HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-12; City Council; Resolution 2021-003RESOLUTION NO. 2021-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, EXEMPTING STREET FACILITIES FROM THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN VEHICULAR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD, PURSUANT
TO MOBILITY ELEMENT POLICY 3-P.9, THEREBY REFOCUSING PLANNING
EFFORTS AT THESE STREET FACILITIES TO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE OVERALL TRIP GENERATION, AND
ADOPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS
WHEREAS, in 1986, the city adopted Proposition E (Growth Management Plan), which amended
the city's General Plan to "ensure that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with
need to serve new development...In guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be
given to ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational
amenities;" and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Plan (GMP) is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP); and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities incorporated into
the CFIP; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element and the CFIP include the city's GMP circulation
performance standard, which was updated in 2015 to comply with new state planning laws; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358), which requires
General Plans "to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan;" and
WHEREAS, the Legislature also adopted SB 375 in 2008 which calls public agencies to consider
changes in residential development patterns which provide expanded transit service and accessibility,
walkable communities, access to non-vehicular modes of transportation resulting in reductions in
vehicle miles traveled; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted SB 743 in 2013, which explains that "It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build infill
housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities,
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 26 of 413
downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these
sometimes competing needs" (Government Code Section 65088.4(a)); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislative Analyst's Office 2015 Report on California's High Housing Costs,
explains that "Workers in California's coastal communities commute 10 percent further each day than
commuters elsewhere, largely because limited housing options exist near major job centers;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended its General Plan and CFIP Circulation Performance
standards to incorporate these new transportation planning strategies to provide access for multi-
modal circulation, which have the benefits of improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
and reduced trip generation; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was revised to state
"Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system — vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this
multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility
Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the city's CFIP Circulation Performance Standard was also revised to further
state: "The city's approach to provide livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be
provided for all travel modes on all streets within the city. This is due to competing interests that arise
when different travel modes mix. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element intends to provide a
balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes
for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service
(MMLOS) standard specified in the city's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan;" and
WHEREAS, in 2015 Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 was adopted and states in part that the city
may "Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from
the LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt street
facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-
P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan.
In the case of street facilities where the vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other
non-vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through
implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures...;" and
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 27 of 413
WHEREAS, in 2015 North County Advocates filed a lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad
challenging the amendments to the General Plan and the CFIP, alleging that they violated the City's
Growth Management Plan (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC.); and
WHEREAS, in 2017, North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (San Diego County Superior
Court Case No. 37-2015-00035458-CU-WM-NC) was settled and dismissed with prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Settlement with North County Advocates acknowledged "As part of the
development review process the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for consistency with
applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to reduce roadway congestion
and vehicular miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand Management (TDM techniques
and multi-modal improvements.") Within twelve (12) months, the City shall update is Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, incorporating multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) analysis to address
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes of travel, and including transportation demand
management (TDM) trip reduction methodologies and best practices to reduce automobile trips and
improvement travel model shift. The updated TIA Guidelines will also be used to determine
requirements for offsetting project impacts and evaluating opportunities for improving project-level
connections for all travel modes (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit). Within twelve (12) months
of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts rather than vehicle
level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with SAN DAG and applicable working groups, will revise
the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines"
(2017 North County Advocates Settlement, Section 4.3.6); and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2018-19 annual monitoring report was released in August 2020, and identified
the following seven street facilities as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the City's
Circulation performance standard, including:
1.Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road
2.Eastbound Palomar Airport Road from Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte
3.Westbound Palomar Airport Road from Paseo del Norte to Avenida Encinas
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 28 of 413
