HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-09; City Council; Resolution 2020-105RESOLUTION NO. 2020-105
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 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.
Exhibit 2
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 ... ln 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 is implemented through Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.90 and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; 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 Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan (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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 18 of 47
Exhibit 2
housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit facilities,
downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments to balance these
sometimes competing needs" {Gov. Code§ 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 GHG 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 Dor better for all modes that are subject to this
multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 ofthe 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 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 oftransportation demand and transportation system management measures ... ;" and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 19 of 47
Exhibit 2
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 2017-2018 annual monitoring report was released in July 2019, and identified
the following eight street facilities within Zone 15 as not meeting the vehicular LOS component of the
City's Circulation performance standard, including:
(1) Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road;
(2) Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits;
(3) Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 20 of 47
Exhibit 2
(4) Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road;
(5) Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard;
(6) Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road;
(7) Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard;
(8) Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the vehicular LOS performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-2018 annual
monitoring report for the above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with
direction for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, when a performance standard is exceeded, Carlsbad Municipal Code§§ 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 Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.90.080 and § 21.90.130 as
providing the City a reasonable period of time for addressing such deficiencies, in keeping with Gov.
Code § 65860(c); and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-270, which
determined street facilities (1) -(4) above deficient under the vehicular LOS component of the
Circulation performance standard, and determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to
be built out and "exempt" from the vehicular LOS performance standard pursuant to Policy 3-P.9.
Transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies
now apply on those facilities. The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects for street facilities 3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 would be resolved
by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council; 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
to implement a moratorium in response to the vehicular LOS exceedances at roadways 5, 6, 7, and 8,
as contemplated as an option under CMC §§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130; and
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 21 of 47
Exhibit 2
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,999
residential units (General Plan Housing Element, table 10-1) which it has not yet been fulfilled, and
Zone 15 within the City of Carlsbad would allow development of approximately 1,406 dwelling units;
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 (Exhibit 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 (Gov. Code, §
66300{b){l){B)(i) and (ii)); and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2020 the City of Carlsbad received an opinion from HCD {Exhibit 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 ... ln 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 Dor 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 ... 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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 22 of 47
Exhibit 2
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 (5) El Camino Real
southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard and (6) El Camino Real northbound from College
Boulevard to Cannon Road through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.9 (d), because roadway improvements would require more than three through lanes in each
direction of travel, which is inconsistent with the General Plan Mobility Element, Policy 3-P.9(d); and
WHEREAS, city staff recommended addressing the vehicular LOS deficiencies at (7) Cannon
Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard and (8) Cannon Road westbound from
College Boulevard to El Camino Real through an exemption to the vehicular LOS D standard pursuant
to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), because roadway improvements would require acquisition of
additional right of way, which would require encroachment into open space for the preservation of
natural resources, the westbound new travel lane would encroach into the road setback of the adjacent
community and large slopes would require considerable grading and a trail easement along the
eastbound lane would need to be relinquished by the city, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c),
because the proposed improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community
values and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking, biking,
public transportation and connectivity", (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Open space
and the natural environment", and (3) General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6, which calls for the
city to, "Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad
through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors;" and
WHEREAS, for the street facilities of El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard; El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road; Cannon Road
eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard; and Cannon Road westbound from College
Boulevard to El Camino Real, 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 TOM and TSM
strategies to new development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities;
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 23 of 47
Exhibit 2
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. The City finds that Gov. Code§ 65863{a) (SB 166 [2017]) and Gov. Code,§ 66300{b)(l)(B)(i)
(SB 330 [2019]) preempt the City from implementing a moratorium pursuant to Carlsbad
Municipal Code§§ 21.90.080 and 21.90.130 and GMP regulations;
3. That the City Council determines El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard (Street Facility No. (5)) and El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard
to Cannon Road (Street Facility No. (6)) 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 (d), as roadway improvements to address the deficiencies would
require more than three through travel lanes in each direction even after completion of
CIP projects. Any future development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street
facilities shall implement TOM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11.
4. That the City Council determines Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College
Boulevard (Street Facility No. (7)) and Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to
El Camino Real {Street Facility No. (8)) are exempt from the Mobility Element and the CFIP
vehicular LOS D performance standard pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a},
because roadway improvements to address the deficiency would require acquisition of
additional right of way, as well as Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c), because the proposed
improvements would present unacceptable impacts to the following community values
and General Plan policies: (1) the Carlsbad Community Vision core value of "Walking,
biking, public transportation and connectivity," (2) the Carlsbad Community Vision core
value of "Open space and the natural environment," and (3) General Plan Mobility Element
Goal 3-G.6, which calls for the city to, "Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and
historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive planning and design of scenic
transportation corridors." This is infeasible as stated in the findings above. Any future
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 24 of 47
Exhibit 2
development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street facilities shall implement
TDM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.ll.
5. The City further finds that the College Boulevard extension project is currently infeasible
because the private property owners are obligated to build it per the LFMZ 15 Plan and
CFIP but they indicated they will not do so in the foreseeable future.
6. 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 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(5),
and CEQA Guidelines§§ 15305, 15061{b)(3)).
7. 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.
Exhibit A: April 17, 2020 Opinion from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Regarding Senate Bill 330
Exhibit B: January 2, 2018 HCD Letter to City of Redondo Beach Regarding Senate Bill 166
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 25 of 47
Exhibit 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on
the 9th day of June 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AVES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel.
Schumacher.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
l~ Hec-J,;r ~me,,1
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk /)e~vi_J
{SEAL) Ci;
CJer✓
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 26 of 47
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 A
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 27 of 47
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.
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 28 of 47
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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 29 of 47
Exhibit B
STATE Pf CAUf QBNIA -61/§!NE§§ CONSUMER SERVICE§ 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 sites
and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of
zoning 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 that
can 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 lower-
income 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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 30 of 47
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 Section 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-use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures
(Section 65583(a)(5)).
Taking actions to prohibit, even temporarily, multifamily development is viewed as a
serious constraint and contrary to planning and zoning law, particularly housing
element and related laws. This is particularly important since the recently adopted
element makes no mention of imposing a moratorium, nor was the Department made
aware of this crucial information prior to its July 2017 findings. Further, GC Section
65858 was amended in 2001 for the purpose of heightening the standard of findings
when imposing moratoriums on multifamily development. The City's findings do not
appear to meet this heightened standard. For example, the City appears to be
merely 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 to
support making such a finding. Given the importance of encouraging multifamily
development and not imposing constraints, the element must be revised to analyze
the moratorium as a constraint on the cost, supply and timing of housing and include
programs as appropriate to address and remove the constraint.
3. 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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 31 of 47
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
June 9, 2020 Item #8 Page 32 of 47