The HCD reviewed the city’s Housing Element Update, a process that began back in 2007 and was completed in 2008. They made a large number of suggested revisions and apparently they need to approve the document before it is finalized.
The issue came up that there was a letter from the HCD that laid out exactly what they were asking for, and some on the council expressed reluctance to approve changes to the Housing Element Update without a clearer understanding of what the HCD was asking for.
The Vanguard has acquired that letter and is flabbergasted that it is dated June 3, 2008 and yet there was absolutely no communication apparently to the city council or the Citizen-based Committee that drafted the Housing Element Update.
As city staff explained it in their staff report:
“While some of the changes made to the Housing Element update were formatting and updated information, the majority of changes directly related to HCD comments and questions. Although the City has been able to demonstrate its ability to accommodate RHNA requirements, HCD has consistently expressed concerns that the City’s growth management programs and land-use regulations serve as a barrier to the development of housing. A number of changes requested by HCD include comprehensive review of city policy, but do not dictate any specific actions in response to the reviews.”
City Staff seemed ready to handover the keys to our land use policies under the guise that while the HCD has authority over the approval process, they do not have the authority to insure that the city follows through on any language.
“While HCD would like the City to reduce and modify policy, with the goal of promoting development, the City ultimately has control over what policy changes it makes.”
However, this portion is concerning:
“The City is obligated to make annual reports to HCD on its progress, but HCD does not have an ongoing regulatory role in enforcing the City’s Housing Element once it is certified. It is important for the City to obtain a state-certification of its Housing Element in order to be eligible for state funding opportunities, but the City can choose to carryout the actions in the document as it sees fit.”
The argument here seems to be let us make the changes to get the document approved and then we can do whatever we want. That seems to lack sound judgment.
The letter from the HCD is an 11 page document that highlights some of their concerns with the city’s document.
As a letter from Deputy Director Cathy Creswell to Community Development Director Katherine Hess lays out:
“The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State housing element law (Article 1 0.6 of the Government Code). In particular, the element must include analysis of the adequacy of identified sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households and the cumulative impact of the developmental policies on the cost and supply of housing.”
Here are some of the key recommendations that the letter makes to the city.
On low income houses:
“Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households.”
On RHNA requirements:
The City of Davis has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 489 housing units, of which 150 units are for lower-income households. The element provides information regarding units built and approved since January 1, 2006 to reduce he City’s share of the RHNA. To address the remaining RHNA for the current planning period, tile element relies on downtown infill housing potential and ministerial second units. The element also provides a number of site strategies to accommodate future housing demand throughout the planning period. To demonstrate the adequacy of these strategies to accommodate tile remaining regional housing need, the element must be revised…
Part of the concern here again is low income housing.
Part of the problem is that to reach the RHNA requirement it utilizes Downtown infill which are relatively small units.
“Should the element need to rely on very small parcels to accommodate the housing need for lower-income households, the element Should include an evaluation of the adequacy and suitability of these sites to accommodate the need. While it is possible to build housing on very small parcels, the nature and conditions necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing infeasible.”
Then it gets to “land-use controls, building codes and their enforcement; site improvements, fees and other extractions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.”
This is the crux of the issue:
“The element identifies a number of growth management policies that substantially constrain housing development potential and impact the cost and supply of housing, including Measure J, Phased Allocation requirements, the One Percent Growth Policy, the Affordable Housing Policy and Ordinance, the Middle Income Housing Ordinance, and the Accessible/Visitability Housing Policy. While the element analyzes these policies individually, the element should describe and analyze the cumulative impact of these ordinances on the City’s ability to meet the housing demand for all economic segments of the population. The cumulative impact assessment should relate these polices to the lack of supply of developable residential land. The element should also contain programs to monitor these policies throughout the planning period for potential constraints that may affect the cost and supply of housing. In addition, the element should describe the objective criteria used by the City Council when determining whether a project qualifies for the “extraordinary project” exemption from the One Percent Growth Policy.”
This is probably the directive that leads to the most objectionable changes in the Housing Element Update.
Here is the language that staff uses in response:
“The City of Davis will complete a comprehensive review of the following policies to evaluate the cumulative impact on residential development: the 1% Growth Policy, Measure J, Phased Allocation Ordinance, and the Middle Income Ordinance (currently suspended). The review will identify the cumulative impact of these separate policies, initiatives and ordinances on residential development and recommend changes to address the identified regulatory barriers. The review will evaluate the City’s ability to achieve the ultimate common goals established by these policies and ensure there is no redundancy in the combination of their implementation. As issues are identified as part of this review the City will implement changes to mitigate and remove barriers, increase the transparency of these policies and establish ways to streamline these policies and processing permit procedures to assist with the development of a variety of housing types to serve a range of income levels.”
The language used by city staff appears to go above and beyond what is required by the HCD. They appear to only require a cumulative analysis rather than a comprehensive review. The most obtrusive requirement should not be the comprehensive review, but rather some program to monitor these policies for potential constraints.
Having read through the review, most of it is a formality and making sure the language of the Housing Element Update addresses some of the key issues.
For example,
“The element indicates the City is currently completing the adoption process for a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance. However, the element must include a more detailed analysis of potEntial constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.”
