How Schools are Overcoming Financial Barriers to Meet Housing Needs

Introduction, Impediments to Student Housing

Colleges and schools are building housing to address a growing affordability crisis in the Bay Area and elsewhere on the West Coast. High housing costs directly impact these institutions’ ability to attract and retain staff, and the resulting attrition comes with steep financial consequences. For instance, attrition has been estimated to cost school districts in San Francisco and Oakland over $11 million and $12 million annually, respectively (1).

However, financing new housing remains a significant obstacle for many colleges and schools because they do not have the internal capacity to function as developers and landlords. Moreover, increasing reliance on debt to finance new housing can raise long-term sustainability concerns. Rising construction costs further complicate matters, even as new state laws streamline the entitlement process.

Yet, high occupancy rates and long waitlists signal that demand for affordable housing is higher than ever, particularly in high-cost areas. For instance, staff housing built by Santa Clara Unified School District has been occupied at near full capacity — with an extensive waiting list — since its construction in 2002, particularly for much sought-after two-bedroom units (2). This is also true for student housing. Despite opening a new housing project in 2023, students at Santa Rosa Junior College are encouraged to apply early because limited supply is prioritized for low-income students before being allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis (3).  In response, schools are adopting innovative financing strategies to build housing. From public-private partnerships (P3s) that leverage the tax-exempt status and bond funding available to institutions to donor-driven campaigns and grant funding opportunities, developing and operating housing often requires a uniquely complex combination of funding and collaboration. Partnerships with public and private entities are becoming increasingly critical because they bring expertise and resources that schools may lack (4).

Schools are adopting innovative financing strategies to build housing. From public-private partnerships (P3s) that leverage the tax-exempt status and bond funding available to institutions to donor-driven campaigns and grant funding opportunities, developing and operating housing often requires a uniquely complex combination of funding and collaboration.

The following examples from the Bay Area and other parts of the West Coast illustrate how schools are being resourceful in addressing challenges tied to developing staff and student housing.

Public-Private-Partnerships using Low-Interest Bonds – Santa Rosa Junior College

A public-private partnership (P3) is a collaboration between public institutions and private developers to help finance and manage projects. These partnerships have become a leading strategy for financing campus housing because they allow schools to consolidate resources and risks with outside parties (5). Schools avoid the full financial and operational burden of housing projects, while developers gain stable, long-term investment opportunities. This happened at Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC), who partnered with a non-profit developer, National Campus and Community Development Corporation (NCCD), to build on-campus housing.

Opened in the Fall of 2023 at a cost of $75 million, Polly O’Meara Doyle Hall houses 330 students in dormitories with shared amenities. Aligned interests between the school and developer were pivotal to the project’s success. Rather than directly financing the project, SRJC made their land available while NCCD secured tax-exempt bonds through the California School Finance Authority (6). Low interest rates (4.5%-5.5%) over the 40-year life of the bond — paired with high-demand for housing offer NCCD low-risk investment while they retain ownership of the project. Once the bonds are fully repaid, ownership transfers to the college. A model that NCCD has replicated at Orange Coast College, Napa Valley College, and California College of the Arts (7).

For SRJC, this partnership provides facility and operational savings from leveraging NCCD’s expertise, while bond provisions ensure the college maintains control over programming that is aligned with its academic mission.

Polly O’Meara Doyle Hall at Santa Rosa Junior College – Photo Credit: HPI Architecture

Tax-Exempt Land Leases – San Mateo County Community College District

Public-private partnerships are also being used to build housing for school faculty and staff, particularly in high-cost areas. Schools are taking advantage of their tax-exempt status to provide affordable rents to employees (8). Tax exemptions available to public schools and private colleges eliminate liabilities that often inflate project costs. By leasing their land to developers, both parties avoid the tax risk associated with traditional housing projects. This reduces hard costs and enables substantially lower rents.

By leasing their land to developers, both parties avoid the tax risk associated with traditional housing projects. This reduces hard costs and enables substantially lower rents.

This is exemplified by the Employee Housing Program offered by the San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCD), which successfully developed affordable housing on the Cañada College, Skyline College, and College of San Mateo campuses. Apartments built on previously underutilized SMCCD land offer rents that are nearly half the local market rate (8). The projects are tax exempt under California’s Welfare Exemption because they directly support the educational objective of the district (9). Because the project was developed at a much lower cost than what is typical of traditional housing, the rents are still able to cover operating costs, reserves, and debt without relying on the district’s general funds. Inspired by similar efforts in the Santa Clara Unified School District, this type of public-private partnership is becoming a common strategy for developing both staff and student housing in high-cost areas (10).

That said, complications sometimes arise in meeting eligibility requirements. In high-cost areas, staff incomes may exceed the thresholds needed to qualify for very low-income and low-income housing funds. For instance, teachers in San Francisco have faced difficulties accessing housing intended for them because their incomes exceed 30 and 60 percent of the area’s median income (1,11).

In addition, some jurisdictions may request payment in-lieu of taxes (PILOT) to help offset lost property tax revenue. In California, properties qualifying for the Educational or the Welfare Exemption are exempt from property taxes. Local governments may negotiate PILOT agreements with property owners to compensate for lost tax revenue needed to cover city services. These agreements are not mandated by state law, but they are permissible and may be necessary in some low-income areas that struggle to fund services (12).  

