City of Gonzales
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor Rios and City Council
DATE: August 21, 2023
FROM: Taven Kinison Brown, Community Development Director THROUGH: Carmen Gil, City Manager
SUBJECT: 2023 Housing Element Strategy
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission • Receive a presentation on the Housing Element Update; • Consider community input to date and strategy options; • Receive public comment; and
• Provide direction to staff and consultants on the most favorable strategies to address the City’s housing needs and statutory requirements.
BACKGROUND
The preparation of the Housing Element is required by California State Law, Chapter 10.6 and 10.7 of the Government Code. The City has contracted with 4LEAF, Inc. to prepare the required update to its 2015 Housing Element to cover the period between 2023 – 2031. The update of the Housing Element provides the opportunity for the City to review and supplement their existing housing policies and implementation measures to facilitate housing production and to demonstrate how the City will accommodate its regional housing need for the next eight years.
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandated elements of the City’s General Plan. It is the only element of the General Plan required by the State to be updated on a set schedule. A Housing Element is required by California law to establish policies and programs that will support the provision of an adequate housing supply for citizens of all income levels. The intent of state law is to ensure that all jurisdictions in the state are zoned to provide adequate housing to all members of the community. While AGENDA
ITEM
3 the State reviews the Housing Element to ensure compliance with housing law, each jurisdiction must identify its own specific housing needs and then create programs to successfully address those needs.
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s major housing goal. In the last few years, the legislature has passed multiple housing bills that prescribe new requirements for Housing Elements and new by-right requirements for housing projects. The State is serious about their efforts to facilitate the construction of new housing units in California, and new housing bills will continue to reshape the housing landscape for years to come. An overview of many of these recent laws was provided at the May 2023 Housing Element Workshop.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is mandated by State housing laws as part of the process of updating General Plan Housing Elements. The RHNA process is meant to identify and address housing needs for the projected State population and household growth; to improve the jobs - housing balance in communities; and to ensure the availability of housing affordable to all income groups.
Gonzales’s assigned share of the Monterey County RHNA is 1,266 units, including 288 units affordable to lower-income households and 321 units affordable to moderate incomes. Government Code (GC) Section 65583(a)(1) further divides the very-low-income category into extremely low and very low categories with 50% in each. Gonzales’s extremely low-income unit allocation is therefore 86 units.
Zoning, Density, and Affordability Assumptions for Housing Sites The City is not required to construct housing units to meet its RHNA. It is instead required to demonstrate that it has adequate sites zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate the number of RHNA units in each income category. When a city lacks adequate vacant land for the development of its RHNA, it must either rezone adequate land at high enough densities to support affordable housing development (20 units per acre or more; see Policy Option #1) or use other methods to identify where the units can go. These methods may include increasing allowable densities in certain land use categories; providing zoning overlays to allow housing on certain commercial and/or industrial parcels; allowing additional units within single-family neighborhoods; implementing programs to encourage more, smaller units that are typically more affordable than larger units; or developing other creative solutions that address the City’s identified housing needs. For a unit to qualify as lower income in a housing site inventory, the City must demonstrate that the rent or sales price is or will be affordable to the specified income levels. The typical method to demonstrate affordability at these income levels is to record a deed restriction on the units for all future renters or owners for at least 55 years.
Current Housing Element Update Requirements
In addition to the requirement that the Housing Element address the City’s ability to meet the RHNA through zoning, the Housing Element serves as the tool to identify and provide for the local housing needs of the community. State law requires that the Housing Element:
• Provide achievable goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve, and develop housing opportunities;
• Identify and analyze household characteristics, including housing costs compared to residents’ ability to pay; and housing characteristics, including the extent of overcrowding and an estimate of housing stock conditions;
• Identify and analyze governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. These constraints include land use and density controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures;
• Identify and analyze nongovernmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, and community opposition; • Identify the special housing needs of the community including the homeless, seniors, femaleheaded households, farmworkers, and persons with disabilities; • Identify sites that are suitable for all types of residential development, including multi- family and manufactured homes, during the eight-year housing cycle to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs (the RHNA) at all income levels; • Identify opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development; and • Be certified (approved) by the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) as complying with State law.