4.Northbound College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Oceanside City Limits
5.Eastbound Cannon Road from Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte
6.Westbound Cannon Road from Paseo del Norte to Avenida Encinas
7.Southbound El Camino Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road
WHEREAS, on Dec. 17, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which in part
determined street facility #1 above (Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar
Airport Road) to be deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the Circulation performance
standard but it was not exempted due to City Council direction to expedite CIP Project No. 6028, which
will address the deficiency as provided under Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Sections 21.90.080 and
21.90.130(c)(2); and
WHEREAS, street facilities #2 and #3 (Eastbound and Westbound Palomar Airport Road from
Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte) include portions that were previously exempted from the LOS D
standard in the General Plan Mobility Element, which are the Palomar Airport Road sections of corridor
between Interstate-5 (1-5) and Paseo del Norte; and the non-exempt sections of Palomar Airport Road
between Avenida Encinas and 1-5 also do not meet the vehicular LOS D standard; and
WHEREAS, on Nov. 3, 2020, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-214, which in part
determined street facility #7 above (Southbound El Camino Real from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon
Road) to be deficient and exempt from the vehicular level of service performance standard in
accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 and the CFIP Circulation Performance
Standard; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, CMC Sections 21.90.080 and 21.90.130
state "If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the performance standards
established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits shall be issued
within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the city
council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made;" and
WHEREAS, the City interprets CMC Sections 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 as providing the City a
reasonable period of time for addressing such deficiencies, in keeping with Government Code Section
65860(c); and
WHEREAS, as described in the subsequent recitals, the City Attorney and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not believe the city has the authority
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 29 of 413
to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances under CMC Sections
21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RFINA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 166 of 2017 states that "Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure
that its housing element inventory...can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its
remaining unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Section 65584" and the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has taken the position that
exceedances of vehicular Level of Service standards cannot constitute a basis for implementing a
moratorium that precludes attainment of a City's RHNA Allocation (Attachment B); and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, states that where housing is an
allowable use, the City is prohibited for enacting a "development policy, standard or condition" that
would have the effect of "imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing
development...other than to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of
persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium...," and any
moratorium adopted pursuant to such an exemption would require approval from HCD (Government
Code Section 66300(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD (Attachment A)
which states in part that "the housing moratorium adopted pursuant to the City's GMP would be
impermissible under Government Code section 66300... HCD does not consider, however, that general
concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry—including traffic conditions that cause minor
delays—present an imminent threat to health and safety...In this case, the City's proposed moratorium
would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management
Zone 15 ("LFMZ 15") until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS")
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (CMC Section 21.90.080.)
LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free
flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow...VVhile such congestion may be
uncomfortable, there is no indication in the City's GMP or in the City's Transportation Impact Analysis
Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 30 of 413
of LFINAZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a moratorium
cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with Government Code Section 66300;" and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the LOS deficiencies at street facilities #2
through #6 above through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 3-
P.9; and
WHEREAS, for street facilities #2 through #6 above, staff recommended that the City Council
determine the deficient street facility to be built-out and exempt from the vehicular LOS D standard
and apply TDM and TSM strategies to new development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as
findings set forth in full.
2.That the City Council finds that Government Code Sections 65863(a) (SB 166 [2017]) and
66300(b)(1)(B)(i) (SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium
pursuant to CMC Section 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and GMP regulations.
3.That the City Council determines the following street facilities are built-out and exempt
from the Mobility Element and the CFIP vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 and the findings contained in the City Council's
Staff Report for this agenda item, which are incorporated herein by reference, including
those findings in the Staff Report identified under "Recommended actions to address the
five deficient street facilities." Any future development which adds vehicle traffic to these
exempt street facilities shall implement TDM and TSM strategies if feasible, in accordance
with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11:
a.Eastbound Palomar Airport Road from Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte (street
facility No. 2 above)
b.Westbound Palomar Airport Road from Paseo del Norte to Avenida Encinas (street
facility No. 3 above)
c.Northbound College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Oceanside City Limits
(street facility No. 4 above)
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 31 of 413
d.Eastbound Cannon Road from Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte (street facility No.