Faculty Housing at Skyline College in San Mateo County – Photo Credit: Haley Lan

Donor-Driven Financing – Jesuit Housing at Gonzaga University

Smaller private schools may not have access to the same public funding available to public schools. Instead, some private institutions are drawing on donors to fund housing — particularly when the new buildings are meant to serve a specific purpose.

At Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, the school launched an unprecedented fundraising effort to fund several university initiatives. This included the construction of the Della Strada Jesuit Community, a facility that provides housing for priests serving the university, its preparatory school, and other local ministries. Located near the center of campus, it connects students and faculty to the spiritual mission of the university.

Opened in 2017 at a cost of about $13 million, the 36,074-square-foot facility has 22 living quarters and includes offices, a chapel, and supportive spaces for the Jesuit priests (13). The funding for Della Strada was made possible by a significant contribution from an alumnus, inspired by his own experiences learning from the Jesuit community.

The donation came as a part of 'Gonzaga Will,' conceived seven years prior as the largest fundraising campaign in the school’s history. Ultimately, the fundraising effort greatly surpassed expectations of an already ambitious goal — $250 million — raising over $355 million from more than 40,000 donors (14).  

Private schools, though exempt from property taxes, may not have access to the same funding mechanisms as public schools and may find it effective if they can tap into their donor networks to support housing initiatives.

Private schools, though exempt from property taxes, may not have access to the same funding mechanisms as public schools and may find it effective if they can tap into their donor networks to support housing initiatives.

Della Strada Jesuit Community at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington – Photo Credit: BAR Architects & Interiors

Grant Funded Housing – Project Homekey at Imperial Valley College

When partnerships and donations fall short, grant funding can help fill the gap — particularly to address acute housing needs of disadvantaged students. Grants are highly competitive, but shovel-ready projects can help institutions act quickly when funds become available. Imperial Valley College (IVC) in Imperial, California, successfully applied for State Project Homekey funds to address the urgent needs of students experiencing housing insecurity.

Grants are highly competitive, but shovel-ready projects can help institutions act quickly when funds become available.

Project Homekey was established by the state in June of 2020, dedicating $846 million to convert vacant hotels and other properties to housing to combat homelessness (15).  In partnership with the City of El Centro, IVC used these funds to develop Lotus Living Tiny Homes, a 26-unit community for students experiencing housing insecurity built on an acre of vacant land near the IVC campus provided by the city (16).

Securing funding did not come without challenges. IVC applied for a local Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) grant but was initially unsuccessful. Soon after, the City of El Centro informed IVC of available Project Homekey funds, however the application needed a quick turnaround. With only three days to complete the application, IVC drew from their HEAP application, with much of the necessary information already prepared and ready to submit.

This also expedited construction and reduced costs once funds were secured. Less than three months after the city filed the Homekey application, an interdisciplinary team of city officials, technical experts, and IVC leadership quickly brought the project to fruition (17).

Lotus Living Tiny Homes near Imperial Valley College in El Centro, California – Photo Credit: Back Porch Tiny Homes

Conclusions

Every school faces unique circumstances in securing the funds to build housing. Public schools can leverage their tax-exempt status in partnership with developers and draw on a wide range of funding mechanisms available at the state level. Private schools can also leverage tax-exemptions but may not qualify for the same funding as public schools — to bridge the gap, they can draw on strong donor networks to support their mission.

Schools in economically disadvantaged areas can capitalize on grant opportunities by being prepared with shovel-ready projects when funding becomes available. While every project is unique, success often depends on a combination of creativity, collaboration, and strategic planning to overcome financial hurdles.

By Lorrin French, Assistant Urban Designer

Sources

1.      Christopher, Ben. “To Attract Teachers, Pricey School Districts Are Becoming Their Landlords.” CalMatters, 1 Mar. 2017, http://calmatters.org/education/2017/03/to-attract-teachers-pricey-school-districts-are-becoming-their-landlords/.

2.      Creating Workforce Housing: Kemp Models of Excellence. Urban Land Institute, 2012, https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/One-Pager-Casa-del-Maestro.pdf

3.      On Campus Housing | Housing. https://housing.santarosa.edu/campus-housing.

4.      Jones, Carolyn. “California Is Giving Schools More Homework: Build Housing for Teachers.” CalMatters, 13 Aug. 2024, http://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2024/08/affordable-housing/.

5.      HGA. “Creating Campus Value Through Developer-Led Student Housing.” HGA, 19 Nov. 2021, https://hga.com/creating-campus-value-through-developer-led-student-housing/.

6.      Staff Summary - Sonoma County Junior College District Project. California School Finance Authority, 2020, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/meeting/2020/20200924/staff/4.pdf.

7.      National Campus and Community Development Corporation. https://nccdevelopment.org/. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.

8.      Teacher Housing in California – Education Housing Partners, Inc. – Thompson Dorfman LLC. https://www.thompsondorfman.com/teacher-staff-housing/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

9.      Welfare Exemption for Low Income Rental Housing and Supplemental Clearance Certificate Requirements for Limited Partnerships. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/welfarelowinc.htm. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

10.  HGA. “Creating Campus Value Through Developer-Led Student Housing.” HGA, 19 Nov. 2021, https://hga.com/creating-campus-value-through-developer-led-student-housing/.

11.  2024 Maximum Income by Household Size. San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, 30 Apr. 2024, 2024 AMI-IncomeLimits-HMFA_0.pdf.

12.  PILOT Agreements and Their Potential Impact on a Low-Income Housing Development’s Welfare Exemption. California State Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, 30 Jan. 2014, https://ahcd.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ahcd.assembly.ca.gov/files/Draft%20White%20Paper%28v10%29.pdf.

