HELP URGES COUNTY TO GET PUBLIC COMMENT AND SUPERVISORS’ APPROVAL OF SECRET REPORT SUBMITTED TO STATE
July 5, 2006
EUREKA – HELP, a coalition of Humboldt County citizens dedicated to promoting jobs and housing for Humboldt families, today disclosed that County planners submitted a secret document that had never been presented to County residents as part of its effort to convince the state to maintain certification of the housing portion of its general plan.
It is a clear violation of state law and an action contrary to the premise of the general plan for an amendment to be processed in such fashion.
The document, submitted to the state Department of Housing and Community Development on April 24, was sent to the state without any chance for the public to comment on it and without any vote of the Board of Supervisors.
The state relied on the document in maintaining the County’s certification, though it warned the County of shortcomings.
“The County is required by state law to use its general plan and the housing element to guide policy on housing,” said Kay Backer, a consultant for HELP. “Now, we find out that County staff developed a secret report that will play a key role in guiding housing policy – yet the County never shared it with the public, received any public input or presented it to the Board of Supervisors.”
“The residents of Humboldt County must be able to rely on the housing element, not secret staff reports, for guidance on the development of affordable housing,” Backer said.
In a letter to the Board of Supervisors, HELP urged the supervisors to bring the document to the public for input and the Board for a proper vote to make it part of the housing plan for the county.
It’s important to do that because, Backer said, the County’s illegitimate report becomes the controlling document for anyone looking to develop and promote affordable housing in Humboldt County.
The report documents one of HELP’s main contentions over the last three years – that the County has no real idea about how many housing units could be built under current zoning and infrastructure.
Without any firm information, the County doesn’t have the key data it needs to honestly address the county’s housing crisis, which is forcing many young Humboldt families to leave the area to be able to purchase a home.
“This illegitimate document – had it been presented to the public – would have been completely discredited and it could have never been sent to the state in its current form,” Backer said.
“But rather than giving citizens and real estate professionals a chance to comment, County staff decided it was simpler to leave the public out of the process,” Backer said. “The result is a document riddled with inaccurate information and misrepresentations.”
For example, an attachment to the document continues to grossly overstate suitable sites for the Shelter Cove area, showing 6,383 units as the maximum development potential allowed in Shelter Cove. But in the body of the report, it is recognized that no more than 600 units can be developed due to water supply constraints. Even this number is 240% higher than the 250 dwelling units the State says could be developed in Shelter Cove.
“The County must follow the law and tell the truth to Humboldt County citizens,” Backer said. “As it bypasses the process prescribed by law and submits reports without any public input or Board approval, the County merely continues to lose credibility. It’s time for a real change – including being honest with citizens and dealing with them in a forthright manner.”
For further information, please contact Backer at 707 834-8006, or visit the HELP website at www.helphumboldt.com
A copy of the letter to the County follows:
June 30, 2006
Mr. John Woolley, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Humboldt
825 Fifth Street, Room 111
Eureka, California 95501
Subject: Humboldt County Housing Element
Dear Chairman Woolley:
HELP has been struggling for several years to get the county to take seriously its responsibility to adopt a housing element to its general plan that meets state law requirements to promote adequate affordable housing for all county residents. Recently it has come to our attention that a number of the problems with the housing element we have been asking the Board of Supervisors to recognize and address by appropriate action have been documented in a report dated April 24, 2006. This report was prepared in secret by county staff and submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development without public review and input and without any authorizing action by the Board.
We are particularly shocked that this document by its title and its content purports to be part of the housing element and to modify parts of the current element. Surely all involved must recognize that the housing element cannot be amended by a staff report. It is a violation of state law and an action contrary to the premise of the general plan for an amendment to be processed in such fashion.
The purpose of this letter is to ask the Board of Supervisors, if the Board agrees with the content of the report, to act immediately to adopt in the proper manner an amendment to the housing element. The residents of Humboldt County must be able to rely on the housing element, not secret staff reports, for guidance on the development of affordable housing. The many changes in this document to the inventory of sites suitable for residential development and the recognition for the first time of the requirement to make a determination of adequate sites to meet the housing need must be part of a properly adopted housing element.
Inventory of sites suitable for residential development
The April 24 report documents the undeniable fact that the inventory currently included in the housing element is meaningless. This report is focused on making vast changes to that inventory by adding and deleting many, many sites. The thousands of entries in the inventory in this report stand in stark contrast to the one page table that constitutes the inventory in the housing element. It cannot be denied that anyone planning on developing housing in the county must now ignore the housing element and rely on this report instead. In addition to making “specific changes in the land inventory since it was published [sic] the Housing Element Update of 2004” the report identifies policy issues and sets out “action items to address issues arising from this land inventory update.” These are matters to be included in the housing element.
