 Building Homes and Jobs Act
Notice of the public meeting to consider the draft objective design standards was
published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 8th. The City Council public hearing packets
are available through the City's upcoming meetings webpage. The draft objective design
standards and the date of the City Council meeting was also posted to the dedicated
Objective Design Standards webpage.
Attachments:
1. Public Comment Matrix_09-10-21
2. CC Resolution - Objective Design Standards Policy_10-08-21
3. Comprehensive Draft ODS_10-8-21
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Senate Bill 9 Objective Design Standards Policy
Meeting Date: December 13, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Cindy McCormick
Cindy McCormick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization
☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities
Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All
☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy
SB9 2-Unit Residential Objective Design Standards Policy; and
b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy
SB9 Residential Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to Senate Bill 9 (SB9), the City shall ministerially approve certain lot splits and
housing developments containing two residential units (e.g., duplex) within a single-
family residential zone, subject to certain requirements described in the law. Local
jurisdictions are permitted to require such developments to comply with adopted
objective design standards so long as the regulations do not preclude the minimum
allowances per state law. Staff has drafted applicable objective development and design
standards that should be adopted by the Council prior to the law taking effect on
January 1, 2022. The Policy documents can and likely will be modified as needed to
meet the City’s development expectations and to comply with state law which is subject
to additional interpretation.
POLICY DISCUSSION
California Senate Bill 9 (SB9) was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September
16, 2021 and takes effect January 1, 2022. SB9 requires ministerial (staff level building
permit) approval of a proposed housing development containing no more than two
residential units (e.g., duplex) within a single-family residential zone, subject to certain
requirements. The legislation also requires ministerial approval of certain lot splits to
allow property owners to construct up to two units each on the newly created lots. Under
SB9, the City is permitted, but not required, to adopt an ordinance that is not
inconsistent with the new State law. Staff may recommend a future ordinance, but at
this time staff is recommending adoption of an objective design standards policy.
BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2021, the City Council adopted the Gilroy Mixed-Use Residential and
Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards Policy. The attached draft policy
for 2-unit residential projects largely mirrors that policy but more directly addresses the
smaller scale of residential duplex design. Separately, the attached draft policy for SB9
lot splits highlights requirements of the law and provides additional objective standards
applicable to lot splits, consistent with existing City of Gilroy subdivision standards and
best practices.
Environmental Assessment: The proposed project is exempt from review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65852.21(j) and Section 66411.7(n) relating to implementation of Senate Bill
No. 9 and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Commo n Sense
Exemption) and Section 15308 (Regulatory Actions for the Protection of the
Environment) in that: (1) the adoption of objective design standards does not change
applicable zoning and is necessary to implement state law, (2) it can be seen with
certainty that the adoption of the standard will not have a significant environmental
effect, (3) the standards are to protect aesthetic impacts on the physical environment,
and (4) none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2
applies.
ANALYSIS
Currently, the R1 single-family residential zoning district allows one (1) single-family
home, one (1) accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and one (1) junior ADU for a total of three
(3) dwelling units. The R1 district currently also allows duplexes when located on a
corner lot with a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet and where the duplex would not
increase the overall density on the lot beyond 7.25 dwelling units per net acre.
Potential SB9 Development Scenarios: SB9 removes the City’s discretion regarding
duplex development limitations, effectively permitting two (2) units (attached or
detached) on an R1 Single-family residential designated lot in Gilroy, subject to certain
limitations (e.g., not on historic properties or in very high fire severity zones). The Santa
Clara County Collaborative is working with their legal counsel and seeking guidance
from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to clarify
the total number of units that would be allowed on a site since the SB9 legislation is not
explicitly clear on how SB9 intersects with state ADU law. However, many cities in
Santa Clara County believe the following scenarios represent what could be allowed on
a single-family property with or without a lot split under SB9.
SB9 Project with Lot Split
Unlike SB9 projects without a lot split (discussed next), SB9 allows, but does not
require, the City to permit ADUs/JADUs in addition to the four (4) SB9 units (two units
for each lot) that would be allowed when a property owner splits one single-family lot
into two developable lots. The City’s current ADU regulations permit a property owner to
construct a duplex and two (2) detached accessory dwelling units for a total of four (4)
dwelling units on “duplex or multifamily zoned and developed properties”. The City may
want to amend Gilroy City Code Section 30.54.50 (Duplex ADU Standards) to clarify
that the provision only applies to “R-2” and multi-family zoned properties (R3 and R4) to
minimize any interpretation that the provision would apply to an R-1 property that is
“developed” with a duplex.