13.  New Housing Built for Jesuits at Gonzaga, Gonzaga Prep | The Spokesman-Review. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/30/new-housing-built-for-jesuits-at-gonzaga-gonzaga-p/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

14.  Martin, Arcelia. “The Della Strada Jesuit Community Becomes a New Home for 20 Jesuits.” The Gonzaga Bulletin, 29 Nov. 2017, https://www.gonzagabulletin.com/news/the-della-strada-jesuit-community-becomes-a-new-home-for-20-jesuits/article_3ddf73f0-d57e-11e7-b428-230b36b9bbe2.html.

15.  Homekey: California’s Statewide Hotels-to-Housing Initiative. National Alliance to End Homelessness, 19 July 2021, https://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CA-H2H-Case-Study_7-19-21.pdf.

16.  Lotus Living Tiny Homes. Enterprise Community Partners, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/homekey/Homekey-COVID-Response-EL-CENTRO.pdf.

17.  Kirby, Kayla. “Tiny Home Project Completed, 26 Homeless Students to Receive Keys and Move in Soon.” The Desert Review, 7 May 2021, https://www.thedesertreview.com/education/tiny-home-project-completed-26-homeless-students-to-receive-keys-and-move-in-soon/article_1a244042-af98-11eb-afa2-7397f28a33f2.html.

Looking for Land in a Busy City? You Can Use GIS...and Ai

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing the way our society looks and interacts with data. AI, combined with the expanding tools of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), allows for dramatically more efficient data visualization and cost-effective analysis.

As part of my Masters of Urban Planning Capstone project at San Jose State University, I was tasked with identifying the acreage of surface parking lots in our North San Jose study area. This meant finding parking lots on nearly 4,000 acres (over six square miles) of land or identifying hundreds of pools from the view of an airplane window.

Rather than use Google Earth or spend many hours exploring the site area, I made a map using ArcGIS Deep Learning Model, specifically the Parking Lot Classification Tool. This analyzes a raster image file (a digital image file, like JPEGs or TIFFs), pixel by pixel, creating a separate layer designating areas as parking lots as appropriate.

In simple terms, the model looks for color patterns in the picture and provides a data output for visualization, similar to tasking a person with sorting a bag of colored beads. All the grey (parking lot) goes in one pile, and all the others in another pile. It took me just a few hours of developing and modifying a task, then I let the computer run for a few days, to determine that approximately 16% (640 acres, 1 square mile) of the project area is covered by surface parking.

Parking Lot Identification

The mapping process, much like a GIS map itself, is made of layers. Before starting in ArcGIS Pro, I conducted background research. There are many different models, some Deep Learning models are trained to detect objects like cars or to detect pixels for classification, while others detect change over time.

To begin, I used a TIFF file, or a high-quality raster image file, provided by the City of San Jose. In ArcGIS Pro, I imported the raster file and the study area boundary layers, matching the image to the shapefile. After this was the most difficult part: training the model for more accurate results. In order for the program to recognize the various grey patterns and shades of the parking lots – as opposed to the grey of streets or rooftops - I developed training samples for the Parking Lot Classification model. This required creating a new feature class and manually outlining small parking lot section polygons over the aerial image raster file layer.

Figure 1: Parking Lot Classification Model Training Sample Polygons

Once exportation of the training data was complete, I used the Classify Pixels Using Deep Learning tool. After about 70 hours of background runtime using a gaming PC, the preliminary map was complete, more accurately identifying parking lots in purple.

To clean up Figure 2 to Figure 3, I used the Dissolve and Smooth Polygon tools to combine the yellow and purple layers and smooth out the jagged edges of the polygons to create the final parking lot map below.

Figure 4: Map of North San Jose with parking lots shown in a yellow color (Map produced by Hannah Meeks, Fall 2023 URBP 295, City of San Jose Open GIS Data Portal: Santa Clara County 2022 Imagery basemap. Valley Water Open Data Portal: Rivers for Study Area Boundary. Self-Created: Highway Shields.

Applying AI to Planning Practice

The study area is primarily made up of industrial/commercial facilities, home to many large tech companies such as Samsung, Cisco, and PayPal. There is a small amount of mixed-use commercial and residential development as well.

The parking lot analysis showed that a tremendous amount of the study area was dedicated to vehicle parking: land that is essentially storage, and un-activated outside of rush hour or folks grabbing lunch.

As transit options continue to improve, and the private car (or pickup truck, or SUV) loses its primacy in the Bay Area, parking lots represent development potential. The transformation of existing parking lots provides fantastic infill opportunities. This could mean civic or public space – including desirable green spaces – as imagined by Gensler’s architecture firm, Los Angeles cultural center The Mod, as seen in this Curbed article Parking Garages Are Getting a Second Life as Places for People.

Figure 5: Modular buildings inserted into existing parking garage. Image source Curbed

Figure 6: Parking garage used as public space. Image source Curbed

It could also mean much more affordable housing. Not just specially-built affordable housing, but simply dramatically reducing the cost of market-rate housing. According to NPR, parking spaces “can add major costs to building new housing: a single space in a parking structure can cost $50,000 or more.”

