Control No.:  020081

Type:  GPB

 A D D E N D U M  #3

                                                                                                       For the Agenda of March 16, 2004

 Agenda Item No. 1

To:             POLICY PLANNING COMMISSION

From:         PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Subject:      HOUSING ELEMENT, UPDATE 2004

Contact:     Leighann Moffitt, (916) 874-6141

I.          RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning and Community Development Department recommends that the Policy Planning Commission:

1.                  Housing Element:  Recommend approval of the draft Housing Element, an element of the Sacramento County General Plan, with recommended modifications and additional policy comments per Attachment C.

2.                  Environmental Document:  Determine that the environmental analysis is adequate and complete and that the Negative Declaration is appropriate.

II.         INTRODUCTION:

At your hearing of March 4, 2004, Planning staff continued to provide additional information regarding affordable housing policy issues and the inclusion of small sites and commercial sites within the inventory to meet adequate sites’ requirements.  Testimony was taken from nine members of the public, most commonly around issues with an affordable housing program.

In addition, staff requested that the Planning Commission give specific direction on key policy issues so that the Commission could forward a recommendation on the Element to the Board of Supervisors.  The Commissioners did provide comments on a number of both specific and general issues with the draft Element and affordable housing policy.  This addendum report seeks to summarize remaining issues and begins to build a written recommendation based on the preliminary comments of the Commission.

III.       AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY:

The Commission provided direction on a number of important policy issues surrounding a future Affordable Housing Program:

Require the affordable housing program be adopted as part of the Housing Element:  The Commission was prepared to move the Housing Element forward for Board consideration while including their comments and with the understanding that a proposed affordable housing program will be brought back to the Commission and Board for adoption.

Minimum affordability requirements:  There appeared to be three Commissioners interested in recommending that 15% of all new development be affordable units.  Two of those three Commissioners specified that 5% extremely low-income should be targeted.

Land dedication under the Partnership Program model:  A variety of opinions were expressed regarding direction to staff on proceeding with development of a specific program.  Two Commissioners were comfortable with the Partnership Model as a preferred option while others seemed to prefer including this as only one component of a mix of options.

In-lieu fees:  Direction was given that in-lieu fees should be used only on a limited basis with suggestion by one Commissioner that findings be required to use in-lieu fees.

Integration of affordable and market-rate units and on-site requirement:  General consensus was expressed that integration is preferred.  Opinions varied on how integration should occur.  Some commented that land dedication within a new growth area can represent integration, while others specified that integration should occur within smaller geographic areas.  Comments were made on the need for flexibility for small projects.

Concurrency of affordable and market-rate units:  The general consensus was that concurrency of construction should be required, however, no specific direction was given on how to implement concurrency.

Targeting ownership at low-income levels:  All Commissioners commented on the desirability of ownership as a component of a program, but seemed sensitive to the relationship between the costs of providing units targeted to very low- and extremely low-income units and targeting home ownership.  Several Commissioners expressed concerns regarding implementation of home ownership within the model, while another expressed that it is more important to focus on very low- and extremely low-income units.

Apply Countywide (not just to new growth areas):  The Commission concurred on the desirability of a program that applies to all new construction throughout the County.

IV.       LAND INVENTORY:

The Commission provided direction regarding both several key assumptions within the land inventory as well as staff’s proposal in Addendum #1 to increase the amount of multi-family zoned land within the unincorporated County.  First, regarding assumptions, the Commissioners indicated they were comfortable assuming that 25% of the vacant LC and SC commercial properties would be available for multi-family and low-income housing.

Regarding minimum lot sizes, several Commissioners requested an additional analysis on the implications of using a 2-acre minimum threshold.  Therefore, Attachment A provides information on using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-acre parcels as a minimum size in the inventory.  This chart shows that assuming only parcels that are 2-acres and larger are available for very low-, and low-income housing would:

§                     Increase the shortfall in low income units by 61 units; and

§                     Increase the shortfall in very-low income units by 425 units units.