5 above)
e.Westbound Cannon Road from Paseo del Norte to Avenida Encinas (street facility
No. 6 above)
4.The City finds that exempting these roadways from the vehicular Level of Service
performance standard would not result in any significant environmental impacts because
(1) this would maintain existing conditions and would therefore not result in an
environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2), and (2) vehicular Level of Service
is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code §
21099(b)(2)). Therefore, the City finds that exemption of such street facilities from
vehicular LOS standards is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resource Code Section
21080(b)(5), and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15305, 15061(b)(3)).
5.If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the resolution. The
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 12th day of January, 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Acosta, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
Xr5)3/ 111 a VW 1CDY'
BARBARA ENGLESON, Ciry Clerk
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 32 of 413
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov
April 17, 2020
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Celia Brewer:
RE: Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Request for Opinion Under Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The purpose of this letter is to assist the City of Carlsbad (City) in the implementation of
the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300) as requested in your letter dated February 27, 2020. In that letter, the City requested the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a moratorium proposed pursuant to the City’s Growth Management Program (Proposition E or GMP). For the reasons explained below, HCD finds that the housing development
moratorium adopted pursuant to the City’s GMP would be impermissible under Government Code section 66300. Should the City decide to adopt a moratorium, notwithstanding this opinion, HCD reminds the City that it cannot legally enforce such a moratorium before obtaining HCD’s approval pursuant to Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(B)(ii).
HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the passage of SB 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which added section 66300 to the Government Code. The State of California is experiencing a housing supply shortage of crisis proportions. To address this crisis, the Legislature
declared a statewide housing emergency until 2025, and suspended certain restrictions on development of new housing during the emergency period. (Housing Crisis Act of 2019, Chapter 654, Statues of 2019, section 2(b).) Among other things, the Legislature suspended the ability of cities and counties to impose moratoria on housing development, including mixed-use development, “other than to specifically protect
against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium.” (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B), emphasis added.)
Exhibit 1 - Attachment A
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 33 of 413
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 does not define “imminent threat to the health and safety of persons.” HCD does not consider, however, that general concerns about the health and welfare of the citizenry—including traffic conditions that cause minor delays—present an imminent threat to health and safety. The word imminent suggests
something that will happen in the very immediate future. (Black’s Law Dictionary (11th
ed. 2019) (“Imminent” means “threatening to occur immediately; dangerously impending” or “[a]bout to take place.”); Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 2010) (“Imminent” means “likely to happen without delay; impending; threatening”).) Imminent threats to the “health and safety of persons” implies an impending or
immediate threat to human life, human health, or human safety. It is a much narrower consideration that notions of “health and welfare” that motivated the adoption of the City’s GMP.
The City’s GMP appears to be designed to assure that housing development in the City and the provision of public services are closely aligned (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, §
21.09.010.) Nothing in the City’s GMP or in its Growth Management Ordinance (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, Chapter 21.90) indicate that they were adopted with the intent to avert imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of Carlsbad. Neither do the GMP or the Growth Management Ordinance indicate that imminent threats to health and safety are a mandatory consideration in deciding whether to impose such a
moratorium. The purposes of the ordinance are reflected in its placement in the Municipal Code. The ordinance is housed in the Zoning Code, under the chapter for Growth Management, rather than under, for instance, Health and Sanitation, which includes Emergency Services and Health and Sanitation. The overall purpose of the Zoning Code is described as “to provide the economic and social advantages resulting
from an orderly planned use of land resources.” (City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.02.010.)
In this case, the City’s proposed moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone 15 (“LFMZ 15”) until four (4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service (“LOS”)
performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See City of Carlsbad Mun. Code, § 21.90.080.) LOS D simply refers to the rate at which traffic flows on a roadway, and at LOS D there is no longer free flow of traffic but instead congestion that borders on unstable flow. (City of Carlsbad, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2018), p. 22.) While such congestion may be uncomfortable,
there is no indication in the City’s GMP or in the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines that such a standard represents an imminent threat to the health and safety of the residents of LFMZ or those in the immediate area. Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a moratorium cannot permissibly be adopted or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300.
