HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 1206 CC REG ITEM 09BTO:
FROM:
DATE:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable City Council
rrEM q - 1-g
ACT' •;-1' A PPrzovEp sTRFF
R�connME�D�Ttory
BY:
Wayne Loftus, Director of Community DevelopmenV44��
November 28, 2000 (CC Meeting of 12/06/2000)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2000 -02 - Updated
Housing Element to the General Plan; City of Moorpark,
Applicant
BACKGROUND
The proposed updated Housing Element for 2000 -2005 was recently
heard by the Planning Commission at their meetings of November 13
and November 27, 2000. Following the public hearing on November 13,
at which time no public testimony was given, the Commission
conducted their discussion and offered staff several comments for
inclusion in the recommended document. The Commission subsequently
continued this item, hearing open, to their meeting of November 27,
2000, to adopt a resolution recommending the Element to the City
Council. The expectation was that comments from the Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) would be available for
inclusion in the document to be recommended on November 27, 2000.
However, because of the extent of comments received and the
documentation required to respond with added time required for HCD
review, the Planning Commission was not able to adopt a
recommendation as planned.
DISCUSSION
Based upon the schedule recommended by the consultant,
Cotton /Beland /Associates, Inc. and staff, there was anticipation
that approval of the updated Housing Element would be achieved by
December 31, 2000. This schedule required a short time -frame for
report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and timely
hearing by the City Council. December 6, 2000, was established as
an achievable date for the City Council to review the Housing
Element and the legal advertising was sent to the newspaper.
S.ICommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reports&- 001206 Status of Updated Housing FJement doc -1 la&V4 -9:53 AM
C�(11041
Honorable City Council
November 27, 2000
Page 2
On November 16, 2000, the City received via facsimile, written
comments from HCD, which were briefly discussed in a conference call
between City staff, the Consultant and HCD on November 14, 2000
(Attachment 1). The end result of this first review and comment by
HCD, is that additional work is needed on the Element, which may
require until December 15, 2000, to forward to that State agency.
Based upon this schedule and on the absence of additional comments
by HCD, which would require a third (3rd) submittal, this Element
will not be ready for recommendation by the Planning Commission
until February 2001. If additional subsequent work is needed to
respond to HCD comments, the process could extend to April or May
2001.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing, take public testimony, close the public
hearing and direct staff to re- advertise this item for public
hearing at such time that the Planning Commission has adopted
recommendations to forward to City Council based upon final HCD
comments.
Attachment:
1. Letter - Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD),
dated November 16, 2000.
2. Letter - Cotton /Beland /Associates, Inc., dated November 22, 2000.
S:ICommunV DevelopnwttEveWe1Ciry Council Agenda Reportslcc- 001206 Status of Updated Housing Element doc
CCC042
ST/QLQF CALIFORLdA BUSIN�TBANSPS2UARON AN G ACLENCY _ _ t;RnY-DAM_.SmYumot
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development o&)s►NC y�o•
1800 Third Street, Suite 430 a ., Z
P. O. Box 952053 K
Sacramento, CA 94252 -2053 a
http:!/housing.hcd.ca.gov GY
0
(916) 323 -3176 DE`s'
FAX (916) 327 -2643
FILE COPY
November 16, 2000
Mr. Wayne Loftus, Director
City of Moorpark
Community Development Department
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Mr. Loftus:
RE: Review of the City of Moorpark's Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting Moorpark's draft housing element, received for our review on October
6, 2000. As you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is
required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality pursuant to
Government Code Section 65585(b).
A telephone conversation with you, Mr. John Libiez, Planning Manager and Mr. Mark Hoffman,
the City's consultant, on November 14, 2000, assisted our review. This letter and accompanying
Appendix sununarize that conversation.
While the current draft element is well written and includes a useful identification of housing
needs in Moorpark, portions of the clement require additional information and analysis to comply
with State housing clement law (Article 10.6 of the Govermment Code). Among the necessary
changes, the element should be revised to demonstrate that the City: 1) has or will have sufficient
land, with available infrastructure and absent constraints that would allow it to be developed at
appropriate densities to accommodate the development of housing commensurate with the
Moorpark's share of the regional housing need for all income groups, and 2) thoroughly describe
and analyse the City's residential land -use controls. We look forward to reviewing the revisions in
the near future.
For your information, we have enclosed a brief description of new and existing housing and
community development programs administered by this Department along with ftlnding levels for
the current fiscal year. We are pleased to report a historic increase in housing funds available
through HCD. A number of the progams such as the Jobs - Housing Balance Improvement
Program, the Ca1Holne Program and the Downtown Rebound Program are new and under current
development. Please consult our homepage at ►vww.hcd.cu. ,gov for program information updates.
