Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/2002, B3 - GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE STATE HOUSING QUOTA SEP-29-2002 2127 JaY 8055412239 P.01/04 "RECEIVED MEETING . AGENDA SEP 3 0 2001 DATE `o' i` b 2- ITEM Ai 6- SLO CITY CLERK UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR EPSAO ❑ FIN DIR Memorandum AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF [� RNEY D PW DIR K/ORIQ ❑ POLICE CHF H DS CJ Rao DIR To: Mayor& City Council 0 U71L DIA ❑ HR DIR From: Jan Howell Marc, Vice Mayor Re: Government Code Provisions Coacerniug� a State Housing Quota Date: September 30, 2002 The staff report lists no alternatives to the CAO recommendation. My research in the Government Code and discussions with an attorney specializing in Housing Element law(letter attached) shows that other alternatives dQ exist. In my opinion these alternatives need to be thoroughly explored at this time. Government Code Research: A. The city has the duty to consider the city's entire general plan in addressing housing needs. 66580(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility(to provide housing of all economic segments of the community), each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. B. A Housing element meed not establish programs to meet all identified needs, but need only establish the maximum number of units that can be provided or improved in light of"available resources and the community's ability to meet the need." 65583(b)(2) It is recognized that the total housing needs identified...may exceed available. resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5(commencing with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum member of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated and conserved over a five year time period. C. There is no duty to expend local resources other than the low and moderate income housing set aside funds of a Redevelopment Agency to attain state and regional housing goals. 65583[c] sets out those requirements. D. The HCD may reduce the unit allocation up to 25% if a city includes in its housing element a program provided committed assistance(dedicated funds) to building or SEP.-29-2002 21:2? JAn 8055412239 P.02/04 rehabilitating units for low and very low income housing with long term affordability covenants. 65583.1 E. There is an appeal process if we do not accept SLOCOG's determination. Within 90 days of SLOCOG's determination, a city may propose to revise the determination of its share of the regional housing need. SLOCOG has 60 days in which to respond if SLOCOG does not accept the proposed revision, then the city shall have the right to request a public hearing to review the determination within 30 days. If after that hearing SLOCOG determines that the revision is acceptable, the city may use that revision. If SLOCOG decides to stick with the original allocation, then the city may bring a writ of mandate action in Superior Court. 65584[c] F. There are procedures for transferring a percentage of the allocated share to another city or county, 65584.5 G. There is a procedure provided for a city to self-certify their Housing Element if it decides not to comply with the state housing quota. 65585(£) If the department finds that a draft element or draft amendment does not substantially comply with the requirements of this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following actions: (1) Change the draft element ro draft amendment to substantially comply with the requirements of this article. (2)Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes. The legislative body shall include in its resolution of adoption written findings which explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies with the requirements of this article despite the findings of the department. H. Even if the department has found that a city's element does NOT substantially comply with the requirements of the statute, there is 1M legal presumption that it is invalid. 65589.5 In any action filed on or after January 1, 1991,taken to challenge the validity of a housing element, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of the validity of the element or amendment it pursuant to Section 65585, the department has found that the element or amendment substantially complies with the requirements of this article.