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 34 of 413
Thank you for reaching out to HCD for this guidance. We look forward to hearing from the City as to the action it takes on its proposed moratorium. Please contact Melinda Coy of our staff, at Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov with any questions.
Sincerely,
Zachary Olmstead Deputy Director
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 35 of 413
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916)263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 2, 2018
Mr. Joe Hoefgen, City Manager
City of Redondo Beach 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Mr. Hoefgen:
RE: Redondo Beach's 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Adopted Four-Year Housing Element Update
Thank you for submitting the City of Redondo Beach's housing element adopted September 19, 2017 and received for review on October 4, 2017. The Department also
received Ordinance No. 3174-17 pertaining to zoning for emergency shelters on December 20, 2017. Pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65585(h), the Department is reporting the results of its review.
On July 20, 2017, the Department found the City of Redondo Beach's draft housing element to meet most statutory requirements. The Department also found the element would comply with housing element law once the City has completed zoning amendments to permit emergency shelters and submitted the adopted element. While the City has completed zoning for emergency shelters and submitted the adopted element, the Department understands the City, sometime shortly after July 20, 2017, has
adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on mixed use development, including multifamily. The moratorium significantly limits the availability of sites identified in the element to accommodate lower-income households and constrains a variety of housing types, including multifamily and supportive housing. As a result, the element does not comply with housing element law and the following revisions are necessary:
1.Include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sitesand sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship ofzoning and public facilities and services to these sites (Section 65583(a)(3)). The
inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites thatcan be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2).
The City has a total regional housing need of 1,397 units, including 595 for lowerincome households. To accommodate the projected housing need for lower-income
households, the City identified a capacity for 938 to 1,290 units with appropriate
densities to accommodate lower-income households. However, the recently imposed moratorium precludes multifamily development on over two-thirds (640 units) of the identified capacity for lower-income households. Further, the remaining identified capacity for lower-income households appears attributed to Site #5 where the Department understands the City is processing a residential development application. While the Department acknowledges the City's efforts to process a residential
Exhibit 1 - Attachment B
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 36 of 413
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 2
development application, the Department understands the application does not include housing for lower-income households; leaving potentially no capacity remaining to accommodate lower-income households. As a result, the element must list and analyze sufficient and suitable sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households and include program(s), as appropriate, to address a shortfall of capacity. The site listing and analysis and programs must address all the requirements of GC Se ction 65583.2. For more information, see http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml.
In addition, please be aware housing element law and other housing related laws have been changed or added and take effect January 1, 2018. For example, no net loss law (GC Section 65863) was amended to clarify "At no time, ... shall ... " a local government take action to cause an inventory to be insufficient to accommodate housing for lower-income households. In addition, housing element law was amended regarding analysis and programs related to the suitability and availability of sites (AB 1397). For more information, see the Department's website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/lhp.shtml.
2.Analyze potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land-usecontrols, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and otherexactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as aserious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housingelement and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adoptedelement makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department madeaware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findingswhen imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do notappear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to bemerely relying on a level of service (LOS) standard as a proxy for having a "specific,adverse impact upon the public health or safety standards" with little or no analysis tosupport making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamilydevelopment and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyzethe moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and includeprograms as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3.Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning anddevelopment standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate andencourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency sheltersand transitional housing. Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) ofsubdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groupsof all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall providefor sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 37 of 413
Mr. Hoefgen, City Manager
Page 3
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)).
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, the element does not list and analyze sufficient sites to
accommodate the regional housing need and does not include analysis of imposing a
moratorium as a potential constraint. Based on the results of complete analyses, the
City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types and address and remove
governmental constraints.
Once the element has been revised and adopted to address the above requirements, it will comply with State housing element law. For more information or assistance, please
contact Greg Nickless, of our staff, at (916) 274-6244.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Seeger
Assistant Deputy Director
Jan. 12, 2021 Item #4 Page 38 of 413