SB9 Lot Split Scenario:
Lot 1
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
Lot 2
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
(4) Total Dwelling Units
SB9 Project 2-unit / Duplex Provisions (NO Lot Split)
While the lot split provisions of SB9 (Gov. Code § 66411.7) clearly allow local agencies
to limit total development to two (2) units per new lot, including primary dwelling units,
ADUs, and JADUs, the same language is not present in the two-unit (duplex)
development section. As such, most cities have interpreted the law to allow up to four
(4) units on a single-family property.
NO lot split, 2-Unit/Duplex Scenario:
(1) Duplex or (2) detached Primary Dwelling Units
(1) Accessory Dwelling Unit (attached or detached)
(1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
(4) Total Housing Units (subject to verification by HCD)
Potential Effect of SB9: A property owner can already develop a single-family property
with up to three (3) units including one (1) single-family home, one (1) accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), and one (1) junior ADU. SB9 effectively permits one (1) additional
dwelling unit. However, while Gilroy has approximately 9,125 R1 single-family
residential lots that would be subject to SB9, UC Berkley's Terner Center has published
a report that states that “relatively few new single -family parcels are expected to
become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill”1. The
report states that local market prices, development costs, and physical constraints such
as small lot sizes can limit the number of new homes built under SB9.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could modify the draft policies.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
This staff report and the attached draft policies were drafted by City staff. Other than
attorney fees, no additional funding is needed at this time.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to state law, the City has drafted the Gilroy Duplex Objective Design
Standards Policy and the Gilroy SB9 Parcel Map Lot Split Policy. Given state
requirements for ministerial approval of lot splits and duplex units in single -family
neighborhoods, it is critical to adopt objective development and design standards that
help ensure that such projects conform to the City’s minimum expe ctations. Explicit
development standards also have the benefit of increasing consistency in decision
making; minimizing applicant delays; better utilizing limited staff resources; and
promoting good design principles that help ensure that Gilroy is an attractive place to
live and visit.
NEXT STEPS
1 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf
Following the City Council’s adoption of the two policies, staff will post the policies and
Frequently Asked Questions on the City’s website.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Notice of the public meeting to consider the draft objective design standards was
published in the Gilroy Dispatch on December 3 rd. The City Council public hearing
packets are available through the City's upcoming meetings webpage.
Attachments:
1. CC Resolution - 2-Unit Objective Design Standards Policy_12-13-21
2. CC Resolution - Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy_12-13-21
3. 2-Unit Residential Objective Design Standards Policy
4. Residential Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy
5. SB8-9-10 Article
Memorandum
Date: January 12, 2022
To: Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee
From: Sandra Nava, Housing & Community Development Technician II
Subject: FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and Housing Trust Fund Grant Funding Cycle Orientation
BACKGROUND
We have kicked off the FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Grant Funding Cycle. Staff will provide an overview of
the process, timeline, and the areas of responsibility of the HNRC. Staff will also review the
various documents and supporting information that are part of the process (attached).
ANALYSIS
N/A
NEXT STEPS
Staff will be available for questions.
City of Gilroy
Housing Division
SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Project:Public Service Project A Public Service Project B Public Service Project C Public Service Project D Public Service Project E Public Service Project F Public Service Project G Public Service Project H Public Service Project I Non-Public Service
Project A
Non-Public Service
Project B
Agency:Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 Agency 4 Agency 5 Agency 6 Agency 7 Agency 8 Agency 9 Agency 1 Agency 2
1. Need (Section 2, A2)
High ( 6 pts.)
Med ( 3 pts.)3
Low ( 0 pt.)
2. Targeted Income (Section 2, B1)
High ( 6 pts.)
Med (4 pts.)4
Low (2 pts.)
3. Experience (Section 2, C3)
High (4 pts.)
Med (2 pts.)2
Low ( 0 pts.)
4. Leveraged Funds (Section 3, D)
High (4 pts.)4
Low (1 pt.)
Below (0 pts.)
5. Working with Other Agencies (Section 2, A5 and A6)
High (4 pts.)
