Housing Element follow-up

January 13, 2008 Council held a special study session regarding the Yorba Linda Housing Element. This is a state-mandated report, we need to submit,  to identify how we will be able to accommodate the Regional Housing Element  (RHNA) numbers assigned to our City. ( See previous post) This is an assault on our ability to control local land-use.

To reiterate, we need to make sites available for this housing to be built but we are not required to build it. But we would not be able to legally stand in the way of a project that met the states housing development criteria.

Staff presented to Council an overview of the housing requirements along with an explanation of the consequences of not complying with this mandate.

Key points:

• ·      We need to increase our housing stock of low income housing by 768 units and moderate income by 327. We have an abundance of above moderate housing projects identified.
• ·      The state does not accept projects under the densities of 30 units per acre as viable low income housing and moderate income under 10 units per acre.
• ·      We can reduce the densities per site if we identify enough sites to cover the housing numbers we need to produce. Yorba Linda does not have enough acreage to build the number of homes required.
• ·      We can reduce the densities if we subsidize building costs to allow contractors to build the units at a fair cost. We do not have enough money to cover enough builder subsidies allowing for the number of homes required.

Consequences of Non- Compliance of the RHNA #’s:

• ·      Possible moratorium on buiding permits
• ·      Suspension of discretionary Land Use Authority
• ·      Legal fees
• ·      State Mandated Rezoning without ANY local control
• ·      RHNA is cumulative
• ·      Ineligibility for State Housing Funds and related infrastructure funds.

Sites identified with recommended densities:

Properties at 30 units per acre:

•  Lakeview Strawberry Field (4.7 acres-141 units)
• Lakeview/ Altrudy Lane Property (2.39 acres-71 units) 
• Prospect Avenue (Greenhouses) (4.11 acres-123 units)
• Wabash/ Rose Drive (1.68 acres- 60 units)
•  St Joseph Medical Offices Prospect/ YLB (4.08 acres- 122 units)
• Lakeview & Mariposa Property ( Council asked this be removed from consideration)
•  Bastanchury/ Lakeview Nursery site (8.5 acres- 255 units)

Properties at 20 units per acre:

• Bastanchury/Lakeview –Rocking T site (4.11 acres- 82 units)
• Richfield Road Property (3.23 acres- 59 units)

Properties at 10 units per acre:

•  Nixon archive site ( 7.01 acres- 70 units)
• South west corner of Lakeview and Bastanchury (4.34 acres- 43 units)

Additional site options:

• Archstone Riverbend Apartments- possible RDA assistance for rebuilding two-8 unit buildings adding affordability covenants
• Copper Canyon Condominiums- Possible RDA assistance in rebuilding 8 units lost in fire adding affordability convenants
•  Savi Ranch- 4 acre property for sale in industrial park

Council directed staff to : 

•   Reduce housing densities on the West end of town since this area is disproportionately high in developing high density projects.
• Evaluate the Savi Ranch Industrial Park area for the possibility of a mixed use design to allow housing without interfering with the limited tax base of our community
• Eliminate for now the Mariposa Property
• Evaluate the Arroyo property area
•  Once new draft of Housing Element completed, to submit to the Planning commission for review and further refinement before coming back to Council.

What happens next?

After the housing element is complete and sent to the State, we await approval.

With Measure B in place, any project with densities above the 10 units per acre allowed in our general plan will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.

With Measure B in place, any project that requires a zone change from commercial to residential will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.

With Measure B in place, any project that exceeds 35 feet in height (above two stories) will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.

If the community does not approve projects allowing for the required housing to be built, we will most likely be challenged in court as to the legality of Measure B.

On January 13, 2008, the City Council will be having their second workshop addressing the housing element. To see the official City documents regarding this issue, go to: Housing Element Page.

At this site you will be able to read the Housing Element document, the appeal the City made to reduce the number of units we are required to provide and the presentation that was made to Council June 18, 2008.