These changes may require some work, but do not have huge police implications.
The most alarming aspect is contained in the language above, when city staff says “the City will implement changes to mitigate and remove barriers” that is potential drastic change for land-use policies and it does not appear necessary from what the HCD provides.
Staff needs to rework several of these key provisions to water them down as much as possible.
It would also be helpful to note what the realistic consequence of non-compliance would be and whether language that is inserted into the housing element could be binding through litigation from developers or others in the community.
The changes that staff has proposed appear dangerous and unnecessary.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To clarify the dates. Is June ’08 the original communication or the last communication? Staff indicated at the CC mtg that there had been an onerous back and firth process. Thx.
From my perspective, an objectionable change to the Updated Housing Element was the politicizing of the subjective term “regulatory barrier.” I can see how one person’s barrier may be another person’s protection.
______________
(previously posted comments)
I was one of only three public commenters* concerning the potential adoption of the Updated Housing Element (Item 7 on the CC’s Regular Calendar for 03-02-10). I specifically commented on Section 6-2, Item G, as included on Page 72 of the Updated Housing Element. I have abstracted my points of concern below as follows:
“The City of Davis will complete a comprehensive review of the cumulative impact on residential development of the 1% Growth Policy, Measure J, Phased Allocation Ordinance, and the Middle Income Ordinance (currently suspended), and…recommend changes to address the identified regulatory barriers. The review will…ensure there is no redundancy in the combination of their implementation…(, and) the City will implement changes to mitigate and remove barriers…”
My specific comments were (and are) as follows:
** Within the context of this document, just exactly what is a
“regulatory barrier” considered to be?,
** Is Measure J considered to be a “regulatory barrier?”, and,
** Will the Planning Commission be able to comment on
the changes made to the Element since their previous review?
I was glad to see that the Council ultimately decided to table this item and bring it back at a later date. When that date occurs, I strongly encourage the public to attend and protect their interests by commenting on the relevant portions of the process and the product. Remember, if the process is flawed, so shall the product be! ,
____________
* As they say, “rhetoric is cheap, result is dear”, so be there next time!
State HCD: “The element identifies a number of growth management policies that substantially constrain housing development potential and impact the cost and supply of housing, including Measure J, Phased Allocation requirements, the One Percent Growth Policy, the Affordable Housing Policy and Ordinance, the Middle Income Housing Ordinance, and the Accessible/Visitability Housing Policy. While the element analyzes these policies individually, the element should describe and analyze the cumulative impact of these ordinances on the City’s ability to meet the housing demand for all economic segments of the population. The cumulative impact assessment should relate these polices to the lack of supply of developable residential land. The element should also contain programs to monitor these policies throughout the planning period for potential constraints that may affect the cost and supply of housing. In addition, the element should describe the objective criteria used by the City Council when determining whether a project qualifies for the “extraordinary project” exemption from the One Percent Growth Policy.”
Maybe I am missing something here, but all I get out of this comment from the state HCD is that a more thorough analysis/explanation needs to be done, not that any changes need to be made to the city’s regulatory scheme. It appears the state HCD does not think the Updated Housing Element is complete in its explanations. To me, it seems as if all they are saying is with Davis’s regulatory scheme of Measure J, One Percent Growth Policy, etc., EXPLAIN HOW THIS OVERALL REGULATORY SCHEME WILL STILL ALLOW THE CITY OF DAVIS TO MEET THE RHNA REQUIREMENTS.
But I have to wonder if the City Staff is getting pushback from developers to use this letter from the state HCD as an excuse to gut Measure J – Measure J which is a thorn in the side of developers?
Elaine: Your observation is well past just “wondering”. It is a certainty as long as Bill Elmen ,Davis Planning Director posing as our City Manager, and the current Council Majority are in control.
I read the HCD June 3, 2008 to Ms. Hess. In addition to the issues noted by David Greenwald, I also find myself curious about this portion of the letter:
“For emergency shelters and supportive housing: The element indicates emergency shelters are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in all commercial districts. However, the city should be aware of recent amendments to housing element law (Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007 [SB2]) requiring, among other things, the identification of a zone(s) where emergency shelters are permitted without a CUP or other discretionary action (italics mine) and permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.”
Does anyone know if progress has been made on the emergency shelter front?
This is just another example of the lack of integrity and how we simply can not trust the management level of City Staff. To try to pull this stunt off of basically undermining the citizen’s own policies and goals written into the General Plan is outrageous. Community Development Director Katherine Hess is at the helm of this disaster like so many other disasters including the latest NewPath lawsuit over the 37 cell towers that Hess “erroneously” authorized.
Incompetance, lack of integrity and selling out the city and the citizens to the developers is enough to fire Hess. She is costing our city millions of dollars in losses due to her incompetence and then on top of that to make bad planning decision after bad planning decision. She does not even have a planning background! And now she tries to screw-up our Housing Element to set us up for another law suit!
FIRE HESS NOW before she destroys our city and before she costs us more in lawsuits and more planning and administrative decisions.
If City Manager Emlen won’t fire her, then fire Emlen too because he is part of the problem for covering up for Hess.