Planning commission continues review of proposed local density bonus ordinance to Oct. 6 after consultant presentation

At its Aug. 4 meeting, the Millbrae Planning Commission heard a presentation from consultants Harris & Associates on a proposed local density bonus ordinance intended to supplement California’s state density bonus law and then voted 5-0 to continue the item to Oct. 6 to allow additional review.

The ordinance would allow the city to grant additional density bonuses — above those available under state law — for projects in the Millbrae Station area and downtown/El Camino Real boundary in exchange for dedicating units at specified affordability levels. Roscoe Mata, planning manager for the City of Millbrae, introduced the item and said the proposal grows from a city council strategic initiative to prioritize very-low-income housing and encourage downtown redevelopment.

Zaire Marin, project manager for Harris & Associates, summarized how density bonus works and what the city’s supplemental incentives would look like in examples. Marin said density bonus lets a developer build more market-rate units on a site in exchange for including income-restricted units; the extra market-rate units can help offset the lower revenue from affordable units.

Hida Mosesman of Harris & Associates described the proposed local incentives and how they are targeted to projects that already qualify for the state density bonus. Under the consultant examples: for rental projects, a 5% allocation to low-income households would earn a flat 50% local density bonus (in addition to state incentives); a 5% allocation to moderate-income renters would earn a bonus equal to half the state bonus for that category. For ownership projects, meeting the city’s 15% moderate-income requirement would yield a local bonus equal to the state bonus, effectively doubling the bonus available in that scenario. The consultants presented two illustrative calculations using a 10-unit ownership example and a 100-unit rental example to show how many additional market-rate units could result.

Mosesman and Marin also reported outreach and feasibility work: an April 16 property-owner and stakeholder meeting had 14 attendees; the consultants’ financial feasibility update found the city’s current inclusionary requirements are less feasible under current market conditions than when adopted, and that the proposed local density bonus would improve feasibility for developers that meet the inclusionary requirements.

Commissioners pressed technical and policy questions. Commissioner Wong questioned rounding in the consultants’ 10-unit ownership example (2 units rounded up from 1.5), and the consultants acknowledged the slide used simplified, rounded numbers and agreed to add a clarifying note. Wong also pointed out perceived discrepancies between the slide map of the El Camino Real boundary and the city’s online zoning map; the consultants said the map was parcel-based from planning staff and committed to verify it.

Commissioner Nathan (surname on file) asked for clarification about the difference among “concessions,” “waivers,” and “incentives.” Hida Mosesman explained that concessions is the umbrella term used in state law for measures that improve project feasibility (for example, relaxing development standards or parking reductions); she noted recent state rules that affect parking near transit, and said the specific concession types are typically negotiated with applicants. Commissioners asked whether the planning commission would see concessions when a project comes forward; the consultants and staff said projects are generally seen for design review and that discretionary elements would be considered by the commission as applicable.

Roscoe Mata told the commission the city received late correspondence from the California Housing Defense Fund referencing prior ordinance issues and a separate HCD letter to Antioch; staff said those comments appeared to concern cleanup items in the city’s existing density bonus ordinance rather than the policy incentives before the commission, and recommended further legal review. City staff and the city attorney will review the letter and any necessary ordinance language before the Oct. 6 hearing.

With no members of the public requesting to speak, the commission closed the public comment period by motion and then voted 5-0 to continue the item to Oct. 6 to allow time for staff and the city attorney to address the late correspondence and finalize ordinance language. Commissioners and the consultants stressed that the proposal is intended to make the city’s inclusionary requirements more financially feasible and to concentrate redevelopment in the downtown and transit station areas.

The commission asked staff to return Oct. 6 with a revised draft that incorporates cleanup to conform with state law and clarifies the mapping, rounding and example calculations; the commission did not adopt policy changes at the Aug. 4 meeting.