2021-2029 Housing Element Update
City Council Study Session
November 1, 2022
CC Clarifying Questions
Public Comments
CC Discussion
Housing Element Update
Two main components
Housing Element
Policy and planning document
Mandated element of the General Plan
Implementation Actions
Accommodates the City’s plan for housing through zoning Rezoning & Overlays
Housing Element Update Process & Public Participation
March 1, 2021: Joint PC and CC Study Session
April 22, 2021: Community Workshop Meeting #1
April 28 – May 31, 2021: Online Survey open – 2,141 surveys received June 2021: Small Group Meetings
School Districts
BIA
Housing Advocates and Community Organizations
Housing Developers
Faith-Based Organizations
June 5, 2021: Spanish Language Outreach Event at Oak View Neighborhood Cleanup June 24, 2021: Community Townhall Meeting
August 19, 2021: Public Scoping Meeting for SEIR
November 10, 2021: Community Workshop Meeting #2
Ongoing
Updates to Housing Element page on City website
Email/mail notifications to Housing Element Update interest list (454 individuals, groups, interested parties)
Housing Element Update Process & Public Participation
October 28 – November 29, 2021: First Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (H.E.) public review and comment period April 1, 2022: Second Draft H.E. released for public review May 27, 2022: Third Draft H.E. released for public review June 29 – August 15, 2022: Draft Subsequent EIR public review and comment period July 22, 2022: Fourth Draft H.E. released for public review September 23, 2022: Fifth Draft H.E. released for public review Methods of advertising: website, email and direct mail interest list, digital advertisements, social media – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, fliers distributed with meal program at Senior Center, HBTV, Golden West College marquees, City calendar event, doorhangers Ongoing
Updates to Housing Element page on City website
Email/mail notifications to Housing Element Update interest list (454 individuals, groups, interested parties)
HCD Review & Certification
Housing Element on an 8-year update cycle
HCD is tasked with reviewing and certifying Housing Elements compliance with Housing Element law The City must complete RHNA implementation programs to obtain HCD certification Huntington Beach received substantial compliance letter from HCD on September 30, 2022
Benefits of HCD Certification
Presumption of a legally adequate Housing Element
Eligibility for State funding programs for housing, transportation and infrastructure that require a compliant Housing Element:
Community Development Block Grant
Infill Infrastructure Grant
Local Housing Trust Fund
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant
Housing Element Contents
Households - Overview
Table 2-10: Changes in Household by Type
Household Types
2010
2015
2019
Married-couple Family Households
48.7%
50.4%
49.3%
Female headed Household, No Spouse Present
10.0%
10.6%
10.6%
Non-Family Household
36.4%
33.9%
34.9%
Householders 65 years or above
13.4%
14.6%
16.1%
Total Households
75,220
74,460
76,911
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, 2019.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent, there are additional categories and household types that are reported by the Census.
Households – Special Needs Groups
Table 2-18: Special Needs Groups in Huntington Beach
Special Needs Groups
# of Persons or Households
Percent of Total Population
Percent of Total Households
Households with Seniors (60 years and over)
32,456 Households
--
42.2%
Seniors Living Alone
8,383 Households
--
10.9%
Persons with Disabilities
19,003 Persons
9.5%
--
Large Households (5 or more persons per household)
5,872 Households
--
7.6%
Single-Parent Households
3,712 Households
--
4.8%
Single-Parent, Female Headed Households with Children (under 18 years) 2,666 Households
--
3.5%
People Living in Poverty
16,065 Persons
8%
--
Farmworkers1
754 Persons
0.4%
--
Homeless*
349 Persons
0.2%
--
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019, and Orange County Point in Time Count, Everyone Counts Report *The Everyone Counts Report is updated annually. The most recent available data is from 2019.
1. Farmworkers include persons employed in agriculture forestry, fishing, and hunting
2022 HCD Income Thresholds Orange County
Household Size
Extremely Low Income
(≤30% AMI)
Very Low Income
(31–50% AMI)
Low
Income
(51–80%
AMI)
Moderate Income
(81– 120% AMI)
Above Moderate Income
(>120% AMI)
4-person
Area Median Income:
$119,100
Less than $40,650
Up to
$67,750
Up to
$108,400
Up to
$142,900
Over
$142,900
Married sales worker and admin support worker with two children. $98,593 annual income.
