HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-23; City Council; 12129 Exhibit 9; Inclusionary Housing ProgramAPRIL 5, 1993
EXHIBIT 9
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Planning Director
PROPOSED REVI8IONS TO 'ERR INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE (OCA 91-6) AND TRB DENSITY INCREASE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (QPA 92-8) BASED UPON CITY COUNCIL DIRBCTION
On March 23, 1993 the Inclnsionary Ordinance (ZCA 914, the Density Bonus Ordinance
(ZCA 91-5), and a General Plan Amendment to Increase Residential Densities (GPA 92-8)
were heard before the City Council l%e City Council approved the Density Bonus Ordinance
(ZCA 91-5) as recommended. After the staflpresentation and public testimony was completed
on the Inclusionaty Ordinance and the General Plan Amendment, the City Council discussed
both items and cornmen& and suggeStons were made regarding specific revisions. A summary
of the City Council’s major comments and staffs proposed revisions in response to those
comments are included below. lkse recommended revisions should be considered by the
Council at the continued heating to be held on April I3, 1993.
In order to clearly identify the proposed Ordinance revisions, text to be deleted FF in a strike-out
type; new text is in highlighted type.
I. INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE (ZCA 91-6)
A. Base Residential Yield and Methodology for Calcuhzting a Reject’s Inclusionary Requirements - City Council Members commented that they believed the Inclusionaty
Ordinance should be revised to specify that the number of inclusionary units required per project
should be based upon the number of market rate units approved by the final decision making
authority of the City instead of basing the requirement e&usively upon the maximum theoretical number of units which could be achieved
In response, staff is recommending that the Ordinance Sections 2I85.070@, 21.85.080(g)(3),
21.85.090#, and 21.85.100(e) be revised as follows:
Section 21.85.070(f). .The base for a new master plan or specific plan is determined by multiplying the net developable acreage of the project site times the growth management control point(s) for the project site's applicable general plan designation(s). If in the course of reviewing a new master plan or specific plan, the final decision making authority of the City determines that the base residential yield of the new master plan or specific plan cannot be achieved 9 "A then the base shall be equal to the . maximum number of units 1 . . s approved by the final decision making authority of the City.
CITY NANAGBR APRIL 5, 1993 PAGE 2
Section 21.85.080(g)(3). For any phase or individual development area of a master plan or specific plan for which a tentative map (which establishes individual residential lots or dwelling units) has not been deemed complete or approved, - before the effective date of this ordinance, the base shall be equal to the maximum number of units permitted under that master plan or specific plan for that phase or individual development area. If in the course of reviewing a phase or individual development area of a master or specific plan, the final decision making authority of the City determines that the maximum number of dwelling units permitted for a phase or individual development area of a master plan or specific plan cannot be achieved beea-u~ sf -m
* . . * then the base shall be equal to the maximum number of units actualiy i .
approved bp the final decision making authority of the City.
Section 21.85.090(f). The base for a residential subdivision is determined by multiplying the net developable acreage of the project site times the growth management control point(s) for the project site's general plan designation(s). If in the course of reviewing a residential subdivision project, the final decision making authority of the City determines that the base residential yield of the project site cannot be achieved m , 0 . \**"* w ase shall be equal to the maximum number of units actually -
* m approved by the final decision making authority of the City.
Section 21.85.100(e). The base for a mobile home development is determined by multiplying the net developable acreage of the project site times the growth management control point(s) for the project site's applicable general plan designation(s). If in the course of reviewing a mobile home project, the final decision making authority of the City determines that the base residential yield of the project site cannot be achieved m
equal to the maximum number of units actually P
1 1 "I " I approved by the final docision raking.authority of the City.
-
CITY MANAGER APRIL 5, 1993 PAGE 3
B. Affordability Tenure - The Ordinance (Section 21.85.I2O(c)) crurently states that inclusionary units shall remain affordable for a minimum period of 30 years with the option that
the City may purchase the affordable units, at the end of the 30 year period, to enable the
extension of the affordability tenure. During the hearing staff recommended that the
affordability tenure provisions of the Ordinance be revised for purposes of extending the
affordability tenure of inclusionaly units, while reducing overall program administrative costs to
the City. These staff recommended revisions include the following:
Section 21.85.120(c). Inclusionary rental units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a c C? <wt.. f') A -*.** W'J \ w the useful life of the project or housing unit, assuming good faith efforts to maintain the project or housing unit and rehabilitate it as necessary.
Section 21.85.120(d). After the initial sale of inclusionary for- sale units to the designated income group, inclusionary for-sale units shall remain affordable for their useful life; or if subseguently sold at a 'market price to other than targeted households, the sale shall result in the recapture of the City's financial interest in the unit, for use in assisting other eligible households.
Section 21.85.130 Expiration of Affordability Tenure.