REVIEW & ANALYSIS
Local Housing Needs and Issues
One of the many requirements for the Housing Element Update is the collection of data to help determine housing needs. This includes such things as how many residents are overpaying for their housing; overcrowded units; the costs of developing housing; and demographic information and trends.
The bulk of the housing required housing and demographic data has been collected within the Draft Technical Background Report, provided as Attachment 1.
The Housing Element must be more than just a set of policies and a list of sites for review and approval by the HCD. The Housing Element needs to contain policies and programs that will benefit and meet the needs of current and future Gonzales residents. Those needs are being identified by the 4LEAF team and the community, and programs will be tailored to address them. The most direct method of determining housing issues and needs is to ask residents. A survey has been issued in English and Spanish asking residents about Gonzales’s housing issues and housing needs; preliminary survey results are provided as Attachment 2 and are summarized below.
Community Opinion Survey and Preliminary Results:
Surveys were made available in English and Spanish and could be completed on paper or on cell phones, computers, or other internet-accessing devices. Surveys were promoted on the City webpage, email distribution lists, through social media, and on flyers posted throughout the community, including in coffee shops, laundromats, and community centers. The first community opinion survey on housing issues and opportunities had generated 182 English and 25 Spanish survey responses by August 15, 2023; aggregated results can be viewed in Attachment 1 of this report. The surveys were designed to elicit residents’ opinions about housing needs and opportunities, both now and in the future, as well as their ideas about new housing types that might help to meet identified needs.
Additional Public Outreach to Date:
Housing issues affect the entire community and can be confusing and contentious. California requirements about what Housing Elements must do and allow can seem at odds with long-standing community values and identity. The public participation requirement of Housing Element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in defining housing issues and creating solutions that both meet the needs of the community and the requirements of state law.
Restrictions on indoor gatherings due to the pandemic have forced community outreach and engagement to be partially conducted within a virtual world. While in some cases this has made it possible for more people to be engaged in the process, a digital divide may exist in cases where households may lack internet connections or may be unable to attend virtual meetings due to work obligations. To ensure that community outreach during the pandemic has been as equitable as possible, the outreach program included participation opportunities via cell phone and at the convenience of the resident.
Gonzales’s Housing Element Update has included the following additional public outreach efforts to date:
• The Housing Element Update Website provides status updates, introductory information to the Housing Element update process, access to meeting agendas and materials, a dedicated email for comments about the Housing Element Update, and community opinion surveys in Spanish and English.
• Outreach materials including links to the community opinions surveys provided in the Public Library, the Post Office, and on all of the City’s social media platforms beginning May 4, 2023 and continuing.
• The Dia De Los Ninos tabling event was held on April 30, 2023, and provided information about the Housing Element update, and administered the community opinion survey to attendees.
• A kick-off presentation at the Planning Commission was held via Zoom on May 8, 2023, covering the Housing Element update process, new laws, opportunities for engagement, and local housing demographics. This meeting also included an opportunity for members of the public to speak.
• A booth was staffed at the 4th of July Parade and Centennial Park gathering to provide information about the Housing Element Update and to obtain community input. • A booth was staffed at the August 1, 2023 National Night Out event to provide information about the Housing Element update and to obtain community input.
POLICY OPTIONS
The primary task to be addressed by this Housing Element will be the need to meet the statutory requirements of the CA Government Code. In addition to fulfilling mandates, Gonzales has unique community needs and interests that can be addressed by its Housing Element.
Some preliminary options for the Commission and Council to consider are outlined below; input is sought on the most favorable options to be pursued within the 2023 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Additional policy ideas, solutions, and input from members of the public and from the Commission and Council are welcomed and encouraged.
ISSUE #1: ADEQUATE SITES APPROACHES & REZONING OPTIONS
A preliminary analysis has been conducted of the sites available for housing. Once the potential annexations, the senior citizen supporting housing project in the City’s approval pipeline (one project) and the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) assumptions have been factored in, the analysis indicates that the City lacks sufficient sites to accommodate its RHNA and thus must rezone to allow higher densities in certain areas. As well, the City must ensure that it has adequate sites available for its RHNA throughout the Housing Element period which will generally require that a city up-zone to accommodate 20% more units than its RHNA requirement.