Married school teacher and sales worker with two children. $123,649 annual income.
Married construction worker with stay at home spouse and two children. $62,616 annual income.
Single food service worker with three children.
$32,613 annual income.
Employment Base
Top employment sectors 2019
Education services, health care, and social assistance (20%) Professional, scientific, management, and administrative services (13%) Retail (11%) and Manufacturing (11%)
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services (10%) Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental leasing (8%) 2022 HUD Orange County AMI $119,100
Table 2-8: Mean Salary by Occupation in Orange County, 2020 Occupation
Salary
Management
$139,225
Legal
$147,030
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
$101,125
Architecture and Engineering
$99,403
Computer and Mathematical
$96,051
Life, Physical and Social Sciences
$84,611
Business and Financial Operations
$80,107
Education, Training and Library
$72,247
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media
$65,620
Construction and Extraction
$62,616
Community and Social Service
$58,617
Protective Services
$57,788
Installation, Maintenance and Repair
$56,597
Sales
$51,402
Office and Administration Support
$47,191
Production
$42,181
Transportation and Material Moving
$38,010
Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance
$35,880
Farming, Fishing and Forestry
$34,876
Healthcare Support
$34,790
Personal Care and Service
$34,724
Food Preparation and Serving Related
$32,613
Source: California Employment Development Division, Occupational Wage data, 2020.
Housing Costs
Huntington Beach Rental Market
Average cost of a rental unit increased by 31% from 2014 ($1,829) to 2020 ($2,401) Extremely low, very low, and low-income households cannot afford market rate rentals without substantial cost burden Moderate income households at the upper levels of the income limit ($115k+) can generally afford market rates Huntington Beach For-Sale Market
Median home value $771,100 (2019)
All income groups cannot afford market rate ownership without substantial cost burden
Who in Huntington Beach Needs Affordable Housing?
People who work in City and cannot afford to live here
Teachers, nurses, retail,
hospitality, childcare providers
Approx. 82% of primary jobs in Huntington Beach held by people living outside of Huntington Beach Source: US Census LEHD Dataset, 2019 Special needs households
Seniors, disabled persons,
single-parent households
Children of long-time Huntington Beach residents
What is Affordable Housing in HB?
What is Affordable Housing in HB?
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
New requirement for 6th Cycle
AB 686 (2019) requires jurisdictions identify sites in a manner that is consistent with its duty to AFFH AFFH requirements difficult to understand/apply due to new status Meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity for all people regardless of race, religion, familial status, disability, etc.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Summary of AFFH in Huntington Beach
Data & mapping analysis of access to opportunity (jobs, transit, environment, schools, daily needs) that contribute to upward mobility Majority of census tracts have a moderate to high level of access to opportunity 0 census tracts are classified as “High Segregation and Poverty” 2 census tracts are classified as “Low Resource”
Contributing factors to fair housing:
Availability of affordable housing/high housing costs
Regional composition & location
Access to opportunity
Conclusion: Identification of sites intentionally improves conditions for lower income households within Huntington Beach.
Housing Goals & Programs
Section 4: Housing Plan includes 40 programs proposed to support the 9 goals.
Maintain and enhance the quality and affordability of existing housing Provide adequate sites to accommodate projected housing unit needs at all income levels identified by the RHNA.
Provide for safe and decent housing for all economic segments of the community.
Reduce governmental constraints to housing production, with an emphasis on improving processes for developments that provide on-site affordable units.
Promote equal housing opportunities for all residents, including the City’s special needs populations.
Promote a healthy and sustainable City through support of housing at all income levels that minimizes reliance on natural resources and automobile use.
Maximize solutions for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Improve quality of life and promote place-making.
Affirmatively further fair housing.
Regional Housing Needs (RHNA)
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Initiates the Housing Element Update process
Quantifies housing needs, by income category, within each County and City in the SCAG region HE Goal 2 Provide adequate sites to accommodate projected housing unit needs at all income levels identified by the RHNA.
2021 – 2029 Huntington Beach RHNA
Income Category
% of Median Family Income
2022 Annual Income Range
RHNA Allocation
(Housing Units)
Min.