Finally, parking spaces too often contribute to urban heat islands. As described in my colleague Laylonni Laster’s article, “heat islands are areas where structures such as buildings, roads, and other infrastructure that absorb and re-emit solar heat are highly concentrated and natural landscapes are minimal…Materials, such as pavements or roofing, tend to absorb and emit solar energy rather than reflect it…Therefore, these materials can contribute to the increase in local temperatures and foster heat island development.”

Urban heat islands pose serious health risks, including heat exhaustion and heat-related illnesses for vulnerable communities, including seniors, and elevates energy consumption, which increases air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The pavement decreases water quality as polluted runoff collects in streams and rivers and impacts aquatic life.

Each of my telltale grey pixels was an area that contributed to urban heat and the health risks they incur. Identifying – and eventually removing - these parking lots can help promote climate change initiatives by policymakers with the addition of plants, trees, and other green spaces to reduce climate change effects.

How does GIS answer planning questions?

When I first began this GIS Deep Learning project it felt overwhelming, but as I researched and accomplished each step, it was attainable. Our project would never have discovered the impact of surface parking lots in this area without the Deep Learning tool. For GIS technicians, it is important to understand when we must execute the GIS steps ourselves versus when we need additional GIS tools in order to solve the community’s needs.

AI is not a solution to all urban planning problems, not by a long shot. But what careful application of computer learning can do is increase the efficiency of some tasks, and deliver more careful analysis to a community’s elected leaders. By taking advantage of built-in processes like the Deep Learning tool, M-Group can work with jurisdictions to provide efficient GIS solutions to communities to ask questions they might not have believed they could afford to ask.

By Hannah Meeks, Assistant Planner

The Secret Weapon in the 6th RHNA

The Bay Area Greenprint: The Secret Weapon For Addressing Climate Change In The 6th RHNA And How To Use It

Homepage screenshot www.bayareagreenprint.org

Homepage screenshot www.bayareagreenprint.org

As planners embark on finding the appropriate housing opportunity sites for the 6th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), it is critical to consider the influence that climate change will have on these new developments, the public health and safety of future inhabitants, and the surrounding ecosystems. Although evaluating the impacts of climate change requires on-the-ground site assessment and thoughtful conversations with neighbors, businesses, and city leaders, there is an online planning tool that can help jumpstart your work in building resiliency into your new housing development decisions. The Bay Area Greenprint is the region’s premiere environmental assessment tool whose user-friendly features are highlighted in a previous post, Bay Area Greenprint - An Exciting and Efficient New Tool for Bay Area Planners. In fact, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has found the tool so useful that the agency is using the Bay Area Greenprint’s environmental data in their new Site Selection tool to assess the environmental viability of city and county housing opportunity sites, and you can too! 

The potential impacts of climate change and the plausible solutions to address global warming are all around us. The Bay Area Greenprint provides a one-stop-shop for climate data across several categories, including Carbon and Air Quality, Water, Agriculture, Urban Greening, and Wildlife that can be applied for both open space preservation and urban infill decisions. Understanding these opportunities and tradeoffs can provide planners with essential strategic direction when considering new development and conservation decisions for the 6th RHNA cycle. As jurisdictions continue to build out in accordance with their general plan, the edge areas of open space around the built-up areas offer a chance to conserve lands for resiliency against the effects of climate change from sea-level rise, for wildlife resiliency, and contribute to carbon sequestration. On the flip side, the infill opportunity sites across the region can play their part in making sure we are creating safe and healthy places for people to enjoy their urban lifestyles even under a shifting climate.

When evaluating the landscape for urban edge housing opportunities, perhaps you’ve wondered about the contribution of vegetation to sequester carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide? Or you’ve heard the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has recommended the evaluation of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems to local groundwater management plans. These new and other Bay Area Greenprint layers can provide a quick evaluation for your project area to ensure new development plans prioritize preserving valuable ecosystems that will be more resilient towards mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Considering the quality of life for new residents is especially challenging to predict under a warmer climate. However, the Bay Area Greenprint offers recommendations to help planners prioritize tree planting to address the urban heat island effect and mitigate air pollution. It can also ensure new development plans incorporate access to parks, bike lanes, and regional trails. Having easy access to outdoor amenities in every neighborhood can help foster community and promote more active and healthy lifestyles as well as reduce automobile emissions. Another important layer in the tool helps inform planners and developers about the threat posed by environmental gentrification that occurs when the urban amenities you plan for in a neighborhood end up leading to the displacement of the existing residents you were trying to help.

This information and much more is just a click away in Bay Area Greenprint! It was created to be a ‘living tool’ that responds to the needs of users and will continue to play this role in the future. Your feedback, thoughts, and recommendations go a long way towards helping other planners with the same questions you’re wrestling with. To learn more about how to take advantage of this free easy-to-use tool, check out the recent Bay Area Greenprint webinar. Feel free to get in touch with Adam Garcia (agarcia@m-group.us) for any questions you might have about navigating this useful environmental planning tool.

DON'T LEAVE $$ ON THE TABLE

By Michelle Audenaert, AICP Associate Planner at M-Group

sb2 GRAPHIC.jpg

A great opportunity is available to California cities and counties through November 30, 2019.  The Department of Housing and Community Development, “HCD,” is offering a non-competitive grant to accelerate housing production through encouraged Priority Policy Areas.  Cities and counties can request up to $160,000; $310,000; or $625,000 depending on their recorded populations of less than 60,000, between 60,001 to 199,999 or over 200,000 respectively.  Grant monies have been gathered through a $75 real estate transaction fee enacted by State Bill 2 in 2017.