We are facing a challenge.  There are three main issues. One, what is affordable housing and who would qualify for these units? Second, what is it that we are really required to do? Third, how much density will this community tolerate and what are the consequences of non-compliance? 

What is affordable housing and who qualifies?

 Yorba Linda has been allocated 2,039 units of varying affordability we need to provide.  The definition of affordability is based on the area mean income.  Our area, Orange County, had a base mean income in 2007 of $78,700.  The definitions of the varying levels is based on a percentage of that number adjusted for the number of family members.  To simplify the discussion I will present the income levels for families with two members and four members signified next to the listed affordability levels

Yorba Linda’s Regional housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation was:

                                                                                                  # units                                    Income 2/4 member families

Very low (50% mean income)                                         460 units                                    $34,650/ 43,300

Low (80% mean income)                                                 371 units                                    $55,450/69,300

Moderate (120% mean income)                                     412 units                                    $75,550/94,450                 

Market rate                                                                           796 units                                   

I went to www.salary.com to see the potential income levels of those who may live or work within our community. For consistency, I looked at the income levels from the 10%-50% range indicating an individual just starting off in their career vs. someone who may have 2-3 years experience.

                                                                         10%                                    50%                                    housing for 2-person family

Paralegal Secretary                                    $36,000                  49,000                                    very low / low

Auto mechanic                                            $28,000                  33,000                                    very low

Physical Therapist                                    $60,000                  69,000                                    top limit low/moderate

Associate Pastor                                        $42,000                  60,000                                    very low/ top limit low

Certified Nurse Assist                               $22,000                  26,000                                    extremely low

Aircraft Mechanic                                    $63,000                  84,000                                    upper limit low/moderate

Receptionist                                               $22,000                  32,000                                    extremely low/very low

Nurse                                                           $57,000                  60,000                                    upper limit low/moderate

These may be new graduates starting in their careers, young families or single parents that may not have a second income potential

What are we really required to do?

We must make a good faith effort to provide the opportunity to construct affordable housing in our community.

We are not required to build the units, but we are required to make zoning changes within our community allowing the units to be built.  We are not required to tear anything down to build the units. But we are not be able to stop an individual who owns property in the re-zoned areas to build affordable housing at a higher density if they are providing affordable housing. With Measure B, the Right to Vote initiative, anything over 10 units per acre would require voter approval of the project.

We can, as a City Council, control the land use if a projects does not match the surrounding area. If a project is turned down, it can be challenged in court.

How much density will this community tolerate?  What are the consequences to not complying with the State mandate?

We are a low-density bedroom community that historically has not tolerated high- density construction. One of the reasons this City chose to incorporate was to stop the building of multiple apartments buildings within our community. Yorba Linda was designed to have a rural, small town atmosphere.

With the passage of Measure B, the Right to Vote initiative, this community has the opportunity to approve or reject any project exceeding 10 dwelling units per acre. The challenge is balancing the need to comply with the state mandated numbers, the limited amount of available land and the community’s adversity to high density projects.  In addition, we need to have land available for tax generating businesses to sustain the economic health of our community and its amenities.

There are communities that have been cited by the courts for not complying with their housing numbers. Mission Viejo settled prior to have a court mandated housing project that would not fit with their community’s interests. Folsom was not as fortunate and was sued and found to be in non-compliance. They were forced to re-zone areas of their community for high-density housing.  Additionally, the State can take away our ability to issue permits for pools, new construction, room additions, etc until we comply with our housing mandate. These are heavy-handed techniques that can have serious consequences in our community. I have not heard of a community that has had this occur, but it is within the purview of the court/ state to impose this restriction.

If we end up in a lawsuit against the State or housing advocates group regarding our housing numbers, our legal fees would be a general fund expense and not be reimbursed by our insurance carrier. There is a high probability we would lose this court case and be forced to comply with the state mandated numbers. We could at that point lose control of where the re-zoning would occur and the densities that would be allowed.

Does this community want to spend general fund dollars to fight the state and/or housing advocates regarding its RHNA numbers? What is your opinion? What constructive ideas do you have?