Max.
Very Low Income
0 - 50% MFI
--
$67,750
3,661 units
Low Income
51 – 80% MFI
$67,751
$108,400
2,184 units
Moderate Income
81 – 120% MFI
$108,401
$142,900
2,308 units
Above Moderate Income
>120% MFI
$142,901
>$142,901
5,215 units
Total:
13,368 units
RHNA Strategy
Very Low Income
Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate Income
Units
Total
Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Total
1,024
252
1,381
2,657
RHNA Met?
NO
NO
NO
NO
Remaining RHNA
4,821
2,056
3,834
10,711
Adequate Sites Program
Required to meet lower income RHNA
Housing Element law requirements
20% lower income = residential permitted by right
Allow min. “default density” of 30 du/acre = zoning for lower income RHNA Must allow exclusively residential uses
Site capacity for 16 units (common ownership, lot consolidation program) May include non-residential zoned sites that can be rezoned for residential uses
Sites to Accommodate the RHNA
1. Site Inventory
AB 1397 (2017) Non-vacant sites
More than 50% of lower income RHNA accommodated on non-vacant sites requires detailed site analysis Substantial evidence (e.g. – property owner letter, development trends, FAR, existing building condition, economic analysis) Size analysis (between ½ acre & 10 acres)
Must demonstrate existing uses not an impediment to development during planning period AB 686 (2018) AFFH
Proximity to transit, access to health care facilities, grocery stores, community services, jobs and schools access, availability of infrastructure
2. Site Capacity
Environmental constraints, density, past performance
SB166 (2017) No Net Loss
Assume less than max. density
Adequate Sites Overview
Identified sites to accommodate the RHNA primarily:
Proposed expansion of existing Affordable Housing Overlay within Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (SP 14) Proposed Affordable Housing Overlay
Gothard Avenue corridor
Industrial and oil-related properties at Goldenwest St. & Garfield Ave (SP9) Golden West College
Proposed RH-Overlay - former South Coast Supply site on Goldenwest St. (SP7) RMH Rezoning
Chuck E Cheese: 15511 Edwards (Mcfadden & Edwards)
Frontier Yard: 7354 Slater (Slater & Gothard)
BECSP Affordable Housing Overlay (ZTA No. 22-009)
Housing Element identifies sites due to potential for development during the planning period Underutilized commercial
Potential lot consolidation
Access to services, jobs, freeway
Expands existing Affordable Housing Overlay in BECSP
Applies to all BECSP properties that allow residential uses No changes to existing BECSP standards
Edinger
Beach
Beach
Beach
Slater
Yorktown
Adams
Ellis
Affordable Housing Overlay
Properties retain base land use & zoning
Establishes new Overlay zoning district in HBZSO (Chapter 229) Max. 70 du/ac
Capacity assumptions based on 56 du/ac
Standards allow for development at proposed density per state law 4 story building height
Must provide 20% low income on site
Sunsets at end of 6th cycle
Affordable Housing Overlay (ZMA No. 22-002) – Gothard Corridor Existing Zoning: RT
Proposed Zoning: RT with Affordable Housing Overlay
Heil
Warner
Gothard
Ellis
Gothard
Slater
Talbert
Housing Element identifies sites due to potential for redevelopment during the planning period Underutilized properties
Potential lot consolidation
Access to services, jobs, retail, schools, parks
Affordable Housing Overlay (ZMA No. 22-002) - Golden West College Existing Zoning: PS
Proposed Zoning: PS with Affordable Housing Overlay
Housing Element identifies sites due to potential for development during the planning period GWC intent to construct housing in 2030 Master Plan
Large area under single ownership
Access to services, jobs, retail, schools, parks
Gothard
Goldenwest
Edinger
McFadden
Affordable Housing Overlay Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (ZTA No. 22-007) Existing Zoning: SP9 – I
Proposed Zoning: SP9 – I with Affordable Housing Overlay Garfield
Goldenwest
Housing Element identifies sites due to potential for development during the planning period Portions of overlay area under single ownership
Access to services, jobs, retail, schools, parks
Underutilized properties
Potential for lot consolidation
Arterial access
Proposed Ch. 229 Affordable Housing Overlay standards would apply
RH 30 Overlay Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan (ZTA No. 22-006) Existing Zoning: SP7 – RL3
Proposed Zoning: SP7 – RL3 with RH30 Overlay
Housing Element identifies sites due to potential for development during the planning period Two primary owners
Underutilized
Potential for lot consolidation
Access to services, jobs, retail, schools, parks
Access to arterial (Goldenwest St.)