Cities and counties may use the funds for a wide variety of activities such as updates to plans or zoning ordinances, planning and building process improvements (including new permit software), and new ordinances that allow for by-right housing permits or objective design standards.  Applications that focus on Priority Policy Areas will require less paperwork and possibly have a shortened review time after submittal. 

Another aspect to note is the minimal requirements for official reporting.  These SB2 grant applications only require one report at close-out to trigger reimbursement of the funds, which must be spent by June 30, 2022.  At the conclusion of each project activity, jurisdictions can submit funding reimbursement requests to HCD.  Entities that are concerned about internal funding availability may incorporate several smaller projects into one application to allow for earlier multi-part reimbursements.

APPLICATION COMPONENTS

Cities and counties wishing to apply for SB2 grant funding must have an HCD-compliant housing element and have submitted Annual Progress Reports for 2017 and 2018.  Once these pieces are in place, applications must include a list of application activities, certification that these activities fall under State or Other Planning Priorities, a project narrative and a budget.  A standard resolution authorizing staff to enter into a contract with HCD must be ratified before the application deadline. “The application must demonstrate a significant positive effect on accelerating housing production through timing, cost, approval certainty, entitlement streamlining, feasibility, infrastructure capacity, or impact on housing supply and affordability.”

Priority Policy Areas:

(a) Rezone to Permit By-right housing;

(b) Objective Design and Development Standards;

(c) Specific Plans or Form based Codes Coupled with CEQA Streamlining;

(d) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or Other Low-Cost Building Strategies;

(e) Expedited Processing;

(f) Housing Related Infrastructure Financing and Fee Reduction Strategies.

 

State Planning Priorities:

1) Promote Infill and Equity

2) Promote Resource Protection- ag lands, natural lands, recreation lands, locally unique landscapes

3) Encourage Efficient Development Patterns

 

Other Planning Priorities:

4) Affordability and Housing Choices

5) Conservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock

6) Climate Change/ Climate Adaptation – flood, fire, vulnerable populations

 

NEXT STEPS

Given the short timeframe for application submittal, focusing on the adoption of HCD’s standard resolution at the City Council or Board of Supervisors and on determining project focus is key.  The application paperwork is not overly complicated, and HCD has indicated a desire to work with cities and counties toward mutually indicated goals (through an “over-the-counter process”).  Once this initial non-competitive grant round has ended, HCD has the option to open a new round of applications that would be competitive for remaining funds. Don’t miss out on this chance for funding for your city’s or county’s projects.

M-GROUP planners are well-versed in the SB2 grant process, having provided support for the following grant applications:

·         City of Cotati: $160,000 funding approved

·         City of Sebastopol: $160,000 in process

·         County of San Benito: $160,000 in process

·         City of Petaluma: $310,000 application in process

Contact M-GROUP today to get your jurisdiction’s grant application started.

408.340.5642 x111

Identifying and Managing Wildfire Risk in California

by Lisa Davison, Environmental Planner at M-Group

Home surrounded by wildland that survived a fire due to good defensible space. Source: 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, April 2016

Home surrounded by wildland that survived a fire due to good defensible space. Source: 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, April 2016

California experienced one of the most devastating wildfire seasons in 2017, with a total of 7,117 fires burning 505,956 acres. The fires in Sonoma and Napa counties burned 146,647 acres and destroyed nearly 8,000 structures in October, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the acreage burned in 2017. The fires in Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles counties burned 303,561 acres and destroyed 1,120 structures in December, and accounted for approximately 60 percent of the acreage burned in 2017.

California is at great risk from wildfires because of its particular combination of weather, topography, and native vegetation. Southern California has the added risk of the Santa Ana winds that appear in the spring and late fall. Fire risks have increased with drought conditions, population growth, and increased development within the wildland-urban interface.

This article describes the various entities that are responsible for identifying and managing wildfire risk in California in order to minimize the loss of life and property from wildland fires in the future.

State-level Responsibilities

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the California Building Code serve as the building blocks for identifying and managing wildfire risk at the state level.

CAL FIRE Mapping

CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL FIRE’s Statewide and County maps (adopted November 2007) depict Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs)[1] that are within the State Responsibility Area (SRA). The SRA identifies where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. The FHSZs in the SRA are further classified as being Moderate, High, or Very High.

[1] The FHSZs identify fire hazard, not fire risk. “Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30 to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. “Risk” is the…

[1] The FHSZs identify fire hazard, not fire risk. “Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that give a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30 to 50-year period without considering modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. “Risk” is the potential damage a fire can do to the area under existing conditions, including any modifications such as defensible space, irrigation and sprinklers, and ignition resistant building construction which can reduce fire risk.

In addition, CAL FIRE has prepared recommendations for Very High FHSZs in those areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Only lands zoned as Very High FHSZ are identified within the LRA. In 2008, CAL FIRE transmitted those recommendations to all local agencies with identified Very High FHSZs. However, this process has its limitations. First, because CAL FIRE only transmits the areas identified as Very High FHSZs to the local agencies, there could be some Moderate or High FHSZs within the LRA that are not being identified. Second, the CAL FIRE zoning designations do not go into effect until they are adopted by ordinance by local agencies. Last, the maps were created in 2008 and reflect outdated information. CAL FIRE is currently in the process of updating the FHSZ maps (Feb 2018).

pic2.jpg

Currently, CAL FIRE is investigating methods for estimating the likelihood of fire occurrence across the State in the coming decades. As part of this effort, CAL FIRE has created a map of annual fire probability for the period 2026-2050. This map is intended for use in the quantification of GHG benefits of fuel reduction activities funded under the 2016-17 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Forest Health Program. 

