20 - Laserfiche WebLink

ATTACHMENT 3 P21-0751. 6th Cvcle (2023-2031) Housing Element Update Review and provide a recommendation for the draft housing sites selection criteria for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element Update Community Development Director Ellen Clark presented the specifics of the item in the Agenda Report. Commissioner Pace inquired about the State's scrutiny and review. Ms. Clark stated the State would review parameters of site size most suited to deliver feasible, higher density housing projects between 0.5 -acre and 10 -acres in size and whether those sites were feasible and realistic to develop within the eight-year housing period. Ms. Clark continued the staff presentation including sites criteria; August 24, 2021 Housing Commission consideration and comments; public comments; and next steps. Commissioner Pace acknowledged the work by staff and mentioned the public feedback received. He inquired about process and approach to identify sites and whether prior work could be utilized. Ms. Clark responded the baseline of existing zoning from prior housing cycles could be carried over and remain in the inventory, with some possible limited exceptions. She discussed the need to adopt a housing program as part of the Housing Element to allow certain development by right removing as many barriers as possible. Commissioner Pace asked if California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would review site by site and determine whether the sites were appropriate. Ms. Clark confirmed that HCD would look at high-density sites with more scrutiny; the City had to make the case to HCD in a convincing manner about all sites and why they were developable. Jen Murillo, Lisa Wise Consulting, explained that site -by -site analysis was not necessary if the findings were similar across several similar sites. Commissioner Pace inquired about Ms. Clark's comment regarding developing a site and reducing barriers for the development, referencing a site that might include higher and lower density at the same time. He provided a hypothetical asking about a site that could accommodate 10 single family units but due to the income requirement that site must include an apartment building or some duplexes; he asked and confirmed if that is the way criteria would be established for site building. Ms. Clark clarified the State correlated density with affordability and explained that a project with a density over 30 units to the acre could have its units be considered affordable housing units to be counted towards lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). She stated projects with a density below 30 units to the acre would be considered to be less affordable, moderate, or above moderate. Commissioner Pace confirmed the presumption that more than 30 units to the acre would satisfy the lower income requirements. Ms. Clark confirmed the State allowed that equation. She stated density assumptions would be reviewed during site selection considerations and she discussed the no net loss provisions. She stated the City's assumptions about affordability on various sites would be an important policy discussion that was forthcoming. Commissioner Gaidos asked the reality and potential benefits of the California tax credit allocation. Ms. Clark responded the City had used tax credits for various projects and they were competitive programs with limited funds. She stated affordable housing projects were usually a compilation of funding sources. Commissioner Gaidos asked if staff recalled whether any projects were aided by those tax credits. Associate Planner Jennifer Hagen responded that Kottinger Gardens and Sunflower Hill housing projects used tax credits. Commissioner Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 25, 2021 Page 1 of 7