The Commission also endorsed inclusion of the additional land inventory identified in Addendum #1.  Based on the information currently available, Attachment C includes a revision to the summary table in Chapter 6, Table 6-1.  This revised table assumes the inclusion of the following areas:

§                      Elverta Specific Plan

§                      Florin Vineyard Gap Comprehensive Plan

§                      Barrett Ranch

§                      No. Vineyard Station Specific Plan Amendment

§                      Rancho Murieta PD area

The revised table does not include:  apartments constructed since January 2000 (information documenting rental levels is not complete); HUD Conversions (200 units within the Hastings Park Project are anticipated, however, were not in place as of September 2003 which staff has established as the date of the inventory); or accessory dwelling units (information not documented).

This table now shows that by approving targeting rezones and subsequent projects within these areas, the County can demonstrate an oversupply in the amount of land available for low and very low-income units.

V.        SMUD COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 9:  RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION:

As a result of the Element being in the hearing process, SMUD staff has taken the opportunity to provide comments on Chapter 9, Residential Energy Conservation.  They noted that some of the language in the text of this Chapter was not entirely up-to-date and provided a modified version of the Chapter for consideration in the hearing process.  Planning staff met with SMUD staff last Friday and we agree that the suggested revisions are an improvement to the language of the text.  Minor changes to the Conclusion paragraph also now refer to Planning review in the implementation of residential energy conservation.  These changes do not modify policy, but improve the background information.

Staff also discussed coordination issues between our agencies including forwarding information on conservation programs offered by SMUD during the entitlement review process.  This revised Chapter 9 is provided as Attachment B for consideration by the Commission in their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

VI.    REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION ASSUMPTIONS AND RANCHO CORDOVA:

The focus of staff’s efforts since early January has been on preparing materials and conducting hearings at the Policy Planning Commission.  As staff referenced in the original report, a key issue is getting agreement from the City of Rancho Cordova on the distribution of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) between our jurisdictions.  Staff has taken what we think will be a likely worse-case scenario by utilizing the possible distribution as identified by SACOG.  In our initial meetings with Cordova staff, they requested further information.  County Planning staff needs to refocus efforts on an agreement between the jurisdictions prior to concluding the hearing process at the Board.

VII.      CONCLUSION:

This Addendum #3 begins to build a draft of the Commission’s recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.  Attachment C is staff’s attempt to craft language for transmittal to the Board recommending modifications to the actual Element, as well as general statements about policy direction.  Planning staff will work with the Commission during the hearing to modify this language as necessary to accurately reflect the final recommendation of the entire Policy Planning Commission.

Key components of Attachment C include:

§                     Possible changes to Policy HE-45 and Program HE-45(a) to reflect a 15% target and to reflect the lack of concurrent adoption of an affordable program with the Element.

§                     Modifications to Chapters 5 to include information on Orangevale and Elk Grove, to correct an oversight in the draft Element.

§                     Modifications to Chapters 5 and 6 to update information on 2004 income limits.

§                     Introductory language on the County’s proposed program to rezone sufficient land to close the shortfall (currently estimated at 66-acres) by rezoning land in the Elverta Specific Plan area, the Florin Vineyard Comprehensive Plan area, the Antelope Community Plan area, and the North Vineyard Station Specific Plan area.

§                     A revised Table 6-1 reflecting a program to increase zoned land along with the general direction to proceed with changes to the remaining related tables within Chapter 6.

§                     Additional language for Chapter 7.  This language has been added to reflect the direction of the Commission and address in general terms state and federal regulations that impact the cost and availability of housing.

§                     Revised language per SMUD staff comments in Chapter 9.

Planning staff will be prepared to continue to change or add to this document during your hearing.

VIII.     ATTACHMENTS:

A.                 Reduction in Vacant Housing Element Inventory of Multiple-Family Parcels Based on Minimum Parcel Size

B.                 Chapter 9 – Residential Energy Conservation

C.                 Draft Planning Commission Transmittal

D.                 Diagrams

1.       Elverta Specific Plan

2.       Florin Vineyard Comprehensive Plan

3.       Barrett Ranch

4.       No. Vineyard Station Plan Area

This report was prepared by Leighann Moffitt.

3/16/04