Strategic Fire Plan for California

The 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California (revised April 2016) was developed by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE. The plan’s vision is to support a natural environment that is more resilient and ensure that man-made assets are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire. The plan identifies goals and objectives that are critical to reducing and preventing the impacts of fire, which revolve around both suppression and fire prevention efforts.

The first goal of the plan relates to the identification and evaluation of wildland fire hazards and recognizing the life, property and natural resource assets at risk. One of the objectives under this goal is to provide regular updates to the Very High FHSZ maps. Another objective under this goal is to update existing data for values and assets at risk utilizing GIS data layers and other mapping solutions.

California Building Code

To help manage wildfire risk at the state level, the California Building Code (CBC) contains standards for building materials, systems, and or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings. For example, the 2016 CBC establishes minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building located in any FHSZ within SRA or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire. (A Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area is a geographical area identified by the state as a FHSZ, or other areas designated by the local agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires.)

However, the 2016 CBC standards have limitations. The standards only apply if: 1) the building site is located on land designated as a FHSZ or as a Wildland Interface Fire Area; and 2) the application for the building permit was submitted on or after July 1, 2008. Therefore, these standards do not apply to structures located outside of these designated areas. Additionally, these standards do not apply to structures for which building permit applications were submitted prior to July 1, 2008, regardless of their designation.

Local-level Responsibilities

Local agencies are responsible for identifying and managing wildfire risk within their jurisdictions. Cities and counties have multiple tools at their disposal to reduce wildfire risk, such as the General Plan, zoning ordinance, California Government Code, local fire departments, and Hazard Mitigation Plans. With new levels of concern regarding wildfires, local jurisdictions can evaluate their General Plans and zoning ordinances to locate weaknesses and bolster mitigation strategies related to wildfire hazards. Local jurisdictions can also create overlay zoning or overlay districts for areas prone to wildfires that mandate heightened development regulations and landscape wildfire mitigation compliance measures.

Local jurisdictions may rely on the support of regional agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which runs the Resilience Program to support local governments in planning for wildfires and other natural hazards. ABAG’s Mitigation and Adaptation Plans project supports the ongoing development of hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plans at the local level.

In addition, local government agencies receive guidance from State agencies, such as CAL FIRE and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The local government agencies can then implement recommendations through the enactment of ordinances. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the local agencies to identify and manage wildfire risk within their jurisdictions.

Individual-level Responsibilities

In order to reduce risks associated with wildland fires at the individual level, California Government Code Section 51182 identifies specific strategies to be undertaken by a person who owns or leases an occupied dwelling or structures in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, or land within a Very High FHSZ. Strategies include maintaining defensible space around the structure, removing dead portions of trees near structures, and maintaining the roof clear of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials. As stated in the California Government Code, local agencies having jurisdiction over the property can provide oversight to ensure that these mitigation strategies are implemented.

Conclusion

Wildland fire is a natural part of California’s landscape. The responsibility for identifying and managing wildfire risk in California is shared by the State, local jurisdictions, and individual property owners.

As a starting point, areas of significant fire hazards must be accurately mapped, routinely updated and property owners informed of risks. Local jurisdiction must impose restrictions through their land use regulations and long-range planning efforts to ensure that high risk areas are protected. Individual property owners must maintain defensible space, remove dead portions of trees, and keep roofs clear of vegetative materials.

Moving forward, dialogues will continue to take place within communities to identify wildfire-related risks and propose actions to reduce these threats. These discussions will propel local communities towards their own solutions to prepare for and reduce wildfire-related risks.

References

2016 California Building Code, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 7A – Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure, https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/chapter/content/9997/, Accessed October 24, 2017.

CAL FIRE, California Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps, Accessed October 23, 2017.

CAL FIRE, FRAP Projects, Fire Probability for Carbon Accounting, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/projects/fireprobability, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Incident Information, Large Fires 2017, http://www.fire.ca.gov/index, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Incident Information, Number of Fires and Acres, http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_stats?year=2017, Accessed February 9, 2018.

CAL FIRE, Wildland Hazard/Building Codes, http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_wildland, Accessed October 24, 2017.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones, http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codedevelopment/pdf/Wildfire%20Protection/FHSZ%202007%20fact%20sheet.pdf, Accessed October 24, 2017.

Headwaters Economics, Land Use Planning to Reduce Wildfire Risk: Lessons from Five Western Cities, January 2016, https://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/solutions/lessons-five-cities/, Accessed November 13, 2017.

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, Revised April 2016, http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/hot_topics_resources/fireplanrevison_final_04_06_16.pdf, Accessed October 24, 2017.

Cottage Housing Developments

by Justin Shiu, Associate Planner at M-Group


Cottage housing developments, as a form of smaller single family residential units, diversifies housing choice and provides housing that is more attractive to some households than that of traditional single-family homes.

The type of cottage housing development discussed here refers to projects that feature a cluster of units – often between four and twelve – built around a common open space. Typically, each cottage is around 1,000 square feet. This type of development is not new; the historical pattern of small housing units clustered around small parks and open spaces can be found in some parts of older cities. Recent cottage housing developments have been established as infill projects, offering a middle ground between single-family residences and multifamily development. Cottage housing can offer a smaller scale housing choice, which are suitable for meeting a variety of needs, compared to traditional detached single-family homes.