35’ Max. building height
50% Lot coverage max.
Open space, design, and trail requirements of SP7 apply Garfield
Goldenwest
Housing Element Implementation Actions
The Housing Element is not a construction mandate
No development or construction is proposed on any site
Affordable Housing Overlays do not change the base zoning of any property – everything that is currently allowed will still be allowed Adds allowance for multi-family residential development if 20 percent of the units are affordable
RHNA Strategy
Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 71
167
238
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,477
2,620
9,785
17,882
Total
6,501
2,943
11,333
20,777
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
Affordability Assumptions & No Net Loss
Affordability Assumptions
City owned sites: 100% lower income
30 du/ac: 30% lower income, 15% moderate income, 55% above moderate – Affordable Housing Overlay sites <30 du/ac: 30% moderate income, 70% above moderate – Rezoning sites Affordability assumptions consider that some sites will be developed as 100% affordable (lower income) projects & some sites will increase affordability to utilize density bonus No Net Loss means that the City must maintain sites to accommodate the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period HCD recommends a 15% to 30% buffer
Why do we plan for more units than the RHNA?
Example: 100 unit project
30% lower income = 30 units
70% moderate & above moderate income = 70 units
Public Comments Received FAQ
Can the City challenge the State so HB doesn’t have to comply with State Law? City can sue the State…winning against the State is uncertain…and will likely get sued by others HCD expanded enforcement authority via AB72 (2017) can refer non-compliant jurisdictions to State Attorney General’s Office HB was sued by State of California for noncompliant HE in 2019 Cities with noncompliant housing elements are vulnerable to litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, individuals, and HCD. If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid to its own attorneys. Potential consequences of lawsuits include: mandatory compliance within 120 days, suspension of local ability to issue building permits, and court approval of housing developments.
Courts have authority to take over cities’ ability to issue residential and nonresidential permits until the City‘s General Plan and housing element is in compliance with State Law.
Local governments are subject to court-issued
judgements and can fine jurisdictions
up to $100,000 per month, and if they are not paid, multiply that by a factor of six.
Courts may appoint an agent with all powers
necessary to remedy identified housing element
deficiencies and bring the cities housing element into
substantial compliance with housing element law.
Public Comments Received FAQ
What happens if HB doesn’t have a compliant Housing Element?
This is not theoretical. This is very real and it’s happening. These are projects that, as long as they include 20 percent on-site affordable or a 100 percent moderate [-income housing], we must approve those projects … The consequences are already in effect. - Jing Yeo, Santa Monica Planning Manager
Proposed developments in localities that have not yet made sufficient progress towards their required allocation of regional housing need are now subject toless rigorous “ministerial” approvals (ie. no public hearings) in order to hasten the production of housing and bring a jurisdiction into compliance with its state-determined housing need allocation.
What is “Builder’s Remedy”?
Under state law, developers in cities whose housing plans fall out of state compliance can turn to filing so-called “builder’s remedy” projects that do not require the usual consent of municipal councils or planning commissions.
Public Comments Received FAQ
Public Comments Received FAQ
Why is the City proposing high density housing next to estate lots? The proposed overlay for SP 7 includes a density of 30 DU/AC but keeps the 35’ height limit, 50% lot coverage, and other development standards contained within SP 7, including required open space corridors & horse trails.
For reference, Elan is 100 DU/Ac
Public Comments Received FAQ
Can the apartments on Warner (or another location) be redeveloped in order to accommodate HB’s RHNA? The State will not accept increasing density on existing housing sites as a valid ‘potential’ for new housing. Sites must have a realistic potential to convert to housing, or increase the amount of housing without demolishing the existing units, to be considered.
Are there any options to the proposed sites recommended for City Council consideration? Alternatives will be presented during tonight’s Study Session.