Since the revised tenure ptvvisions of the Ordinance (discussed above) establish what is, in
effect, pennanent affordability (useful life of the project or housing unit), and also identify the
program requirements for resale of inclusionary for-sale units at market prices, staff concludes
that Section 21.85.130 is no longer necessary, and therefore recommends that it be deleted
C. Management and Monitoring of Inclusionary Units - City Council Members
recommended that Section 21.85.190 of the Inclksionary Oniinance be revised to specify the
date that inclusionaty rental unt? annual monitoring reports are required to be submitted to the
City. Council iUembers also requested that staffprovide an annual report on the City’s ~~QE.W
in meeting it’s affordable housing objectives.
In response, staff recommends the following revision to Section 21.85.190(a):
Section 21.85.190(a). Inclusionary rental units shall be managed/operated by the owner of the units or his or her agent. Each owner of inclusionary rental units shall submit an annual report to the City, at the end of the previous calendar year, identifying which units are inclusionary units, the monthly rent, vacancy information for each inclusionary rental unit for the prior year, monthly income for tenants of each inclusionary rental unit throughout the prior year, and other information as required by the city I while ensuring the privacy of the tenant.
CITY NANAGER APRIL 5, 1993 PAGE 4
Consistent with Section 65400 of the Government Code, the Planning Depamnent is required
to provide an annual repoti to the City Council and the State Depatiment of Housing and
Community Development on the City’s progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs.
This State mandated annual report, which would include: the number of new dwelling units
approved, the number of new units developed, and the rental rates or sales prices of the units,
will fulfil1 this obligation. In conjunction with this report, staff will present a repair to the City
Council on the status of all of the programs of the Housing Element. It is anticipated that these annual reports would be presented to the City Council within six months following the end of
each calendar year. Because the annual report is already a state requirement, it is not necessary
to amend the Inclusionary Ordinance.
D. Administrative Fee for Inclusionaty Housing (Section 21.85.200). The City Council
agreed that City staff costs for administering the Inclusionary Ordinance should be borne by the
City. Staff recommends that a portion of future Housing In-Lieu Fees and Impact Fees which
are deposited within the City’s Housing Trust Fund be allocated for Inclusionaty Housing
administrative services. Consistent with this revision, staff recommends that Section 21.85.200
Administrative Fee for Inclusionary Housing, be deleted and that Sections 21.85.050(d) and
21.85.060(f) be revised as follows:
Section 21.85.050(d). All in-lieu fees collected hereunder shall
be deposited in a Housing Trust Fund. Said fund shall be administered by the City and shall be used only for the purpose of providing funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing w&M and reasonable costs of administration consistent with the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Section 21.85.060(f). All housing impact fees collected hereunder shall be deposited in a Housing Trust Fund. Said fund shall be administered by the City and shall be used only for the purpose of providing funding assistance for the provision of affordable housing u&&a and reasonable costs of administration consistent with the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Since the City Council heating of March 23,1993, staff has conducted an overall review of the
Inclusionary Oniinance f0rpupM.s of dktenninhg whether thert are any other pmvisions of
the Ordinance which if modifkd could result in a more effective and workable affordable
houstkgprogram. Based upon this review, staff recommends that Section 21.85.120 (e), which
identifies locational standards for inclusionaty units, be revised as follows:
Section 21.85.120(e). In certain cases where a combined inclusionary housing project is proposed, the inclusionary units may be provided on a site separate from the site of the market-rate units. Construction of the inclusionary units is, limited to sites within the same City quadrant in which the market-rate units are
CITY MANAGER APRIL 5, 1993 PAGE 5
located or site8 which are contiguous to the quadrant. t, et t W..U" h
St- t . ee
This revision would provide the development community (particularly smalt infill residential
developers) with addirional site opportunities (propetties adjacent to El Camino Real or Palomar
Airport Road) for locating inclusionary units. As an example, an inj?ll residential developer in
the Village (with a requirement to provide 2 inclusionary units) could be pennitted to satisfy
inclrisionary requirements by purchasing and deed restricting 2 units of an apartment project
which is located along El Camino Real in the southwest quadrant. Staff would be responsible
for monitoring all requests to locate inclusionary units actvss quadrant boundaries to ensure that
the quadrant caps are not exceeded ,and that there continues to be a fair apportionment of
inclusionaty units in all four quadrants.
II. DENSITY INCREASE (GPA 92-08)
A. The City Council directed that a ptvvision be added to the proposed general plan
amendment, speciifLing that density increases shall not be penrutted to exceed Citywide and
quadrant dwelling unit cap. In response, staff recommends that the following wording be added
to the end of Residential Guideline 19:
Any request for a density-increase, pursuant to this Residential Guideline, ah811 not be permitted to exceed the Citywide and quadrant dwelling unit limitation8 of the Growth Management Plan (Proposition E).
III. ADDITIONAL GRAPHICS
A couple of City Council Members requested additional graphics which are attached to this memorandum as follows:
A. A one-page listing and status of all major programs contained in the Housing Element.
B. A one-page summzky of which projects pay impact fees, in- lieu fees or build units.
.
MICHAEL J. HOLZMiLLER Planning Director
arb Attachments