Cottage housing developments can be found around the county. They present a variety of opportunities in creating housing and meeting housing needs where other prevalent housing types are not great fits. There may be challenges implementing cottage housing developments where development constraints or local opposition limit available options. To create opportunities that allow for cottage housing development and set standards for development, a variety of considerations should be taken into account in the planning process. The following presents a brief overview of cottage housing development and provides considerations for their integration into cities.


COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY

Cottage housing developments can be found around the country. In Shoreline, Washington, Greenwood Avenue Cottages features eight units of less than 1,000 square feet around a large open space and served by a 300 square foot community building. Beyond offering attractive, smaller housing options for those drawn to their style, cottage housing developments have served needs for different segments of the population.

Union Studio. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Accessed October 24, 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_07022012_1.html

Union Studio. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Accessed October 24, 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_07022012_1.html

Cottages have been suitable for providing workforce housing. In Suffolk County, New York, Cottages at Mattituck is a 22-unit income-restricted workforce housing project. The price for the 1,100 square foot units was determined by median income earnings. The cottages will remain permanently affordable through deed-restrictions.

Cottages can be affordable options integrated into an urban context. In East Greenwich, Rhode Island, Cottages on Greene is a privately-financed, mixed-income infill development located in the historic downtown area. The cottage housing style emphasized a walkable and smaller-scale, urban living environment. This denser residential development type serves as a transition between the downtown and single-family residences and allows for locating 15 homes within walking distance to a variety of shops, services, and restaurants in the downtown. The project also allocated five deed-restricted affordable housing units.

Cottages can be important residences for groups with special circumstances. In Sacramento, Quinn Cottages is an affordable development comprising 60 one-bedroom cottages serving single residents and parents with one child. Mercy Housing manages the cottages and provides support programs that allow the development to serve as transitional housing.


OPPORTUNITIES AND ADVANTAGES

The appropriateness of cottage housing developments may vary depending on the location, however the developments can have advantages over other types of development. They can make more efficient use of land than single-family residential development. Although they are denser than traditional single-family homes, cottage housing could be implemented in single family residential areas where the cluster of housing would not appear to be a significant departure from an already dense concentration of single-family homes, or a medium-density single-family residential district as applied in some jurisdictions. They can fill properties that are large and underdeveloped. While developments may have densities somewhat higher than neighboring single-family homes, design of the buildings and the common open space can minimize the perception of mass. They may also serve as a transition between single-family homes and condominiums / townhomes.

As an intermediate between lower and higher density development types, a cottage housing development may help diversify housing choices and capture needs from different segments of the population. Cottage housing offers living arrangements that are attractive to households seeking modestly-sized homes and those who desire a close neighborhood environment. This housing type is an option that can accommodate smaller households, including single residents, households with few children, and older residents seeking to downsize. The close proximity of units can lend itself to fostering a neighborhood within a neighborhood feeling, which can create a greater sense of familiarity and safety.

An advantage of cottage housing developments is their flexibility, from making more effective or desirable use of underutilized spaces to serving the needs of different populations. As an infill type development, they can maintain a spacious feeling with open courts. As higher density development, they offer privacy by having detached units. Their sizes allow them to be potentially more energy-efficient compared to larger residences. They can serve as housing for families seeking to downsize, young households, and the workforce.

Keller Court Commons. Petaluma Argus Courier, Petaluma, CA. Accessed March 6, 2017. http://www.petaluma360.com/news/2524154-181/pocket-neighborhood-passes-planning-commission

Keller Court Commons. Petaluma Argus Courier, Petaluma, CA. Accessed March 6, 2017. http://www.petaluma360.com/news/2524154-181/pocket-neighborhood-passes-planning-commission

CHALLENGES

Although cottage housing developments can present a number of opportunities, they may be accompanied by specific issues due to characteristics of the development.

Construction is not necessarily much less expensive than traditional single family homes. The baseline standards of the cottages are the same for new residences, including compliance with building standards and installation of utility connections. Furthermore, costs for cottages may be more on a per-square-foot basis because unit prices cannot be increased based on square footage with as much bedroom and living room floor area that can be relatively inexpensive to build.

Locational suitability is a limiting factor. Availability of lots with sizes capable of accommodating development may be low. Allowable density on a lot generally needs to be higher to allow for economically feasible projects. However, neighborhoods may be sensitive to denser development. Taking lot size, density, neighborhood sensitivity into account, cottage housing developments may be limited to certain residential areas.

Parking can also present challenges. The site may have limited space available for parking. Despite smaller households that are drawn to cottage housing, sufficient parking is required to mitigate excessive spillover to on-street parking.


CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

If it has been determined that a cottage housing development would not be impractical as a result of various challenges, a set of guidelines may serve to help shape how a development might fit within the site context. Cottage housing ordinances have been established in several jurisdictions. Ordinances that were reviewed include Kirkland, Spokane, Port Townsend, Redmond, Lakewood, and Marysville in Washington, and Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania.

Although a cottage housing ordinance may not necessarily be a tool that every jurisdiction would want to consider integrating into their municipal codes, the examples of existing cottage housing development regulations provide a basis to review and evaluate cottage housing projects proposed within a community. The guidelines presented here do not represent a comprehensive collection of standards that have been used nor do they suggest that cottage housing design must fit within these parameters, but they present a starting point to consider what aspects of development have been applied and provide an initial point of reference for further discussion.


