HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0517 CC REG ITEM 10ETO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable City Council
ITEM / 0. g7-
C 7.TY Fir',T00RPARK, CAI TFO%NTA
AC
Wayne Loftus, Director of Community Development41,11'
Prepared By: John Libiez, Advanced Planning Manager
May 8, 2000 (For meeting of 5/17/2000)
Appeal of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
and DISCUSSION
In the Box Item of April 27, 2000, staff provided the status and
procedure related to the establishment of the City fair share
allocation of the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) as
determined by the Ventura Council Of Governments (VCOG) and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In
previous reports staff has provided information related to the
filing of an appeal to the City fair share allocation within the
RHNA determined by SCAG. Prior City Council direction to staff,
conveyed by the City Manager's letter of January 24, 2000, to
SCAG, was that the City accepted the November 4, 1999, RHNA
allocation but reserved the right of appeal should subsequent
reallocation due to appeals by other Ventura County agencies
take place which increased the City's fair share allocation.
The SCAG Community, Economic and Housing Development Committee
(CEHD) considered appeals submitted by VCOG and its member
jurisdictions on April 26, 2000. The CEHD revised
recommendation to the SCAG Regional Council was made on May 4,
2000, and includes a redistribution of the units from Port
Hueneme appeal only. The other appeals that were approved were
Camarillo (replacement need - 183 units), Ojai (replacement need
- 20 units) , Ventura (replacement need - 30 units) , Simi Valley
(replacement need -243 units), and Thousand Oaks (replacement
need - 311 units). SCAG is in the process of notifying agencies
by certified mail of the opportunity to request a public hearing
before the CEHD related to RHNA allocations. The City of
M: \JLibiez \M \GenPlan \Housing \RHNAstatus5.17.00.doc
0006 1 -
RHNA Appeals
May 17, 2000
Page 2
Moorpark as of May 8, 2000, has not yet received this
notification. Requests for Public Hearings and /or new appeals
must be filed not later than June 12, 2000. CEHD will conduct
hearings during the week of June 19, 2000. The Regional Council
is scheduled to make final determinations on the CEHD Committee
recommendations on July 6, 2000.
The current CEHD recommendation as a result of their meeting on
April 26, 2000, calls for reallocation of units within the
delegated authority area [Ventura County sub - region]. The
reallocation would increase the City of Moorpark's share by an
additional 73 dwelling units to a total of 1255 units as
compared to the 1182 total units contained in the November 4,
1999, RHNA accepted by the City Council (subsequent RHNA tables
reflect reduction to 1182 units). Income allocations for the
current RHNA, with the increase or decrease from the November
RHNA shown in parentheses, are as follows:
Comparison of Current RHNA to November RHNA
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
269 ( +16) 155(+9) 383(+23) 448(+26) 1255(+73)
253 146 360 422 1182
In an April 27, 2000, memorandum to the Honorable City Council
from the Director of Community Development, it was noted that
the County of Ventura Resource Management Agency was preparing a
letter (attached) which frames an argument against the
reallocation and assignment of additional units to the County.
This option remains available to the City Council. The emphasis
of such a letter would be to advise SCAG that the City should be
exempt from receiving any reallocated units since the City
Council accepted [contract] the allocation of November 4, 1999.
When the work program for the Housing Element of the General
Plan was written, a line item (without an attached cost) related
to a possible RHNA appeal was incorporated at the request of
staff should the City wish to exercise an option by having the
Housing Element consultant provide assistance in the preparation
of or submittal of an appeal. Staff has contacted Mark Hoffman
the Housing Element Project Manager at Cotton /Beland Associates
to discuss options and to request a quotation for the additional
services should City Council wish to consider an appeal at this
time. If the Council concludes to use the services of Cotton
OOOOS _
RHNA Appeals
May 17, 2000
Page 3
Beland in the appeal process an adjustment to the professional
services agreement would be necessary.
In staff's opinion and the opinion of our Housing Element
Consultant, it is doubtful that any appeal which seeks
adjustment in the numbers of units to be constructed or the
formula basis would be granted. Notification to SCAG of the
City's dissatisfaction with the confusing procedure, and lack of
due process, due diligence, and insensitivity to the City's
willingness to cooperate in the process may be more appropriate.
The latter approach may be satisfactorily completed through
preparation of an extensive letter which provides the reasoning
for such concerns. Such a letter could be crafted by staff and
the City Attorney. It is staff's understanding that a similar
approach is being considered by the City of Moreno Valley and
the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). Staff has
requested information from WRCOG on this position and has been
assured the information will be sent for our review. This
approach may have more standing than a challenge based
completely on numbers.
An analysis of the change to the RHNA allocation from November
to the current allocation, shows that two - thirds of the increase
in total units (49 of the 73) have been allocated to market rate
housing in the moderate and above moderate income levels. Three
options are available should City Council wish to direct staff
to proceed. These are:
1) Submit appeal to numbers based on replacement need
similar to other successful VCOG cities. As noted in
the above discussion this option has little
opportunity for success at this point in the process.
2) Oppose the assignment of the RHNA allocation on the
basis of violations of process. Our housing
consultant indicated this option is most likely the
one that best addresses the inequities and errors of
the RHNA. It is gaining consideration by other SCAG
jurisdictions. It could be extremely costly and not
result in any change.
3) Accept the revised RHNA dated April 28, 2000.
STAFF RECOMENDATION
Accept revised RHNA allocation and do not file appeal.
000054