ATTACHMENT 1. Nov X000
is 'v
Mr. Wayne Loftus, Director
Page 2
We hope our comments are helpful to the City. We appreciate the courtesy and assistance you,
Mr. Libiez and Mr. Hoffman provided during the .course of our review. We would be willing to
meet in Moorpark or otherwise provide additional assistance to aid the City in revising its housing
element. Please feel free to contact Robert Maus, of our staff, at (916) 323 -3180.
In accordance with their requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding a copy of
this letter to the individuals listed below.
Sincerely,
Cathy Creswell
Acting Deputy Director
Enclosure
cc: Mark Hoffman, CottonBeland /Associates
Catherine Ysrael, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AG's Office
Terry Roberts, Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Juan Acosta, California Building Industry Association
Marcia Salkin, California Association of Realtors
Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Rob Weiner, California Coalition for Rural Housing
Susan DeSantis, The Planning Center
Dara Schur, Western Center on Law and Poverty
Michael G. Colantuono, Attorney at Law
Karen Warner, Cotton/Beland /Associates
David Booher, California Housing Council
Jonathan Lehrer- Graiwer, Attorney at Law
Ana Maric Whitaker, California State University Pomona
Joe Carreras, Southern California Association of Governments
Won Chang, Attorney at Law, Davis and Company
Karen Flock, Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation
C�0G44
APPENDIX
City of Moorpark
The following changes would bring Moorpark's housing element into compliance with Article
10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change we cite the supporting
section of the Government Code. The particular program examples or data sources listed are
suggestions for your use.
A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints
1. The element should include an inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of
the relationship of zoning and public services available to these sites (Section
65583(a)(3)). Expand the land inventory analysis to indicate and clarify:
• There is sufficient total infrastructure capacity (water, sewer, streets, etc.) to
accommodate the City's new construction need before the end of the 2000 -2005
planning period and indicate if any specific parce](s) included in the land inventory
(vacant or anticipated to be rezoned) is constrained by infrastructure availability.
• The density ranges and zonin designations for Moorpark's categories permitting
residential development.
• Whether units have been or are likely to be developed in Moorpark at the densities
permitted under the general plan. While the element indicates (pages 3 -4) that
general plan land -use categories allow residential development at the following
densities: rural (1 unit per 10 or 40 acres), low (1 du /ac), medium low (2 du/ac),
medium (4 du/ac), high (7 du/ac), and very high (15 du /ac), it is unclear whether
typical development approaches the maximums permitted in the general plan.
The City could demonstrate the viability of the dwelling unit projections
(particularly those for very low- and low- income households) in Charts 4 -1, 4 -2, 4 -3
and 4 -4 by describing the basis for the estimate (for example, past development
applications, historic development patterns in these districts, current City policies or
incentives, etc.).
This is particularly important given that the majority of very -low income units
projected in Chart 4 -2 (Far West, Pacific, Specific Plan 2) indicate, "egLiivalcncy of'
units is based upon in -lieu fees." If the City collects "in lieu fees from developers
who are unable to meet the requirements for housing affordable for lower income
households as stipulated in the development agreements" it is unclear how the
payment of a fee (which may be substantially less than the true cost of constructing
C 0 45
such units) will ensure that the City can accommodate its regional share need for
very- low income households. It would seem that the generally low densities
permitted in Moorpark and the acknowledged pattern of reducing permitted
densities as proposals obtain development approval exacerbate this situation.
• The status of the rezoning proposed for a number of the parcels listed in Chart 4 -1;
the portion . of each site that is vacant for parcels described as vacant and
underutilized in Chart 4 -1; the current use for these parcels; and the viability of
residential development on the underutilized sites during the 2000 -2005 planning
period.
• The development impacts (both the likelihood of development, and if developed,
the cost impacts upon unit affordability) likely resulting from the environmental
constraints (seismic activity, topographical and geotechnical, hydrological and fire
hazard hazards) as described (pages 3 -14 and 3 -15). The element (page 4 -1) notes,
"vacant land is located primarily in the northern sector of Moorpark and therefore
has significant environmental constraints that preclude the feasibility of higher
intensity uses." The element should indicate which if any environmentally
constrained parcels are included in the land inventory and include an analysis that
demonstrates that the impact of these constraints upon residentially - designated land
available will not circumscribe the City's ability to accommodate its regional share
need during the 2000 -2005 planning period. This analysis should also include some
estimate of the cost impacts of these constraints upon residential development,
particularly multifamily development that could accommodate Moorpark's regional
share need for lower - income households.
2. Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including land use
controls. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental
constraints that hinder the locality fi,om meeting its share of the regional housing need
in accordance with Section 65584 (Section 65583(a)(4)).
• The element should include a description of the City's development standards for
each zone permitting residential development. While the draft element included a
description of most of Moorpark's land -use controls, Chart 3 -5 should be expanded
to also describe and evaluate City requirements for each specific zoning categ_ory
relating to maximum lot coverage, building setbacks, design standards, park
standards, and open space for their potential impact upon the development of
housing.
• The City indicates (page 3 -7) that multifamily development is allowed pursuant to a
residential planned development permit "which may be issued after an
administrative hearing or may require a public hearing." We also note that
applications for multifamily development generally have densities reduced during
the approval process (described in the November 14, 2000 telephone conversation).
The impacts of the residential planned development permit should be analyzed as a
potential constraint.
(� (
'lam � lJ O 4 V
• The analysis of Moorpark's design review process should be expanded to analyze its
impact upon housing affordability. The element could include a description of
Moorpark's design review standards and indicate that whether objective standards
exist to allow an applicant for a residential development permit to determine what is
required; mitigating many of the cost impacts.
After Moorpark has identified its development standards the City should indicate whether
the standards present a constraint to housing development. Identified constraints should
be removed or programs to mitigate the constraints should be developed.
3. The element should contain an analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels, including the price of land (Section 65583(A)(5)).
The element should quantify land costs in Moorpark for single - family and multifamily -
zoned land.
B. Housing Programs
1. The housing element should include a program which sets forth a five year schedule of
actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the
policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element (Section 65583
(c))-
Program actions should include specific implementation actions to ensure the City can
meet housing element program requirements (Section 65583(c)(1 -6) and in designing
effective housing programs Moorpark should consider the following:
Whenever possible, and where appropriate, each program action should contain a
specific date for implementation during the planning period to demonstrate the City's
commitment to implementation. While it may be appropriate for the Fair Housing
Program (Program #i18) to be implerr;entcd over the course of the planning period
(2000 -2005) other programs should have specific implementation actions with specific
timelines early enough in the planning period to implement the desired change. The
following programs should be revised to demonstrate a stronger commitment to
implement and include discrete dates for program implementation:
• Program 43: The element should state when the City anticipates completing the
rezoning of vacant and underutilized commercially -zoned sites to accommodate
residential development. The program description should also indicate the number
of acres the City plans on rezoning.
C v I),04 /
• Program #4: The element should indicate when the City will identify and refine
vacant and underutilized sites suitable for infill residential, new development, as
well as mixed -use development. The program should quantify the amount of land
in the various categories and indicate what proactive steps the City will initiate to
encourage the consolidation of irregularly shaped lots and to assist in the conversion
of suitable sites to residential zones.
• Program #7: The City should indicate when the zoning code would be revised to
allow the siting of emergency shelters and transitional housing.
• Program #12: When will the City adopt the in -lieu fee expenditure priorities?
2. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and
development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and
encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters
and transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of
subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of
all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for
sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner - occupied and rental multifamily
residential use by right, including density, and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low- and low- income
households (Section 65583(c)(1)).
As noted in comment A.1 above, further analysis of the feasibility of sites described in
Moorpark's land inventory is needed. The adequacy of sites cannot be established prior
to a more detailed analysis. In addition, (as noted in B.1., above), the City program's to
rezone vacant and underutilized residential and commercial parcels to higher density
residential use to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need, require a clear
commitment to provide sufficient sites ea,ly enough in the current planning period to
potentially allow development to occur before the end of the planning period.
3. The housing element shall contain programs, which "address, and where appropriate
and legally, possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing" (Section 65583(c)(3)).
As noted above (A.2), Moorpark's clement requires a more thorough description and
analysis of the City's land -use controls as potential governmental constraints.
Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add programs to
remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
C'C"0048
4. Describe the amount and uses of moneys in the redevelopment agency's Low- and
Moderate Income Housing Fund (L&M Fund (Section 65583c)).
Data supplied by the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency indicates that at the end of
Fiscal Year 1997 -98 Moorpark had an unencumbered balance in the L &M fund of
$1,182,606. The element should describe the estimated amount and anticipated uses of
the L &M Fund during the 2000 -2005 planning period.
C. Public Participation
Describe how the City made a diligent effort to achieve the public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the element (Section 65583(c)).
The housing element should specifically describe efforts by Moorpark to circulate the
housing element among organizations and individuals that represent lower - income
households and to involve such groups and persons in the development of the clement.