Units and Lot Sizes

  • Number of Units: A minimum and maximum number of units may be defined. Minimums of 4 units and maximums of 12 units have been used in some ordinances.
  • Lot Sizes: Consider not setting a minimum lot size.


Floor Area and Coverage

  • Density – Floor Area Ratio: The use of floor area ratio for a site may be an appropriate standard to allow a practical design of cottage housing development. If density is used, the standard may limit density to two or three times the density of base zoning, which also may vary based on the zoning district.
  • Floor Area: A maximum floor area may be set for each cottage housing unit. Example maximum floor areas have been found to be between 800 and 1,500 square feet.
  • Coverage: Coverage is applied on a per unit basis. Building coverage has been found to be between 40 and 60 percent.
  • Density: Increasing density may be accomplished through the following
    • Increasing density based on underlying zoning (e.g., base zoning multiplied by two)
    • Reducing minimum lot requirements (e.g., base zoning divided by two)
    • Multiple cottages on a lot (e.g., up to two cottages on a single family lot, with certain conditions)
  • Density Bonus: Consider the appropriateness of density bonus incentives.
  • Expansion Restricted: Covenants may be used to restrict the expansion of cottages.


Setbacks and Height

  • Setbacks: Consideration should first be given to the appropriateness of existing setback regulations. For setbacks different from standard residential zoning, the following have been used:
    • Front setback examples. 10-20 feet.
    • Side setback examples. 5-10 feet.
    • Rear setback examples. 10 feet.
  •   Average Setbacks: Consider using average side and rear setbacks to provide design flexibility
  • Building Separation: Use a minimum building separation to allow for space between buildings. A typical standard is 10 feet between buildings. Building code standards may be used to guide the minimum separation standard.
  • Stories: Consider whether a one story limit or a two-story limit is appropriate.
    • Some architectural styles of cottages featuring lower plate height accommodate second floor area within the roof. To limit mass, a cap on second floor area may be based on a percentage of the first floor.
  • Height: Consider whether development would create tall and overly narrow homes.
    • Pitch limitations on cottage roof.
    • Maximum ratio of height to width.


Parking

  • Parking Spaces: Off-street parking may be between 1.0 and 2.0 spaces per unit.
  • Parking Arrangement: Parking can be designed such that access is away from primary streets. Parking spaces design could be through side access by alley, side access by private street, and a non-primary street. Adequate screening should be provided for any option. Parking lots may be more feasible than individual garages.
  • Parking Clusters: Consider whether parking should be distributed among small clusters on the site to minimize visual impact. Consider maximum contiguous spaces in each cluster and minimum separation between clusters.
  • Parking Reduction: Parking reduction may be considered if the site is close to transit.

 
Design

  • Design: Consider whether requirements should be placed on a color scheme and variety in design.
  • Orientation: Orient the primary entry towards the common open space area.
  • Porches: Consider covered front porches. The minimum area may be 60-80 square feet.
  • Sidewalk: Sidewalk connections and sidewalks along public streets.
  • Parking Lot: Parking may be consolidated into one or a few small lots to allow for closer spacing between buildings.

 
Common Space and Amenities

  • Common Open Space Area: Each dwelling unit should provide an allotment of space for a common open space area. In several ordinances, 400 square feet per unit has been used but areas as small as 150 square feet per unit have been applied as well. Common open space may also be low in instances where there is a requirement for private open space.
    • Consider specifying that required setbacks, private open space, stormwater management facilities, parking areas, and driveways do not qualify as common open space area.
  • Community Building: A community building may be permitted.


Integration into the Community

  • Outreach: Provide outreach and education
  • Trial Period: Consider a trial period to ensure regulations are working as intended
  • Conditional Use Permit: An administrative conditional use permit may be a good approach to consider developer and community input so that the project works within the context of certain areas.


CONCLUSION

Cottage housing developments offer opportunities to fill in housing needs, but they may be limited in locations that could accommodate such developments. Density and neighborhood sensitivity may make it difficult to find suitable sites for cottage housing developments, in addition to needed interest from the developers.

However, it is also the compact character of these developments that makes them attractive to those with specific housing needs that can be served by small but detached housing units. In planning for cottage housing developments, establishing guidelines may help address some concerns related to the form the developments may take. A consideration of policies and guidelines can show if cottage housing developments would fit within the local context and how development may take shape.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MRSC. “Cottage Housing.” 2016.

http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Specific-Planning-Subjects,-Plan-Elements/Cottage-Housing.aspx

The Housing Partnership. “Cottage Housing in Your Community: A Guide to Drafting a Cottage Housing Ordinance.” 2001.

http://mrsc.org/Corporate/media/MediaLibrary/SampleDocuments/artdocmisc/chord.pdf

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission. “Cottage Housing Development.”

http://www.lvpc.org/c-guides---model-regs.html

Puget Sound Regional Council. “Tool: Cottage Housing.”

http://www.psrc.org/growth/housing/hip/alltools/cottage

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Kirkland, Washington: Cottage Housing Ordinance.”

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse, Volume 7, Issue 1. “Cutting Costs with Cottage Housing.” 2008.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “East Greenwich, Rhode Island” Cottages on Greene’s Innovative Approach to Infill.”

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_07022012_1.html

Cottage Housing Incorporated. “All of Our Communities.”

https://cottagehousing.org/communities

Snohomish County. “Cottage Housing.” 2016.

http://snohomishcountywa.gov/3461/Cottage-Housing