Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2006 1220 CC SPC ITEM 04AMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rrEM 4 A. CITY OF 0PPARK, CALIFORNIA Cit',! Council Meeting of /a _ ao -oo,6 ACTION: BY- A2 TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Directo Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana r �7 DATE: December 19, 2006 (CC Special Meeting of 12/20/2006) SUBJECT: Consider Draft 2006 -2014 Regional Housing Needs Assessment BACKGROUND State General Plan law (Government Code §65300 et seq.) requires each City and County to have a General Plan composed of seven (7) mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Conservation, Open Space, and Safety. These elements, along with any optional elements adopted by the local agency, form the constitution for future development within each jurisdiction. While State law allows each local agency to establish its own goals and policies for most elements, it has established the availability of housing for every Californian as a statewide goal, and has directed that each local agency bear responsibility to meet this goal through the Housing Element. The State Department of Housing and Community Development has the responsibility for determining existing and projected housing needs for each region in the state for a given planning period. The regional Council of Governments (SCAG for the six - county Southern California region) is then responsible for distributing the housing need among jurisdictions. This distribution is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Each local agency must then prepare a Housing Element to demonstrate how that housing need can be achieved, and the Housing Element must be certified by a certain deadline for the agency's General Plan to be valid. DISCUSSION The current planning period for the SCAG region is 2006 to 2014; the deadline for SCAG to finalize the RHNA distribution for this period is June 2007, and the deadline for each agency to update the local Housing Element is June 2008. SCAG has taken the regional housing need of 733,329 housing units and prepared a preliminary draft distribution among jurisdictions. Of the total units, 28,481 housing units (3.88 %) have been distributed to the Ventura County subregion. The following table shows the preliminary distribution among the ten Cities and County for the 2006 -2014 planning S: \Community Development\COUNCIUMisc Reports \061220 RHNA.doc t,i f .. , 0 t_ . I' 1- Honorable City Council December 20, 2006 Page 2 period, compared to the previous 1998 -2005 planning period, as well as the City and County staff estimates for development during the 2006 -2014 planning period. Jurisdiction 1998 -2005 RHNA % of County- wide Total Draft 2006 -2014 RHNA* % of County- wide Total 2006 -2014 City Dev. Estimates % of County- wide Total Camarillo 1800 9.1% 4853 17.0% 3150 13.6% Fillmore 808 4.1% 608 2.1% 1081 4.7% Moorpark 1255 6.4% 939 3.3% 1615 7.0% Ojai 209 1.1% 383 1.3% 144 0.6% Oxnard 3298 16.7% 7345 25.8% 7000 30.2% Port Hueneme 254 1.3% 516 1.8% 177 0.8% Ventura 1950 9.9% 3422 12.0% 3600 15.5% Santa Paula 1393 7.1% 1856 6.5% 1200 5.2% Simi Valley 2767 14.0% 5086 17.9% 2417 10.4% Thousand Oaks 4322 21.9% 1072 3.8% 1400 6.0% County 1678 8.5% 2401 8.4% 1400 6.0% TOTAL 19734 100.0% 28481 1 100.0% 1 23184 100.0% * The Draft RHNA number shown is the target for housing for all income levels. Under the proposed distribution, Moorpark would be responsible for 209 units affordable to very low income households (less than 50% of county median household income), 169 units affordable to low income households (between 50% and 80% of county median household income), 194 units affordable to median income households (between 80% and 120% of county median household income), and 367 units affordable to high income households (greater than 120% of county median household income). Community Development staff from several cities in Ventura County have expressed concern that the draft RHNA distribution bears no relation to what is likely to occur within the jurisdiction, based on either expected development, natural constraints, and development policy. As noted in the table, estimated development falls short of the RHNA for the Ventura County as a whole, although some cities are expecting to meet the preliminary draft RHNA targets. SCAG staff has made it clear that the RHNA number for Ventura County as a whole would not be adjusted downward, though they would consider one appeal from each jurisdiction, based on limited factors specified in the Government Code (i.e. availability of land, jobs /housing balance, lack of sewer or water service, lands protected under State or Federal programs, County agricultural preservation policies for unincorporated areas, agreements between Counties and Cities to direct growth to Cities, high housing costs, farmworker housing needs, market demand for housing, and RTP growth distribution), and may redistribute the RHNA among the Ventura County jurisdictions. One option allowed by SCAG is for each subregion to take over the responsibility for distribution of the RHNA. If Ventura County Cities and the County opt for this approach, distribution of the 28,481 housing units, as well as consideration of appeals, would be handled by VCOG instead of SCAG. The benefit of this approach, if all ten Cities and Honorable City Council December 20, 2006 Page 3 the County can agree on RHNA distribution, is the provision of certainty in the process; the RHNA would not be redistributed to any local agency by SCAG based on appeals from other jurisdictions. The Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG) has been considering this option. Staff from the ten Cities and Ventura County have also been working together to try to develop a formula based on a number of different factors including General Plan capacity, jobs, existing dwelling units, available vacant land, and recent housing and employment growth. Agreement among staff on the most equitable formula has not yet been achieved. A meeting with staff and the VCOG Board is scheduled for January 9, 2007 to try to resolve the differences. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate.