City Staff Argues Changes Are Needed for HCD Approval –
What has apparently now happened is that the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the document and has made some recommended changes.
Many of these were either formalities or technicalities or updates. For instance, in the Housing Needs Assessment, portions of the section were updated to note that the Middle Income Ordinance has been suspended.
On the other hand, there is insertions about the work of the Social Services and Senior Citizens Commission on Housing Guidelines for housing that meets the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities.
While those bodies have done notable work and for the most part have resisted external pressure from various interests attempting to push forward senior housing at a specific location, the fact is that those interests have now been successful at putting senior housing considerations in the housing element without the discussion from that body that had occurred over a year and a half period of time.
In other words, there are concerns that these interests have circumvented the HESC process and gotten their concerns and proposals in through the back door.
It gets far worse as the HCD then weighs in on Davis’ land use policies that it apparently does not like because they discourage growth – as they are intended to.
Here’s part of the red-flag:
“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.”
The good news is this: the city still has ultimate control over what policy changes it makes.
“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.”
This is how I read this:
Staff is basically making the argument that we can carry out whatever land use policies we want, but we need to adopt some language to get the HCD to approve the Housing Element and that might include adding language to consider changes.
It’s a gambit however because this could become the impetus of the council majority to alter some of the growth protections that we have put into place in order to comply. Moreover, this language may actually set the stage for substantive changes down the line that are unanticipated.
Here is the summary of changes that are in question here:
“The City is committing to reviewing residential development policies more completely and considering any potential constraints to housing development, consistent with what the City has started with the Chamber of Commerce.”
“A summary of the planning review processes for various planning applications was added, plus a summary of typical project fees.”
“A review of potential constraints to housing for persons with disabilities was expanded.”
While the city plays these off as benign formalities, the language inserted into the housing element with absolutely no input from the committee members or the community is frankly alarming.
“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.”
Have we not just completed a review of the 1% Growth Policy and Measure J? It takes an incredible level of trust to believe the intent here is not to change city policy and put into place language that will authorize and justify wholesale review and changes for existing land use policy.
Here is another potential troubling policy:
“An action was added that the City will review the Affordable Housing Ordinance to ensure that its requirements do not unduly impact the development of housing. And the City will complete visioning within the program to increase affordability of existing housing stock and to encourage additional in-fill development. The City will also review recent cases and ensure the ordinance continues to be consistent with state law. (Policy HOUSING 1.1 Action h., pg. 6-2)”
This one is interesting:
“The city will facilitate the development of housing to meet the needs of the City of future growth sites (identified as green sites in Table 47). The City will expedite planning applications on these sites, meet with interested property owners to provide them with an overview of the planning application process, assist with implementing rezones and provide flexibility in development standards to promote the production of housing types that can serve a range of income levels.”
The critical question is whether these are benign changes as staff suggests or whether they will be used as an impetus for an actual review and changes of city policy.
Another red-flag is that while the Social Service Commission and Planning Commission had voted in support of the original drafting and submission of the updated Housing Element and its submission to HCD, they do not get to weigh in on potential changes.
“With the changes to now be considered being based on HCD’s review of the document against state law, there is little opportunity for changes to the document while ensuring its ongoing ability to meet state certification requirements. At this point, the tracked changes are for Council consideration and action. Staff did not return to the Commissions for review, but did notice them of this public hearing and the document’s availability.”
Our overall view of these proposals is that they are exceedingly dangerous. I do not understand the need to make these changes without further deliberation and review. This is the first that many have heard about this review process. Moreover what authority does this group, the HCD have? What happens if they do not approve our housing element?
I have real apprehension about putting much of this into language that has been authorized and approved by the Davis City Council. It seems to me that the staff may be trying to backdoor in policies without much scrutiny that we could be bound to in the future.
Moreover, I do not like the idea of the notion of a ruse by city staff. The idea being that they would put language in to get the document accepted and then the HCD has no further authority to enforce it, that strikes me as more than a bit deceitful and again dangerous.
Does this document have any other legal bearing? Can a developer sue the city to enforce the language?
This needs to be considered with great care and great caution.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks David
Who is HCD?
Does the CC plan to take action on this tonight?
Is the staff report from CDD and Katherine Hess?
Department of Housing and Community Development
There is action recommended on the staff report, whether the council takes action is anyone’s guess.
Staff report is from Hess and Danielle Foster.
Thanks. HCD newly interested in our Housing Element Report or why now? Why us? Any reasons?
Staff report claims that it’s part of the review process for approval. I wonder if the HESC knew about this?
I hope some of them are alerted at attend tonight.
It’s sad that we must keep ever diligent in the oversight of public policies to keep the greed out of the system. Just when you thought you had the front door, side door and back door locked they always seem to find a weakness.
I would not be surprised if the Council put this off until after the June election, allowing the candidates to avoid taking a clear position on this during their campaigns. All the candidates must be pressed to CLEARLY articulate their positions during the campaign. It is clear that a thorough analysis of the legal powers of the authorities mentioned needs to be done as part of the Council deliberations. We all remember the bogus argument that the Council Majority put forward,during the CV Measure X campaign, concerning the penalties that SACOG would inflict on Davis if it did not meet Davis’ Fair Share housing numbers. Ironically, this same Council Majority now argues that the SACOG’s current number for Davis(which the Council Majority feels is too low) should not be given any real weight.