Med ( 2 pts.)2
Low ( 1 pt.)
No Score (0 pts.)
Bonus (2 pts.)2
6. Measurable Outcomes and System (Section 2, B3, #1, #2)
High (4 pts.)
Med (1 pt.)
Below (0 pts.)0
7. Program Performance (Information to be provided by HCD staff)
High ( 4pts.)
Med (2 pts.)
Low (1 pts.)
New Applicants (0 pts.)
Corrective Actions
Pending (-2 pts.)
Unresolved (-4 pts.)
-2
TOTALS:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22-RFP-HCD-471
Gilroy CDBG and HTF FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-2024 Grant Proposal Rating Worksheet SAMPLE WORKSHEET
Instructions: Please enter the numeric value of your criterion score in the boxes below. Totals for each project will add up in the bottom row
Name:
FUNDING RECOMMENDATION WORKSHEET SAMPLE WORKSHEET Name:
Project Number Agency Project Rating Ranking
Current City
Funding FY 2021-
2022
Amount Requested
for FY 2022-2023
and FY
2023-2024
Eligible Funding
Types
HNRC MEMBER
Recommended
Funding Amount
(min. $7,500)
Funding Type (Enter
Funding Code)
1 Public Service Project A 0 1 CDBGPS
2
Public Service Project B
0 1 CDBGPS
3 Public Service Project C 0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
4 Public Service Project D 0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
5 Public Service Project E 0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
6 Public Service Project F 0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
7 Public Service Project G 0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
8
Public Service Project H
0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
9
Public Service Project I
0 1 CDBGPS and HTF
10 Non-Public Service
Project A 0 1 TBD
11 Non-Public Service
Project B 0 1 TBD
12 City of Gilroy Recreation
Department Gilroy Youth Center
38,452$ 40,000$
CDBGPS -Council
sets aside $40,000
annually
38,452$ CDBGPS
Total:38,452$ 40,000$ 38,452$
Remaining
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Amount Available*168,000$ 168,000$ (*potential for reduction or elimination of this funding source for public services)
CDBG Public Service (CDBGPS) Amount Available 70,234$ 31,782$
CDBG Non-Public Services Available*300,000$ 300,000$ (*includes eligible public works projects, rehabilitation, and other non public services)
CITY OF GILROY
PREPARATION AND ADOPTION SCHEDULE FOR
2022/2023 & 2023/2024 CDBG & HTF FUNDING CYCLE
DESCRIPTION
DEC.
2021
JAN.
2022
FEB.
2022
MAR.
2022
APR.
2022
MAY
2022
1 Publish Legal Notices in Dispatch
/ Website Posting, etc. (Sandra)
**Send to Sandra by 12/6/21**
Dec 17,
2021
2
Release Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) / Request for
Proposals (RFP) for FY 2022-23
and FY 2023-24 CDBG & HTF
Funds
Dec 17,
2021
3
Public Hearing – Review NOFA
and grant application with
interested parties/individuals
(Virtual)
Jan 11,
2022
11:00 AM
4
HNRC orientation regarding
funding CDBG/HTF programs and
application process
Jan 12,
2022
5
Grant Proposals / Due to City of
Gilroy
Jan 31,
2022
4:00 PM
6
Staff review proposals to ensure
project is eligible, applications
completed correctly and provide
eligible applications to HNRC
Feb 1 –
Feb 10,
2022
7 HNRC meeting where applicants
present on grant proposal
Feb 16,
2022
8 HNRC evaluations and funding
recommendations submitted to
City Staff (email) and staff
develops summary based on
results
Feb 25,
2022
March 4,
2022
9
HNRC considers grant allocations
that will be recommended to
Council
March 9,
2022
10 Preparation of Draft FY 2022-
2023 Annual Action Plan
March
10 – 31,
2022
11 Public Notices to Dispatch (City
Clerk)
**Sandra needs it 10 days
earlier***
March
23, 2022
12
30-day public comment period on
Draft FY 2022-23 Annual Action
Plan
April 1 –
May 2,
2022
13
Public Hearing before the City
Council on the Draft 2022-23
Annual Action Plan
May 2,
2022
14
Deadline to submit FY 2022-23
Annual Action Plan to HUD
May 15,
2022
Two public hearings required throughout the program year
3 HNRC Meetings: January 12, February 16, and March 9, 2022