Because the City does not have sufficient sites zoned at adequate densities to accommodate its RHNA, it must include programs within its Housing Element to rezone adequate sites to meet that need within three years of the Housing Element due date (by January 31, 2026), or within one year (by January 31, 2024) if the City does not adopt and certify on time. Penalties would be incurred if the City fails to accomplish the required rezones in a timely manner, up to and including the potential for loss of land use authority.
Policy Option A: Rezone to default density (20 units/acre) or higher in areas across the City.
Policy Option B: Change allowable densities in Downtown Commercial Zone to allow 26 units per acre in addition to commercial uses.
Policy Option C: Use Zoning Overlays (Workforce Housing Overlay, Affordable Housing Overlay) to identify and rezone specific sites most suitable for high-density affordable housing.
Policy Option D: Rely on new units to be provided within the annexation areas for as much of the City’s RHNA as possible.
Policy Option E: Zone to allow Missing Middle Housing (duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, garden apartments) in single-family zones in areas across the City.
Recommendation: Policy Options A-E. Use a combination of the above options to ensure that the City can meet its assigned RHNA. Each of the above options has pros and cons which must be considered and balanced to inform the strategy best suited for Gonzales’s Housing Element. Given the slow timing of pending annexations, the City’s high RHNA requirements, community input and strong preferences for missing middle housing types, a combination of the above Options will be necessary to meet statutory requirements as well as the City’s unique, identified housing needs. Staff requests that the Commission and Council indicate which Options above should receive the greatest emphasis in preparation of the Draft Housing Element.
ISSUE #2: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPROACHES
The City may take credit for non-restricted units such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) that are rented within the affordable income categories if it can demonstrate affordable rental rates. The State HCD’s “safe harbor” for the number of ADUs assumed for the upcoming planning period is the average of ADUs permitted over the years 2018-2021; in Gonzales’s case that average is 3 ADUs per year or a total of 24 units in the Housing Element period. If the City uses this safe harbor assumption, this portion of their inventory will be accepted by HCD. No Net Loss reporting rules will apply (See Issue #3, below).
If the City determines that a larger number of ADUs will assist it in reaching its housing goals, including the provision of units for special needs and smaller households, it may wish to adopt additional programs to incentivize, support and provide funding for ADUs. If this is the case, then higher numbers of ADUs than the "safe harbor” assumptions may be justified. This may be an appropriate approach for Gonzales with adequate programs to incentivize production. The Community survey results indicate that the community believes that ADUs are a housing type that will work well for Gonzales, and census data indicate that ADUs would provide a good match for aging households, smaller households, multigenerational households, and special needs households where family or caretakers can remain close by.
As well, the provision of ADUs throughout the City can help to meet AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) objectives because it integrates affordable rental housing units into single family neighborhoods.
Another option to provide for a portion of the very-low income RHNA within single-family neighborhoods would be for the City to sponsor a program to assist homeowners in the cost of developing JADUs; repayment would be deferred if the homeowner entered into an agreement limiting their occupancy and any rent charged. JADUs are created out of existing space within a home and are the least expensive method of providing new housing units. This option could also help to meet the specific housing needs of Gonzales’s residents while creating opportunities for renters or caretakers to live on-site.
A new CalHFA grant program for ADUs is available to lower-income borrowers and this information could be provided as a potential program option.
Option A: Increase ADU Assumptions Slightly. This policy option would make maximum use of the allowances for ADUs and JADUs by adopting new programs to facilitate and encourage the construction of ADUs and JADUs, and project a larger number of units to be constructed over the planning period than the safe harbor assumption of 24 units.
Option B: Use HCD Safe Harbor ADU Assumptions. This policy option would not commit to adopting additional programs to facilitate and encourage additional ADUs, but instead would use the HCD safe harbor assumptions of 3 ADUs/JADUs per year (24 total units over the planning period).
Recommendation: Option A. Increase ADU assumptions beyond the safe harbor allowances, but only to the extent that new policies and programs are included to facilitate their construction. ADUs meet many identified community needs and are easily integrated within Gonzales’s housing stock due to enabling state legislation. Care will need to be taken to not project construction numbers and affordability levels too high such that replacement sites are needed under the No Net Loss provisions; see Issue #3 below.
