Belvedere poised to send housing element to state

Belvedere’s Planning Commission signed off on the city’s updated housing element.

The commission unanimously voted to recommend approval on Jan. 3, moving the document along to the City Council for approval.

Along with a recommendation to send the updated element to the state Department of Housing and Community Development, the commission also reviewed the environmental impact report and mitigation plan.

Consultant Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, an Oakland firm hired by the city, identified five significant environmental impacts related to the housing plan: air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and tribal resources.

All can be mitigated to less than significant impacts by restricting construction during certain seasons, dust control measures, following air quality best management practices set by the regional air quality agency, and requiring regular surveys on buildings over 45 years to assess for historic significance.

Impacts to the San Pablo song sparrow and migratory birds due to construction and tree removal were specifically identified. Seasonal restrictions and pre-construction surveys would be required.

The housing element was originally submitted to the state in January 2023. In May, the state suggested the city adjust its zoning to support high density. After about six months, the city presented its revised housing plan to residents at an open house.

In November, the commission halted a housing project in Mallard Pointe by requiring an environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality Act. Many residents said that they felt the density of the project, and potential environmental impact to the lagoon, was too severe.

The state requires Belvedere to plan for 160 new residences by 2031: 49 very-low-income dwellings, 28 low-income, 23 moderate-income and 60 above-moderate-income.

The revised housing element calculates a total of 213 units available at various sites citywide. This includes a 33% buffer in the case that any housing sites do not get developed.

Andrew Hill, an urban planner with Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners, said failure to meet these requirements can result in fines of up to $600,000 per month, limited access to state funding and grants, and court approval of housing projects.

However, the city has few vacant parcels available, with only 7.5 acres of usable, vacant land and an average parcel size of a quarter acre. Infill, rezoning and accessory dwelling units have been suggested strategies to accommodate the requirements.

Commissioners also adopted a resolution recommending that the council approve the revised zoning amendments, which are implemented in the housing element.

The main changes to zoning involve incentives — such as 2 additional feet of building height, more density and reduced open space and parking — to redevelop would only be applied to the R3 zone. The existing multifamily units are already aging and in need of renovations, according to Hill.

Hill cautioned that in order to still meet the state’s requirements, the area would have to be developed for lower-income residents.

“That’s a slightly riskier strategy because it means that if the boardwalk doesn’t develop with the same level of affordability as assumed, then the city may need to rezone to make sure that the zoning map has the adequate capacity,” Hill said.

A new mixed-use zone was added to the Boardwalk, mostly around the shopping center and the area adjacent to it. The allowed density is set at 30 to 35 dwellings per acre and heights of up to three stories or 45 feet.

“The idea would be to create and try to promote a mixed-use, walkable downtown consistent with the vision articulated in the general plan,” Hill said.

Additionally, single-family units were removed from the R3, R3C and R2 zones to encourage housing developers to build at the maximum capacity.

In order to ensure some accessory dwelling units are available to lower-income residents, incentives were implemented. If the units are deed restricted, then two accessory dwelling units can be built on lots of at least 15,000 square feet. These units would be at least 1,000 square feet, or 1,200 if there are at least two bedrooms.

“Essentially this would provide a financial incentive,” Hill said.

All zoning changes must be completed by Jan. 31, according to the state requirements.

The revised housing elements also updated the inclusionary requirements. Now, projects of three to six units have to make 15% for moderate-income residents; those with seven to 12 units have to make 15% for very low, low and moderate incomes, with 5% of the total 15% for low and very low; any project over 12 units have to make 20% affordable to very low, low and moderate incomes, with 5% of the percentage for low- and very-low-income residents.

Previously, all projects over three units had to make 20% of the dwellings affordable to lower incomes. This change was in response to the commission’s recommendations at its Nov. 21 meeting.

Larry Stoehr of Belvedere expressed concern over housing site requirements near the lagoon, stating that he believed an explicit measurement should be required when setting setbacks from the waterline.

“It seems to me that there’s a lot of those R2 properties that have property lines way out into the lagoon,” he said.

He also questioned the environmental report and the listed significant impacts, specifically considering the housing sites listed are on the bay.

“I was kind of shocked that the box for geology and soils wasn’t checked after all the process that we went through on Mallard Pointe and the issues around soils and building large projects on bay land muds.”

Jim Allen, of Belvedere, said he had issues with some of the square footage allotments in the housing elements.

“This isn’t really designed to get a whole lot more housing,” Allen said.

The council will review the revised housing element, the environment report  and zoning amendment at its Jan. 16 meeting.