April 7 , 2023

Dear Mayor Oglesby,

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about Seaside’s strategy for addressing 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 616 units. This letter expands on some of the points we discussed a few weeks back.

As Seaside conducts its site inventory to address its RHNA allocation and State housing requirements, LandWatch encourages maximum use of vacant infill and non-vacant developed parcels within developed areas of the City. Upzoning to allow for high density apartments and mixed use should include at least the downtown core, the main transit corridors (Del Monte, Broadway and Fremont) and other already urbanized parts of the City. No doubt the City could upzone and redevelop other areas within the city core (see attached list as an example). LandWatch would be glad to work with you to create policies and incentives that support an infill-first strategy.

Densities of 20 units/acre or more are by default “affordable by design”

Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3) requires a jurisdiction to identify sufficient sites suitable to meet its RHNA for low- and very-low income units The jurisdiction must show that the sites it identifies for lower income units are in fact going to support affordable housing. The statute allows jurisdictions to use higher density as a proxy for lower income affordability if parcels are zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing. To make this determination, the statute allows the jurisdiction to either (1) demonstrate that the zoning allows a specific safe-harbor default density set forth in the statute, i.e., the so-called Mullin densities, or (2) to provide an analysis demonstrating that the (presumably lower) zoned densities of the site identified are suitable to accommodate the lower RHNA. For Monterey County, the current default or Mullin density is 20 units per acre. (See HCD Memorandum, Default Density Standard Option (2010 Census Update), p. 3)

If a jurisdiction does not rely on the default density levels, its analysis would have to evaluate location-specific factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, and past development project experience at densities that accommodate housing for lower income households. The analysis could be based on information from local builders and examples of recent projects, but it cannot simply rely on subsidized housing, inclusionary ordinance housing, or density bonus housing because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlying (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households.

In short, the analysis option requires a lot of local information and potential uncertainty – all for the sake of avoiding an increase to zoning densities. The default densities are simple and certain – HCD must accept them as a sufficient showing that adopted densities are suitable for lower income units.

Building housing on the former Fort Ord will be difficult and costly

To the extent that the City identifies vacant, greenfield land on the former Fort Ord, it will need to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts to biological and other resources — additional impacts that would not occur on infill properties and non-vacant land. As for water, properties on the former Fort Ord that are served by MCWD and identified for residential development can only be served by non-groundwater sources due to the 6,160 unit cap on new residential units served by groundwater, a limitation that does not apply to land within the already urbanized areas of the city. Moreover, ESCA requires that any amount of soil over 10 cubic yards remain on the same parcel it comes from (see Fort Ord Cleanup).

Seaside is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for its Housing Element. That EIR must evaluate alternatives that reduce or avoid significant impacts. If the City chooses to include vacant Fort Ord land in the site inventory, we ask that it also include an alternative that avoids or minimizes the use of such land in order to reduce impacts.

We understand that it may appear simpler to identify in the site inventory vacant land on the former Fort Ord in order to meet HCD’s requirements to show a realistic probability of development. However, HCD shares LandWatch’s focus on infill and development in resource-rich communities. It has a well developed process for determining realistic probability of development for non-vacant infill and underutilized land, which the City should employ (see HCD site inventory guidance). If it hasn’t already, the City should begin the process of identifying non-vacant parcels and determining the realistic development capacity, a critical piece of the HCD process. Again, we would be glad to help with this.

Thank you for your support of infill housing that addresses the needs of local working families and individuals while minimizing urban sprawl, habitat destruction, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Regards,

Michael D. DeLapa
Executive Director