ISSUE #3: NO NET LOSS APPROACHES
The new “No Net Loss” law will impact the sites used in Housing Element sites inventories, including assumed affordability levels and development assumptions. The intent of the legislation is to ensure all jurisdictions maintain an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land to accommodate their remaining RHNA for the entire 8-year Housing Element period. There are several components to this new law: First, a jurisdiction may not approve a project at a density or level of affordability lower than that listed in the Housing Element inventory unless it can make findings that adequate sites remain available to accommodate the remaining RHNA. Second, if a jurisdiction approves a project at a density or affordability level less than the level the site was listed for and it does not have enough other sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the remaining RHNA, it must identify and rezone adequate sites within 6 months – a timeframe that is largely infeasible, but that may be workable in cases where significant numbers of housing sites are expected to become available within a set time frame such as through annexation. Third, the inventory is expected to be dynamic and to reflect all changes and adjustments made throughout the Housing Element period. These adjustments would be made during the state mandated Annual Planning Report (APR). AB 72 allows referrals to the Attorney General for violations of the No Net Loss laws. Jurisdictions must not run afoul of this law and must plan for and track inventory changes throughout the Housing Element period.
Policy Option A: Zone an Excess of Sites to Accommodate Future Development. This is an approach taken by most jurisdictions, with a sites “buffer” of at least 20 percent recommended. Under this option, the City would need to ensure that there are adequate sites for at least 120% of RHNA for each income category.
Policy Option B: Decrease development capacity assumptions and assumed affordability levels for all sites listed in inventory. While the City is “allowed” to count any residentially zoned site that allows at least 20 units per acre as being able to accommodate 100% affordable housing, that may not be the best approach because it is difficult to predict the exact affordability levels that future projects will achieve.
Likewise, the City must apply reasonable development capacity assumptions to the site, and not simply assume that 100% of the site will be developed. Most jurisdictions use a conservative figure between 70 and 75 percent of capacity will be achieved; analysis of past development patterns in Gonzales indicates that this development capacity assumption is appropriate.
Policy Option C: Administrative “B” List of Sites to be Added as Needed. This policy option has recently been used in other Housing Elements prepared by 4LEAF, Inc. and has been accepted by HCD.
This option treats the sites inventory as truly dynamic, and revisits it each year during the APR when, if necessary, additional sites that are appropriately zoned for housing can be added to the inventory list so that adequate sites are always assured. For this option, the City would maintain an administrative “B” list of sites that are appropriately zoned for housing but that were not the City’s first choice of sites to be listed in inventory. It is like Policy Option A in that the City still needs to have enough sites zoned to accommodate more than its RHNA, but it is not required to list those sites in inventory unless and until they are needed because a listed site was developed at a lower capacity or affordability level. Under this option, a program would be included in the Housing Element to maintain an administrative list of qualified sites that could be added as needed during the APR preparation at the beginning of each year. If the program is included in a certified Housing Element, then the administratively revised inventory would not trigger a new HCD review of the Housing Element.
Recommendation: Options B and C. Development capacity assumptions should reflect the actual densities achieved for similar projects in the City. Likewise, assumed affordability levels should reflect the actual distribution of income groups across recent development projects. If development capacity and affordability assumptions are realistic and the City has additional sites beyond those needed to show an adequate inventory, then the ability to add sites to the inventory on an as-needed basis reduces the risk of falling into a net loss.
ISSUE #4: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL NEW PROGRAMS
The 2023 Housing Element is an update of the existing Housing Element, and will retain most existing goals, policies, and programs. Programs that have been completed will be removed, and those that were not successfully implemented in the existing Housing Element will be reviewed and either eliminated or revised to be more successful and continued. New policies and programs will be added where needed to address new legislative requirements, to address housing needs and trends, and to affirmatively further fair housing.
Several new program concepts are offered below for discussion. Each concept would address an identified need or community preference, and most would incentivize diverse types of housing development within the City. The Council and Commission should consider new programs to facilitate housing development and increase the potential to demonstrate adequate sites. This workshop is an opportunity for the City to identify which policies are favorable to pursue in the upcoming Draft Housing Element. Because a variety of new Programs will be necessary to meet the City’s housing needs, staff recommends that the Commission and Council focus on any programs that they do not wish to move forward with, as well as to suggest new programs that might be appropriate.
Housing on Church and School Sites. Churches and schools have traditionally been located within residential zones and are a part of the neighborhood fabric. Additional opportunities for housing types that would meet Gonzales’s specific housing needs may exist on underutilized church and school sites.
