The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02 - Item 1 - Presentation - 10/8/20192019 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESS CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 8, 2019 City Council v v 2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESS This study session is intended to update the City Council on the status of requirements related to the 6th Housing Element Cycle and to provide initial information related to potential strategies to prepare the required Housing Element update v v 3 TOPICS OF DISCUSSION •Housing Element Law •Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) •Housing Legislation •2021-2029 (6th Cycle) Housing Element (timeline) •Latest Draft RHNAAllocations •Strategies for Providing Adequate Sites •Additional Options to Meet RHNA Allocation (ADUs, policies) •Potential Affordable Housing Policies v v 4 CITY’S HOUSING DATA Low Density 25.9% •2,085 acres Medium Density 10.7% •858 acres High Density 10.5% •843 acres A total area of 3,788.4 acres (47%) dedicated to residential uses As of 2010, Costa Mesa’s housing stock consisted of: •58 percent renter- occupied units and •42 percent owner- occupied units v v 5 2013-2021 HOUSING ELEMENT •The Housing Element is a required General Plan element that is updated every eight years •The Housing Element includes the current status of housing production, projected housing needs in terms of income and special needs populations, and potential locations and policies to meet local and regional housing needs v v 6 ANNUAL HOUSING PROGRESS – AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2018 Income Level RHNA Allocation by Income Level 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019- 2021 Total Units to Date (all years) Unmet RHNA Very Low 1 9* Low 1 2 2 Moderate Above Moderate 22 50 93 115 260 735 1275 Total RHNA 2 Total Units 22 50 93 115 260 737 9*1277 0* Note: Units in this table reflect units that have been completed in the reporting year to be consistent with previous reporting years. * To be implemented with CMMI not included in total v v 7 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction throughout the State during specified planning periods. Costa Mesa is located in the SCAG region, which is the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization (MPO), representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 19 million residents.Source: SCAG v v 8STATE HOUSING DATA – 50 YEARS Source: SCAG v v 9 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) For each planning period, HCD determines the housing needs of the entire SCAG region SCAG is responsible for developing a methodology that will determine an individual jurisdiction’s RHNA allocation To develop a methodology, SCAG must survey all jurisdictions on their local planning factors The factors include planning strategies and constraints such as: •Jobs / Housing relationship •Infrastructure limitations outside a jurisdiction’s control •County policies to preserve agricultural or open space •High housing costs v v 10 HOUSING ELEMENT TIMELINE Feb. 2019 – September 2019 Local Surveys Draft RHNA methodology HCD release of preliminary RHNA numbers allows for a 30-day appeal by COGs Oct. 2019 – Dec. 2019 •HCD review of proposed RHNA methodology Feb. 2020 – July 2020 •Final methodology adopted •Distribution of Draft RHNA July 2020 •RHNA appeal hearings August 2020 •Final draft RHNA October 2020 •Adoption of final RHNA October 2021 •Housing Elements are due to HCD v v 11 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) •Subsequent to receiving their RHNA allocations, jurisdictions are required to update their housing element in their General Plan, and demonstrate through sites and zoning analysis how the jurisdiction will accommodate the future housing need and meet their assigned RHNA allocation v v 12 PRELIMINARY RHNA – SCAG REGION Released on August 22, 2019 SCAG submitted an appeal to HCD on September 18 Income Category Percent Housing Unit Need Very-Low* 26.1% 350,998 Low 15.3% 206,338 Modera te 16.7% 225,152 Above-Moderate 41.8% 562,252 Total 100.0% 1,344,740 v v 13 PRELIMINARY RHNA – COSTA MESA •Methodology 1 - 5,881 units (VL 2,097, L 1,613, M 1,728) •Methodology 2 – 9,302 units (VL 2,196, L 1,410, M 1,649) •Methodology 3 – 2,803 units (VL 662, L 425, M 497) AS OF OCTOBER 4, 2019 (4TH Methodology) v v 14 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW Requirements for Compliance •Certified Housing Element •Annual Housing Progress Report to HCD (April each year) v v 15 CHALLENGES •Possible High RHNA Allocation (SCAG staff recommending 4,323 units) •New Housing Legislation links state funds to a compliant Housing Element; non-compliance could lead to