Options to Accommodate RHNA
Less Challenging
Somewhat Challenging
Most Challenging
Time
Budget
HCD Acceptance
Site Criteria
Time
Budget
HCD Acceptance
Site Criteria
Time
Budget
HCD Acceptance
Site Criteria
Option 1: Reconfigure proposed SP 7 Overlay
Option reduces site area from 18.6 acres to 9.1 acres
Increases allowable density on the site to 45 du/ac max.
Capacity assumptions based on 40 du/ac)
Development standards: proposed Chapter 229
Max. bldg. height: 4 stories
Process and timing can be completed within current budget and schedule HCD Approved SP 7 Overlay: 18.6 acre site and accommodates 493 units (113 L, 63 M, 317 AM)
Option 1: Reconfigure proposed Overlay
SP 7: Reduces area & increases density from 30 DU/AC to 40 DU/AC SP 9: No change
Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 71
167
238
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,473
2,612
9,670
17,516
Total
6,497
2,935
11,218
20,411
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
PROCESS: LESS CHALLENGING
Minor modification to site already approved by HCD. Change accommodates all RHNA income levels. Site included in Subsequent EIR; no substantial affect on capacity analyzed in SEIR; revisions can likely be completed within current timeline and budget.
Option 2: Increase density at Frontier Site
Site proposed for RMH rezoning (25 du/ac max.)
Increases allowable density on the site to 70 du/ac max.
Capacity assumptions based on 56 du/ac)
Development standards: proposed Chapter 229
Max. bldg. height: 4 stories
Process and timing can be completed within current budget and schedule This option would enable removal of SP7 Overlay or a reduction in density of the SP9 Overlay from AHO-70 to RH-Overlay HCD Approved Frontier Site: 10.17-acre site and accommodates 202 units (60 M, 142 AM)
Option 2: Increase Density at Frontier Site
SP 7: Eliminates
OR
SP 9: Reduces density from 70 DU/AC to 30 DU/AC
Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 11
25 36
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,534
2,642
9,780
17,956
Total
6,558
2,905
11,186
20,649
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
PROCESS: LESS CHALLENGING
Removes Frontier Site as a rezone (25 DU/AC). Adds Frontier as AHO (70 DU/AC). Site already approved by HCD; however, analysis as a large site accommodating low income required. Change accommodates all RHNA income levels. Site included in Subsequent EIR; no substantial affect on capacity analyzed in SEIR; revisions can likely be done within current schedule and budget.
Option 3: Mixed density within SP9 plus Frontier site to AHO-70 Overlay SP 9 N/of Garfield: Reduces density to City’s existing RH zone (35 du/ac max) Capacity assumptions based on 30 du/ac
Development standards: City’s existing RH zoning standards Max. bldg. height: 35 feet
SP 9 S/of Garfield: remains AHO-70
Development standards: proposed Chapter 229
Max. bldg. height: 4 stories
May be completed within existing schedule and budget
Removes SP 7 Overlay when combined with Option 2
SP 9: approx. 21-acre site and accommodates 1,101 units (316 L. 160 M, 625 AM)
Option 3: Mixed Density w/in SP 9 PLUS Frontier Site to AHO-70 Overlay SP 7: Eliminates
SP 9: Reduces density from 70 DU/AC to 30 DU/AC north of Garfield; remaining area stays at 70 DU/ AC Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 11
25 36
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,433
2,599
9,591
17,623
Total
6,457
2,862
10,997
20,316
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
PROCESS: LESS CHALLENGING
Combines Option 2 and reduces density north of Garfield in SP 9. Sites already approved by HCD; however, additional large site analysis of Frontier required. Proposed change accommodates all RHNA income levels. Sites included in Subsequent EIR; no substantial affect on capacity analyzed in SEIR; revisions can likely be done within current schedule and budget.