The changes included in this report amount to a complete rewriting of the content of the housing element. For example, the report makes “a reduction of 3,943 potential units” and includes “substantial additions to the land inventory to account for development potential not previously considered.” It also adopts significant policy positions, such as excluding “as many as 16,000 potential units” in areas that are supposedly “valued for agricultural and timber uses” and excluding “nearly all potential dwelling units” that are “outside of existing community plan areas.”
While this report documents many of the serious deficiencies in the current housing element, its content still falls far short of the requirements in state law for an inventory of sites suitable for residential development. As the report readily acknowledges, even after all the many revisions it adopts there is much yet to be done to determine whether many of the sites listed in the revised inventory are in fact suitable for residential development during the planning period.
Shelter Cove is an example. This report recognizes that at least 2,940 units were erroneously included for this area in the inventory in the current housing element. Attachment 5 of the report in the “List of Sites” continues to grossly overstate suitable sites for this area, showing 6,383 units as the “Maximum Development Potential Allowed” in Shelter Cove. In the body of the report it is recognized that no more than 600 units can be developed due to water supply constraints. Even this figure, which is 240% higher than the 250 units HCD has stated could be developed, significantly overstates the true number of sites that could be adequate to accommodate the housing need.
Adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need for all income levels
We have repeatedly requested the county to address in its housing element the most important question of identifying adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need for all income levels. At long last this report appears to recognize the county’s obligation under state law to take this important step to promote affordable housing.
This essential part of a meaningful housing element is not included in the county’s current housing element which does no more than identify areas of land that are “planned and zoned to meet the County’s housing demand.”
This report, while acknowledging the county’s legal responsibility, does little to fulfill it. The criteria that must be used to determine whether a site is “adequate” for a specific income level are not described and no effort is made to determine whether any site does in fact meet the criteria. This report only suggests that there are land areas that might meet the housing need if they were analyzed and if they were found to meet the criteria for an adequate site. The county still has failed to take the steps needed to develop the crucial part of its housing element that must identify adequate sites to meet the regional housing need for all income levels.
Low and very-low income housing
The county’s current housing element acknowledges that “it is unlikely that the county will be able to meet its share of the regional housing need for low and very low income households.” Three years later this report continues to acknowledge this failure and documents how serious this failure is. The report claims that the development potential for lower income housing is 2,094 units and the housing need requirement for this group is 764 units. Thus, over one-third of the total development potential must in fact actually be developed to meet the need within the planning period. Even assuming that 2,094 sites are in fact suitable for development, nothing has been done to determine which sites have potential for which income levels, and no analysis has been done to determine which of the sites meet the criteria for being “adequate” for development within the planning period.
The report indicates a significant reliance on second units in order to find sufficient sites suitable for residential development and sites for lower income housing. This major emphasis on this one source of sites is inconsistent with the very modest reliance on second units that is county policy under the current general plan.
Revision of the housing element
State law requires the county to take action to keep its housing element current. A disturbing aspect of this report is the suggestion that nothing will be done to correct the serious deficiencies in the housing element until the general plan update is adopted. The timing of that update is far from certain and is likely to be at least three years in coming. Given the recognition in this report that critical housing needs are not likely to be met under the policies and programs adopted in the current housing element, it is irresponsible of the county to put off correcting the deficiencies to an uncertain date several years away.
The Board should direct the staff to edit this report into a proposal to revise the housing element and immediately initiate the proper process for the adoption of and amendment to the general plan.
Sincerely,
Kay Backer, HELP Consultant
cc:
Ms. Sunne Wright McPeak, Secretary, State Business Transportation & Housing
Ms. Lynn Jacobs, Director, State Housing & Community Development
Ms. Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director, State Housing & Community Development
Supervisor Jimmy Smith, District 1
Supervisor Roger Rodoni, District 2
Supervisor Bonnie Neely, District 4
Supervisor Jill Geist, District 5
Bruce Emad, Planning Commissioner
Mary Gearheart, Planning Commissioner
Richard Hansis, Planning Commissioner
Tom Herman, Planning Commission Chairman
Scott Kelly, Planning Commissioner
Sef Murguia, Planning Commissioner
Jeff Smith, Planning Commissioner
Loretta A. Nickolaus, County Administrative Officer
Kirk A. Girard, Community Development Services Director
Robert K. Best, Trainor Robertson Attorneys
|