loss of funding and/or fines •If necessary, need to identify potential suitable and available sites zoned at 30 du/acre density (per State, this is the minimum necessary for qualifying very low and low affordable sites) •Measure Y v v 16 POTENTIAL SITE OPTIONS •Urban Plan Overlays •Residential Incentive Overlays •Fairview Developmental Center •Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Update •One Metro West (currently in review with potential 15% affordable housing) •Other residential options north of I-405 Freeway and/or Airport Industrial •ADUs (keep track of affordability) •Sakioka Lot 2 v v 17 POTENTIAL POLICY OPTIONS •Inclusionary Housing Ordinance •Other Cities: •Irvine –minimum of 15 percent affordable units / in-lieu fees •Santa Ana –minimum of 15 percent affordable units in for-sale developments •Newport Beach -9 percent very low-income and 15 percent low-income v v 18 ADU LEGISLATION AB 68 • permits two ADUs • Prohibits agencies from imposing maximum lot coverage, minimum lot size, replacement of parking, no-more than four-foot setbacks AB 670 • Voids CC&Rs of a HOA that prohibit ADUs AB 671 • Requires local governments to include a plan to promote ADUs in their Housing Element AB 881 • Eliminates owner occupancy requirement until 2025 SB 13 • Creates new process for HCD to review local ADU ordinances • Requires ADUs to be included in the Housing Element • No fees for ADUs below 750 SF v v 19 ADU LEGISLATION There are a number of additional housing bills that have been enrolled, but not yet approved: •SB 5 – Creates state operated housing fund to allocate $200-$250 million annually for affordable housing, transit-oriented development, high density infill, local community engagement efforts, and certain construction work to protect against the impacts of climate change •AB 330 – Streamlines approval of emergency shelters. •AB 1483 – Revises housing reporting requirements. •AB 1763 – Expands the density bonus law to add incentives and concessions for projects that are 100% affordable. Expands incentives/concessions for additional types of affordable projects. For example, sometimes prohibits a city from imposing any parking requirements on certain low-income rental or special needs housing developments. v v 20 SUMMARY Staff is providing this information to the City Council in advance of the final RHNA allocation to initiate discussion of options in advance of development of the required Housing Element update HOUSING ELEMENT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 8, 2019 City Council v v 22 BACKUP SLIDES v v 23 ANNUAL REPORTING v v 24 OPTIONS – UPZONE AND REZONE Urban Plan Overlays: •Of the total area of 709 acres under these overlays, a total of 671 dwelling units have been developed. •Allows densities with up to 20 dwelling units per acre, with no requirement to provide affordable housing. •The City Council may consider increasing the densities to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre to satisfy siting requirements for low and very low income units. v v 25 OPTIONS – UPZONE AND REZONE Residential Incentive Overlays: •Residential Incentive Overlays allow residential development at a density of up to 40 dwelling units per acre. •In 2018, the City Council reduced the areas of the overlays to 7.55 acres in four nodes along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (total units allowed reduced from 1,630 to 302). v v 26 OPTIONS – UPZONE AND REZONE Update Newport Boulevard Specific Plan: •The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan allows residential development at up to 17.4 dwelling units per acre on a sliding scale depending on the lot size. •An option would be to raise the density to 20 dwelling units per acre and remove the minimum lot size requirement v v 27 OPTIONS Fairview Developmental Center: •General Plan allows up to 582 residential units with a mix of 250 of single family (6 dwelling units per acre on a minimum of 50 acres) and 332 multiple family units (40 dwelling units per acre). v v 28 OPTIONS – NEW RESIDENTIAL AREAS One Metro West (1683 Sunflower Avenue): •This proposed project includes a total of 1,057 residential units. Project approval would include a General Plan Amendment and other entitlements by the City Council and would subsequently be subject to voter approval as required by Measure Y. The applicant has proposed affordable housing equivalent to 15 percent of the project. Residential Options North of I-405 Freeway or within Airport Industrial Area: •The General Plan does not include land uses that allow residential development north of the I-405 Freeway and west of Harbor Boulevard. Archive d: Thursday, October 10, 2019 10:16:07 AM From: HAUSER, JAN ET Se nt: Tue, 8 O ct 