Existing uses on these sites could remain, with residential units added within underutilized areas. Any such development would be at the discretion and desire of the property owner. The allowance for the addition of housing on these sites could be made through a zoning text amendment, or through placement of one of the Overlays discussed below. A zoning text amendment would open most or all church and school sites to residential uses; use of the overlay (below) would allow specific sites to be designated by the City Council.
Affordable Housing Overlay. This type of overlay zoning district would first be adopted into the Code, and could then be placed on specific, appropriate sites deemed to be appropriate for higher-density affordable housing. Either the property owner or developer/applicant could apply to place the rezoning on one or more sites, or the City could determine which sites are appropriate for the overlay and rezone them to add the AH Overlay after CEQA review. The Overlay would be able to be applied to commercial or industrial sites that meet certain criteria and would allow either the underlying commercial or industrial use, OR housing that is 100% affordable. The AH Overlay would likely be utilized only by non-profit housing developers who receive state and federal subsidies to build and maintain affordable housing. A density range of 20 to 28 units per acre is suggested.
Workforce Housing Overlay. This is a market-driven approach that gives the City control over where workforce housing can be allowed through a legislative process (City Council review). The WH Overlay Zone, once applied to a commercial or industrial parcel, would allow any of the uses allowed by the underlying zoning, or multi- family housing (rental or ownership) at a density of 20 to 28 units per acre, or both. To qualify under HCD rules, the housing can only be subject to the same review process as the commercial and light industrial uses allowed by the underlying zoning. To use this Option, the City would adopt a new Workforce Housing (W-H) Overlay Zone into the Zoning Code concurrent with the Housing Element adoption. The Housing Element would then include a program to add the W-H Overlay Zone to selected sites, either by an interested property owner or through the City’s rezoning action, similar to the AH Overlay above. The benefits of this approach are that it does not take away any allowed uses in the underlying zones; it is market-based so that property owners can choose the development type; it allows housing to be added to underutilized commercial sites, either vertically or horizontally; it allows business owners to live on-site or to provide housing for their employees on-site; and it allows the City to determine the specific sites that are suitable. The negatives are the cost of implementation, and the higher possibility that the “No Net Loss” law would come into play because of the different options for development.
City Density Bonus Program. As the Commission and Council are aware, California requires that a density bonus be granted to projects that provide a certain amount of their units as affordable. The concept of a City density bonus program would meet this state requirement but would go beyond it for projects that meet some of the City’s specified needs. For example, a greater density bonus might be provided in exchange for more affordable or special needs units, or a deeper level of affordability, or a larger number of bedrooms, or for the provision of some units as fully ADA accessible or universally designed, or for providing childcare or eldercare on-site or whatever the identified need might be. This type of program can incentivize the right type of development by providing a greater density bonus when certain criteria beyond the state’s requirements are met. Bonuses can be “stacked” so that the more City benefits a project provides, the greater the bonus – up to 100%.
Incentivizing Smaller Units that are Affordable “By Design.” Density designations are calculated by the number of dwelling units allowed per acre. The traditional density allowance is the same regardless of the size of the unit—i.e., a project is allowed the same number of units whether made up of studio apartments or four-bedroom apartments. This traditional framework incentivizes larger units because they count toward density in the same manner as smaller units but are much more profitable.
The concept of “density unit equivalents” would allow small units (studios, one- and two-bedroom units under a certain size) to count as a fraction of a unit, and large units (four+ bedrooms of over a certain size) to count as more than one unit. This would encourage the development of more, smaller units, and discourage large units. For example, the provision of three micro-apartments would be considered equal to the provision of one three-bedroom unit in terms of the assigned density units (see Table 2: Proposed Density Unit Equivalent, below). Similarly, three 400 SF cottages or tiny homes would be considered “equivalent” to a traditional 3-bedroom single-family home.
Table: Example Density Unit Equivalents
Density Units
Micro-apartment or studio (<500
sf)
0.33 density unit
One bedroom (<750 sf) 0.50 density unit
Two bedrooms (<1,000 sf) 0.75 density unit
Three bedrooms 1.00 density unit
Four or more bedrooms (>2,000 sf) 1.50 density units
*A density bonus, if requested, would be applied to the mapped General Plan density.
Using the density unit equivalent concept, property owners or developers would be able to provide the number of density units in any combination. For example, consider a one-acre parcel with a mapped density of 10 units per acre. To meet the 10-unit count, a multifamily project could consist of 10 threebedroom units, 15 one-bedroom units, or 30 micro-apartments. For a one-acre parcel with a mapped density of 5 units per acre, a cottage housing development project could provide 5 three-bedroom units, or 10 one-bedroom cottages, or 15 efficiency units or tiny homes of less than 500 square feet. A combination of unit sizes can also be accommodated under this concept. The Council & Commission should note that unless development impact fees are also reduced to reflect the smaller unit sizes, the per-unit costs will remain too large to incentivize the construction of smaller, more affordable units. Under AB 602, Development Impact Fees must now be right-sized to address the reduced impacts of smaller units vs larger units upon the next Development Fee Update. The downside of this program is that it would not assist in accommodating the many large families who live in Gonzales.
How the Recommendation Supports the Vision
Gonzales will continue to be a safe, clean, family-friendly community, diverse in its heritage, and committed to working collaboratively to preserve and retain its small-town charm.
Explain: Providing direction to staff and the consultant on housing strategies will help to focus our efforts on the specific needs of the community while also meeting state mandates to accommodate housing opportunities for the spectrum of wage earners in our community.
Providing effective strategies that will truly affect and increase housing unit supply is a City prerogative as well as state effort.
Explain how the Recommendation Directly Implements the Mission The City Council and Staff of the City of Gonzales will realize our Vision by providing the leadership, commitment, and resources necessary to provide excellent services that enhance the quality of life of our diverse community. X Yes ____ No____ N/A
Explain: Providing direction to staff and the consultant on housing strategies will help to focus our efforts on the specific needs of the community while also meeting state mandates to accommodate housing opportunities for the spectrum of wage earners in our community.
Providing effective strategies that will truly affect and increase housing unit supply is a City prerogative as well as state effort.
City services will be delivered in a cost-effective, respectful and friendly manner to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents and the promotion of business, recreational, housing and employment opportunities in an environmentally sustainable manner. X Yes ____No ____ N/A Explain: Providing direction to staff and the consultant on housing strategies will help to focus our efforts on the specific needs of the community while also meeting state mandates to accommodate housing opportunities for the spectrum of wage earners in our community.
Providing effective strategies that will truly affect and increase housing unit supply is a City prerogative as well as state effort.
Strong fiscal policies allow us to provide appropriate infrastructure for:
• Public Safety Yes No X N/A
• Housing X Yes No N/A
• Recreation Yes No X N/A
• Environment Yes No X N/A
• Education Yes No X N/A
Explain: See Vision explanation above.
ALTERNATIVES
Amend or modify staff recommendations.
BUDGET IMPACT
Consultant expenses are presently being re-imbursed through a $65,000 REAP grant secured in 2021 through previous city management. Staff has tried to keep City expenses low by performing the CEQA environmental review for the Housing Element preparation, hoping to capitalize on several exemptions offered by the State of California in the matter.
It has since been realized (as illustrated above) that a substantial rezoning / upzoning of the existing core residential areas surrounding downtown, and potentially in the entire “opportunity area” of the City will be needed. Staff has completed a request through AMBAG for a REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant of $128,700 that will target the rezoning / upzoning efforts and CEQA review for the City getting ready to accommodate the additional housing units to be incentivized through upzoning. Should we be successful in our quest, there should be no impact on the City Budget for this rezoning. If not, the Community Development Director will have to absorb the workload inhouse, and/or find other financial resources.
CONCLUSION
A summary of staff’s recommendations are below. Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission provide direction accordingly for each Issue area.
Issue #1 - Adequate Sites Approaches & Rezoning Options • Policy Options A-E.
Issue #2 - Accessory Dwelling Unit Approaches
• Option A: Increase ADU Assumptions Slightly.
Issue #3 - No Net Loss Approaches
• Options B and C. Development capacity assumptions should reflect the actual densities achieved for similar projects in the City.
Issue #4 - Consideration of Potential New Programs
• Because a variety of new Programs will be necessary to meet the City’s housing needs, staff recommends that the Commission and Council focus on any programs that they do not wish to move forward with, as well as to suggest new programs that might be appropriate.
Attachments:
1. Draft Technical Background Report
2. Preliminary Community Survey Results