D. Quantified Objectives
The housing element shall contain a statement of the community's goals, quantified
objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, by income level (emphasis added) (Section 65583(b).
While the element contains a quantified objective for housing development for each income
group, the element should also contain quantified objectives for rehabilitation and
conservation for each income group.
C VG, 19
STA7EOFCArWORMA- BUcnaFCC 7RANCppRrAQ�ll{ A�TQjIOUS1NGAGEN Y RAYDAYIS�rm.=Qr
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Division of Housing Policy Development ,s° G 1140
1800 TbW Street. Suite 430 g
P.O. Box 952053
Sacramento, 94252 -2053 G Oaf
wwwhcd ca.Rov
(916) 323 -3176 FAX: (916) 327 -2643
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FINAL BUDGET
Financing Programs Administered by Housing and Community Development
(All funding available beginning July 1, 2000 unless otherwise noted)
• The Multifamily Housing Program The versatile Multifamily Housing Program provides loans
for rehabilitation and new construction of affordable multifamily rental housing, the
preservation of existing subsidized housing that may otherwise convert to market rents.
2000 -01 Funding: $188 million
• The Jobs - Housing Balance Improvement Program provides: (1) incentive -based strategy
grants to local governments to assist them in attracting new businesses and jobs in
communities that lack an adequate employment base in relation to the housing they already
provide ($5 Million), (2) incentive grants for capital outlay projects to local government to
increase the supply of housing and encourage strategic growth ($100 Million), (3) urban
predevelopment loans to local governments or private developers for proposed residential
projects located within one -half mile of an existing or planned transit station ( $5 Million).
2000 -01 Funding: $110 million
Funding Available: January 1, 2001
• The CalHome Program provides funds for homeownership programs to assist low- and very
low- income households become or remain homeowners. Funds would be allocated in either
grants to programs that assist individuals or loans that assist multiunit homeownership
projects.
2000 -01 Funding: $50 million
• The Downtown Rebound Program provides financing to revitalize downtowns and
neighborhoods, reduce development pressure of agricultural and open space resources and
provide working families with options to live close to their jobs. Funding will be offered through
the Multifamily Housing Program, an adaptive reuse component and for planning grants to
local governments to promote infill housing development, housing near transit and adaptive
reuse.
2000 -01 Funding: $25 million ($2.5m for Planning Grants)
Funding Available: January 1, 2001
• The Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP) provides grants to counties and
nonprofit entities to finance emergency shelters for homeless individuals and families. The
funds may be used for rehabilitation, renovation, expansion of existing facilities, site
acquisition, equipment purchase, vouchers, and operating costs.
2000 -01 Funding: $39 million ($14m for Operations /$25m for Capital Development11
HCD Final Budget
Page 2
• The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) provides federal grant funds to
approximately 180 small cities with populations less than 50,000, and rural counties with
populations less than 200,000 that do not automatically receive funding from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG grants can be used for
housing rehabilitation, housing- related infrastructure, site acquisition and preparation,
economic development, and planning and technical assistance.
2000 -01 Funding: $61.9 million
• The federal Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program provides grants to cities,
counties and community housing development organizations that do not receive HOME funds
directly from HUD. HOME grants are used for housing construction, rehabilitation,
rehabilitation and acquisition, and tenant -based rental assistance.
2000 -01 Funding: $45 million
• The Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program (FESG) provides grants to local public
agencies and nonprofit organizations in small communities that do not receive emergency
shelter funds directly from HUD, to provide shelter and transitional housing for homeless
individuals and families. FESG grants are used for facility conversion, rehabilitation,
maintenance, operating costs, rent, and supporting services such as transportation, legal aid,
and counseling for the homeless.
2000 -01 Funding: $6.3 million
• The Interregional Partnership State Pilot Proiect provides grants to interregional consortia of
two or more councils of governments or two or more subregions with a multicounty council of
governments, to identify, test, and evaluate a variety of policies and incentives to mitigate
current and future imbalances of jobs and housing. Grants are to be used for advancing
development of implementation plans and models, including geographic mapping and
promoting jobs in areas high in housing.
2000 -01 Funding: $5 million
• The Code Enforcement Program provides grants for cities and counties to expand staff for
building code enforcement efforts and also provides grants to local jurisdictions for a
Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program in up to four jurisdictions, which uses a multi-
disciplinary approach to code enforcement.
2000 -01 Funding: $5 million
• The Housing Assistance Program (HAP) provides federal Section 8 rent assistance grants to
very low- income households in twelve rural counties that do not have housing authorities.