Option 4: Reduced density
Reduces SP 7 Overlay area by half
Expands area of SP 9 Overlay to Industrial additional 4.75 acres Reduces density to City’s existing RH zone (35 du/ac max) Capacity assumptions based on 30 du/ac)
Adds RH Overlay to Frontier site
Densities based on 30 du/ac for all 3 sites/areas: SP 7, SP 9, and Frontier Development standards: City’s existing RH zoning standards Max. bldg. height: 35 feet
Requires some new site analysis; schedule and budget depends on HCD feedback & CEQA analysis
Option 4 continued: Reduced density
Reduces SP 7 Overlay area by half
Expands area of SP 9 Overlay to Industrial additional 4.75 acres Reduces density to City’s existing RH zone (35 du/ac max) Capacity assumptions based on 30 du/ac)
Adds RH Overlay to Frontier site
Densities based on 30 du/ac for all 3 sites/areas: SP 7, SP 9, and Frontier Development standards: City’s existing RH zoning standards Max. bldg. height: 35 feet
Requires some new site analysis; schedule and budget depends on HCD feedback & CEQA analysis
Option 4: Reduced Density
SP 7: Reduces area by half at 30 DU/AC
SP 9: Increases area by 4.75 acres but reduces density from 70 DU/AC to 30 DU/AC over entire area Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 11
25 36
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,442
2,608
9,573
17,263
Total
6,466
2,871
10,979
20,316
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
PROCESS: SOMEWHAT CHALLENGING
Option 4 results in no density over 30 du/ac and is a combination of adjusting SP 7, SP 9 and Frontier. This option requires new sites analysis for the additional 4.75 acres in the SP 9 area. Proposed changes accommodate all RHNA income levels. Sites included in Subsequent EIR with the exception of the new 4.75 acres; no substantial affect on capacity analyzed in SEIR. Option 4 could be completed within 1 – 2 months and may require additional budget.
Option 5: Increase area within SP9 and reduce density
Expands area of SP 9 Overlay to Industrial areas east of Stewart, west of Gothard Reduces density of entire area to City’s existing RH zone (35 du/ac max) Capacity assumptions based on 30 du/ac)
Development standards: City’s existing RH zoning standards Max. bldg. height: 35 feet
Requires additional analysis and time
Requires HCD review of new sites analysis & CEQA analysis This option would enable removal of SP 7 Overlay
Option 5: Increase SP 9 and Reduce Density
SP 7: Eliminates
SP 9: Increases area by 17.1 acres but reduces density from 70 DU/AC to 30 DU/AC over entire area Very Low Income Units
Low Income Units
Moderate Income Units
Above Moderate Income Units
Total Units
RHNA Target
3,661
2,184
2,308
5,215
13,368
Approved/Pending Projects
17 285
82 1,371
1,755
ADU
307
170
10 487
Hotel/Motel Conversion
415
0 0
415
Rezoning Sites
0 71
167
238
Affordable Housing Overlays
5,420
2,583
9,525
17,528
Total
6,444
2,906
11,073
20,423
RHNA Met?
YES
YES
YES
YES
PROCESS: SOMEWHAT CHALLENGING
This option requires new sites analysis and environmental review for the additional 17.1 acres. Proposed change accommodates all RHNA income levels. Uncertain if Option 5 would require recirculation of SEIR. May be completed within 2 – 5 months and would require additional budget.
Option 6: Civic Center Site Program
Immediate Actions
Adds new Housing Element program for redevelopment of Civic Center site Combine with Option to Adopt HCD approved Housing Element and RHNA implementation Future Actions
Conduct community-based re-envisioning effort, as well as site and CEQA analysis to rezone Civic Center Concurrent with actions to remove overlays from SP 7 and SP 9 and/or other adjustments Potentially issue request for proposal for development of approved vision for Civic Center site Requires additional time and budget
Planning Commission Public HearingOctober 11, 2022 recommended approval to the City Council Housing Element Update
Rezoning
Affordable Housing Overlay
GPA No. 21-003
ZMA No. 22-001
GPA No. 22-001
ZMA No. 22-002
ZTA No. 22-006
ZTA No. 22-007
ZTA No. 22-008
ZTA No. 22-009
CEQA: SEIR No. 22-002 covers all of the above applications
Process to modify sites
Process
HCD Approved HEU
Options 1, 2, 3
Option 4, 5
Option 6
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Completed 10/11/22
Mid-November 2022
December – January 2023
August – September 2023
City Council Public Hearing
Ordinance Adoption
11/15/22
12/6/22
11/29/22
12/6/22
January – February
2023
February 2023
September – October 2023
October 2023
Additional Budget Required?
No
No
$
$$
ConclusionCC Clarifying QuestionsPublic CommentsCC Discussion