20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Element2. Although certain elements of the 4th Cycle Criteria warranted update, the overall approach and many of the concepts reflected therein remain valid and relevant, and so are carried through to the 6th Cycle draft criteria. As noted, an initial set of draft set of criteria was developed by staff, and presented to the Housing Commission for input, and then to the Planning Commission for review and a recommendation. The proposed draft criteria, including the Planning Commission's recommended changes, are included in Attachment 1. The prior sites selection criteria, as utilized in the 4th Cycle update, are included for reference as Attachment 2. Sites Selection Criteria: Guidina Principles The Sites Selection Criteria continue to rely on the following guiding ideas or principles, as stated for the 4th Cycle criteria: 1) Conformance to City General Plan policies. 2) "Smart Growth" principles, such as placing housing near transit, promoting a compact urban form, supporting infill development, etc. 3) Criteria important for California Tax Credit Allocations (TCAC) for affordable housing funding.3 4) Factors derived from state law and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance in evaluating sites for their readiness and suitability for higher density housing (e.g., site size, availability of infrastructure, absence of environmental and other constraints). Scoring Framework and Selection Methodoloav As was the case with the prior Housing Element sites evaluation, the criteria are intended to be scored by answering "Yes" or "No" for each question. One point is awarded for each "Yes" answer, with the projects with the most points ranked highest. To minimize the complexity of the evaluation, responses are weighted equally, as a relatively simple metric for side-by-side comparison. It is important to reiterate, this process is intended to provide an initial screening evaluation of sites against each other, based on criteria as objective as possible. 2 This process was the basis for selecting the sites for the 4th Cycle (2007-2014) Housing Element. The 4th Cycle Housing Element was also the subject of a legal challenge and subsequent settlement agreement. Because the following (5th ) Housing Element Cycle (2014-2022) entailed a smaller RHNA, and the majority of 4th Cycle sites had yet to be developed by the time the 5th Cycle Housing Element was adopted, sites selected for the 41h Cycle were able to be carried forward to the 51h Cycle, and a sites selection process for the 5th Cycle was not necessary. 3 As part of the 2010 Settlement Agreement associated with the lawsuit over the 4th Cycle Housing Element, the City committed to complete an analysis of sites included in that update against TCAC criteria, in an effort to promote more affordable housing development. While this requirement does not apply to the current 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the TCAC criteria nonetheless provide objective guidance for the consideration of suitable locations for housing, particularly with respect to access to transit and services, and is thus proposed to be included in the current criteria. Page 4 of 12