The department contracts with local sponsoring agencies, to which households and individuals
apply for rental assistance.
2000 -01 Funding: $3.2 million
livVGS
HCD Final Budget
Page 3
• The Farmworker Housing Grant Program (FWHG) provides grants to local public agencies,
nonprofit corporations, and federally- recognized Indian tribes to provide housing for
agricultural workers. The grants are used for rehabilitation or new construction of owner -
occupied housing, and construction and rehabilitation of rental units.
2000 -01 Funding: $46.5 million ($35.5m for base program; $3m for unhealthy and
unsafe units; $3m for manufactured housing; and $5m for housing with health services
demonstration)
• The Office of Migrant Services (OMS) makes grants to local public agencies to maintain and
operate 26 seasonal housing centers for migrant farmworkers.
2000 -01 Funding: $7.679m ($6.789m for continued reconstruction and $890,000 for
playground upgrades at state migrant centers)
• The Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP)'pm' vides loans to mobilehome
park resident organizations, local public agencies and nonprofit entities to acquire mobilehome
parks and preserve them as affordable housing. MPROP loans help borrower organizations to
purchase their parks, and help low- income residents purchase their park spaces or shares in
the resident corporation.
2000 -01 Funding: $9 million
• The Predevelopment Loan Program —Rural (PDLP -R) provides short -term loans for the
startup costs of low- income housing projects, including site control, engineering studies,
architectural plans, application fees, legal services, permits, bonding and site preparation.
2000 -01 Funding: $1 million
• The Housing Preservation Program combines predevelopment loans with a program of
technical assistance to assist in the preservation of existing affordable rental projects.
2000 -01 Funding: $2.5 million
• The Self -Help Housing Program (SHHP) provides grants to local public agencies and nonprofit
organizations that provide advice and technical assistance to help low- and moderate- income
owner - builders build and rehabilitate their homes with their own labor.
2000 -01 Funding: $2.1 million
• The Child Care Facilities Finance Program (CCFFP) guarantees private sector loans to private
entities and local public agencies for the purchase, development, construction, expansion, or
improvement of licensed child care and development facilities. CCFFP also provides direct
loans to purchase, develop, construct, expand or improve a licensed child care facility or child
development facility.
2000 -01 Funding: $16 million
• The Homebuyers Downpayment Assistance Program will provide junior mortgage loans to
assist low and moderate income Californians achieve the goal of homeownership. The intent
is to help turnaround the declining rate of homeownership and address the shortfall of
affordable housing throughout the state. The program will be administered by the California
Housing Finance Agency, which will allocate funds in accordance with their established
authority.
2000 -01 Funding: $50 million
COTTON /BELAND /ASSOCIATES, INC.
URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
November 22, 2000
TO: John Libiez, Principal Planner
City of Moorpark
FROM: Mark Hoffman
RE: Progress Report
The following is a status report on both the City's Housing Element and Safety Element. As
you are aware, we received comments from the State Department of Housing and Community
Development on November 16, 2000 and are now awaiting comments from the State Division
of Mines and Geology scheduled for November 24, 2000. These comments must be
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption.
With respect to steps hereafter, comments must be incorporated to relevant portions of the
Housing and/or Safety Elements and must be received and approved by the State agencies. By
law, the agencies have between 30 to 45 days before they must respond to comments. With
respect to the Housing Element, the State is primarily concerned with several areas that affect
the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing as follows:
(1) The ability of the City to have adequate sites to fulfill the RHNA requirements as well
as the affordability requirements given the community's generally lower density
standards and the need to convert additional land to residential uses;
(2) The existence of several constraints that might preclude fulfillment of the RHNA,
including infrastructure and environmental constraints which may preclude the
development of housing at the maximum density permitted in a particular zone;
(3) The impact of the design review process, residential planned development permit for
multifamily housing, and other residential permit processes that might increase the cost
of housing and impede the City from achieving its RHNA requirements.
The steps to resolve these issues involve submittal of additional information clarifying gaps
in their understanding of local conditions. HCD has 45 days to respond to the City's comments
in writing. Based upon clarification of various local conditions, HCD may require significant
program commitments to address identified constraints to development. Once program
changes have been developed and submitted, HCD has 45 days to respond in writing.
Given the nature of questions asked by HCD and the need to tailor a workable and practical
strategy, we anticipate that one to two rounds of comments and reviews may be necessary to
resolve outstanding issues. Should only one round of comments is necessary and City
responses are drafted and sent by December 15, 2000, the earliest meeting for consideration
of such changes by the Planning Commission and City Council would be in February.
ATTACHMENT, ak c�; ,(,,