“…It is important for the City to obtain a state-certification of its Housing Element in order to be eligible for state funding opportunities…”
What state funding opportunities? What are the consequences of failing to certify?
In the case of SACOG, as we learned during the Measure X campaign, the State has the discretionary power to withhold support for Davis affordable housing. This was considered by all to be a political non-starter since the State has a strong policy of encouraging the development of affordable housing.
From the Public Policy Institute of California:
(http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_203PLRB.pdf)
“Noncompliance limits local eligibility for state and federal funds for affordable housing, and makes the local government more vulnerable to lawsuits on land-use matters. Conflicts between state and local policymakers over housing elements are common, and most jurisdictions have been noncompliant at one time or another.”
As of 2002, at least, 33% of jurisdictions were out of compliance, 51% were in compliance, and the remainder were under review, had their housing element “due,” or were “self-certified.”
The city doesn’t have to comply. It can do as it chooses.
Before any staff time is spent on this, I would be urge that the council determine
— what actual funding might be jeopardized, if any;
— what state actions have ever been taken against cities that are out of compliance;
— what the cities are doing that are out of compliance;
— what it means to “self-certify.”
Sounds like much staff time has already been expended. Agree with your approach but who will carry the water on pushing for you points?
With regard to Item 7 (below) on tonight’s agenda, I would suggest that recommendation 1 be denied and that the item be tabled. Prior to adopting (or not) item 1.b., staff be requested to review the questions I’ve posted, particularly the finance department and city attorney. CD input is not needed at this point.
The questions have to do with the consequences of non-compliance and whether there are other approaches that would preserve Davis’ voter-approved approach to growth and housing development (i.e., self-certification). Many other communities are out of compliance. I doubt that staff answers during Q & A tonight can really give sufficient detail, so I would urge that a written report be requested and the whole thing be re-agendized.
Item 7
Public Hearing: Resolution to Adopt the Updated Housing Element and Direct Staff to
Submit the Updated Housing Element to the State Department of Housing And Community
Development for Final State Certification (Community Development Director Katherine
Hess/Housing & Human Services Superintendent Danielle Foster)
Recommendation:
1. Approve resolution, taking the following actions:
a. Find that Negative Declaration #05-07 that was originally prepared and approved
for this update to the City’s Housing Element continues to serve as the environmental
review for this final version of the Housing Element, as no substantial
changes have been made that affect the document’s environmental review
b. Adopt the updated Housing Element, that includes changes in response to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s review of
the document in accordance with state law
Don,
I have been trying to get the answers to these questions, so far without success.
The city manager has said that the changes were “technical”, and in response to a letter from the state. However, that letter is not included, and I have not been able to obtain a copy of it.
Sue.. I certainly would put Elmen publicly “on the hot seat” if he is indeed withholding this letter from review by our elected representative.
davisite2: If I “put Emlen on the “hot seat”, I will be subject to a civil lawsuit if the proposed Saylor/Souza “councilmember sanctions” pass!!!
Actually, I Bill Emlen is not “withholding” the information from me, but it should have been included in the packet, I have not been able to get hold of him and the city attorney doesn’t have it.
I do wish we would see such important items like this at least a week in advance, the letter from the state should have been included in the packet, I think that there is much to much on the agenda tonight, and I don’t think that this item should have been presented to me as “just a few technical changes”.
“We all remember the bogus argument that the Council Majority put forward,during the CV Measure X campaign, concerning the penalties that SACOG would inflict on Davis if it did not meet Davis’ Fair Share housing numbers.”
..as we all should remember as well, this same Council Majority also attempted to argue,during the Measure X campaign, that the State would also penalize Davis if it did not meet a Council-Majority-created 1% growth “target”(since changed to a “cap” because of voter pressure) that was self-imposed by this selfsame Council Majority. The city staff or city attorney never challenged this proposition in any public Council session.
Sue… Publicly asking Emlen why his staff did not include this letter in the packet since it IS reportedly the reason that these “technical” changes are being offered and also suggesting that all Council members have to be given ample opportunity to review the contents and legal ramifications of the letter before considering the staff’s recommendations is a MOST REASONABLE exchange..any interruption by our mayor claiming that staff is being harassed would be completely out of line.
It isn’t necessary to even question the staff about this. There isn’t sufficient information to make a decision, so the motion should be tabled or postponed to a future meeting. That would give staff time to produce documents and get financial and legal information about the issue. The agenda is packed anyway, so I’m sure it would be a relief to the council members to pull this item.
I totally agree with Don Shor’s 11:32 AM comments. Staff has gone over-the-top with these recommendations which undermine our General Plan! This is a Housing Element which opens up the floodgates for the developer’s.
This item on the Housing Element needs to be tabled!
Don Shor, stop being so rational. (That’s actually an irrational stab at humor)
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!
Davis, Athens, and Ann Arbor Top ApartmentRatings.com List of Best College Towns for Renters:
[url]http://www.prweb.com/releases/apartmentratings/2010collegetownrankings/prweb3672514.htm[/url]
At least Davis is #1 in something…