2019 13:20:52 To: GREEN , BRENDA Cc: BENN ETT, STACY Subje ct: FW: Housing Study Session 10/8/19 - comment Se ns itivity: Normal Jane t Hauser Ex e cuti ve Se cretary to Costa Me sa Ci ty Council Ci ty of Costa Me sa 77 Fair Dri ve Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Desk: 714-754-5107 Ce l l : 714-949-3693 Jane t.hauser@costame saca.gov Not e: Using the “Reply All” option may inadvert ently result in a Brown Act violation. From: Russel l Tol er <Russe l l JayToler@hotmai l .com> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2019 12:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@costame saca.gov>; DEARAKAL, BYRON <BYRON.DEARAKAL@costame saca.gov>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <JEFFREY.HARLAN@costamesaca.gov>; ZICH, JON <JON.ZICH@costame saca.gov>; COLBERT, KEDARIOUS <KEDARIOUS.COLBERT@costamesaca.gov>; RUSSELL, DIANNE <DIANNE.RUSSELL@costame saca.gov>; TOURJE, JENNA <JENNA.TOURJE@costamesaca.gov>; CURTIS, BARRY C. <BARRY.CURTIS@costame saca.gov> Subject: Housi ng Study Se ssi on 10/8/19 - comment 8 Octobe r 2019 Madam Mayor and Membe rs of the Ci ty Counci l and Pl anni ng Commi ssi on, I am gl ad to hear that the Counci l wi l l be di scussing thi s important topi c tonight, and l ook forward to hearing your comments.In my observati ons the re are several reasons that peopl e general l y ge t upse t at the i de a of more housi ng i n our city. 1. It wi l l mean more car-conge sti on on our streets (parki ng concerns also fal l i nto thi s category). Peopl e te nd to equatemore people living here wi th more people driving on our already-too-crowded streets. Obvi ously, i t i s stressful to be soclose to home , ye t be stuck behi nd a froze n ri ve r of cars. The ral l y cry that “we ’re ful l ” i s dire ctl y tied to thi s commonfrustration share d by dri ve rs. 2. Ugl i ness. Most resi de nti al de vel opments that are not the tradi tional stre e t-faci ng si ngl e -fami l y home are accuse d f orbeing out of scal e or rui ni ng the character of the street or nei ghborhood. Thi s al so i s probabl y true. Much of the mul ti -f ami l y devel opment bui l t i n the l ast fe w de cades has been out of scal e , and characterless. I thi nk i t’s f ai r to say that a great majori ty of compl ai nts ove r ne w housi ng are e ncompassed by the se two consi derati ons. AndI thi nk the y are vali d conce rns. As we study thi s issue and fi gure out how we mi ght meet our RHNA numbe rs i n a way that avoids publ ic angst, and rathe r e nhance s our ne i ghborhoods, I have a sugge sti on: mi ssi ng mi ddl e housi ng. If you are notfamiliar with this term, missing middle housing re f e rs to the type s of housi ng that use d to ge t buil t be f ore de nsi ty and parki ngrestrictions cause d the m to go ne arl y e x ti nct. The y are the type s ‘i n the mi ddl e ’ be twe e n the si ngl e -fami l y home and the 18+uni t apartme nt bui l di ng that most would consi de r out of character wi th a re sidential nei ghborhood. The y are the ge ne ral si zeand shape of house s, but contain mul ti ple units: dupl e x e s, tripl e x e s, quadpl e x e s, rowhouse s, mansi on apartme nts, etc.The se , i f done we ll (whi ch we can e nsure through our de ve l opme nt code), can f i t se aml e ssl y into our nei ghborhoods. The ycan be bui lt by homeowne rs to make space for exte nde d fami l y or to get re ntal i ncome , or buil t by smal l de ve l ope rs. Thi sallows for trul y organi c community-l e d growth that i s more li ke l y to keep money i n our communi ty. By using mi ssi ng mi ddlehousing as a way to i ncrease our supply, we can re l y on our e x i sti ng admi ni strati ve processe s (thi s can be all by-ri ghtdevelopment), and avoi d the f retful publ ic proce ss of de al i ng wi th de e p-pocke t outsi de deve l ope rs and fi ndi ng the l e ast-worst si te i n the ci ty to re -zone and bui l d on. To addre ss the i ssue of i ncre ase d traf fi c. The cri ti cs are correct, but onl y partl y so: we don’t have enough room f or many morecars, but we do have enough room f or many more pe opl e. As we ne ce ssaril y re l ax our zoni ng standards to al l ow for morehousing, we must make sure that we si mul taneousl y work to re duce dri ving (re duce the need to drive). Thi s me ans safe rstreets and i nterse ctions, be tter transi t service, and more busi ne sse s wi thi n wal ki ng/biki ng distance of homes. It al so meansless parking requi reme nts. Hi gh parki ng re qui re ments (l i ke 2 per uni t) easil y ki l l s the feasibi li ty of the much of missingmiddle housi ng I’m talki ng about, and for those that do ge t bui l t, the adde d cost is pushed onto the rente r – whe ther the ydrive or not. Thanks for re ading! Russe l l Toler