Letter to: The Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Planning Department and County Counsel...

   April 30, 2015

   From:  David Tunno, District 5 Planning Commissioner

   Re:  2015 Housing Element

   HOUSING  ELEMENT

    The subject of the Housing Element, particularly how the element was presented to the Planning Commission, should be the subject of concern to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors going forward, especially inasmuch as it will likely return to both bodies
as early as the completion of the balance of the General Plan and, in any case, periodically according to the mandated schedule.

   For purposes of background, the proposed Housing Element is a  slightly modified version of the 2010 element prepared by Mintier Harnish.  The deadline for its renewal is this year and with the entire list of General Plan elements slated to be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future, the updated Housing Element needed our attention now, so as to meet the deadline.

   I had spent a great deal of time studying the element and annotating it for weeks prior to the meeting. It was obvious from the Planning Commission hearing of 4/23/15 that at least one other commissioner, Kelly Wooster, had done likewise.

    I had submitted my concerns to the Planning Director weeks in advance to give him ample time to prepare responses.  I knew it would be unfair to expect Planning to respond in real time to my many questions and concerns.  Apparently, other commissioners had also submitted their reactions in advance.

   Indeed, Mr. Maurer responded to the most of the notes his department received in advance of the hearing, allowing Commissioners ample time to consider his document entitled "Planning Commission Staff Report Addendum."  It was obvious considerable time was spent in preparing that document.

   What was disappointing, however, and which has prompted this letter, is the information the Commission received from the Planning Department, and its outside consulted, Amy Augustine, about the Housing Element during the hearing itself.  Specifically, the fact that any substantive changes, especially deletions from the element, would trigger a negative response and potentially dire consequences from the State Housing and Community Development Office (HCD), charged with reviewing all Housing Elements.

    The potentially dire consequences we were informed of included a required rewrite of the Housing Element and/or a period of time imposed by the HCD during which it would consider our altered element and more importantly, a possible nullification of our entire existing General Plan, resulting in the county's inability to issue building permits.  the withholding of grant monies from the state, as a result of the Housing Element status was also relayed to us, as was the potential for a lengthy delay in the completion of our General Plan.

   My concern is those consequences are of such significance that the Commission should have been fully informed of them prior to the hearing.  By "fully informed" I mean details of potential HCD actions, state law upon which they would be based and any case examples that would benefit the Commission to know.  Inasmuch as the Planning Department took considerable time to respond to numerous written concerns of members of the Commission, and inasmuch as many of those concerns, under what we learned subsequently were, in effect, moot points due to the potential HCD triggers, the Commission should have been, and could have been fully informed prior to the hearing.  Under the circumstances, the hearing itself became little more than a proforma step toward approval of the Element as prepared by the Department, with the Commission having virtually no substantive influence on it, and while having to act under considerable pressure due to the dire circumstances previously described.

  In hindsight, Commissioner Wooster was the only one, in my opinion, who got the vote right with his abstention.  We should all have abstained and directed Planning to come back to us with a detailed report of the consequential actions referred to above in order for our votes and positions to be properly considered.  Since the Board of Supervisors will now take up the issue, I recommend it require such a report so as not to be placed in the same position as was the Planning Commission.

   HOUSING COORDINATOR

   On a related matter, the Housing Element included the goal of hiring or designating a Housing Coordinator and appointing a Housing Advisory Committee.  In the subject Planning Commission hearing, there was discussion of moving up the time frame for a decision on the Coordinator position in consideration of the next update due for the Housing Element (2020), specifically that a qualified Housing Coordinator would be able to write the element.  The Planning Commission was advised that the talents needed to write a Housing Element did not currently exist in the Planning Department.

   I advise the BOS to reject, for the foreseeable future, the hiring of a new staff person designated as a Housing Coordinator for the following reasons:

   If, indeed, the Housing Element cannot be substantially altered from its current form without triggering adverse reactions from the state, then minimally updating the Element to avoid those triggers should not require the talents of a person capable of writing one from scratch.

   Secondly, if the County should need a person with the skills mentioned, it should consider either providing the training to bring an existing staff member up to the necessary skill level, or replacing an exiting staff position with a position at the higher level.  In this case, the County would only be taking this action because it intends to extensively rewrite the Housing Element and, doing so, it is willing to face the results and argue its case, as necessary, before the HCD.

   With or without a Housing Coordinator, the County should consider substantive changes to the Housing element (changes that are allegedly not possible now for reasons previously stated) once the other elements of the General Plan as passed, at which time the Housing Element can be revisited, as the Planning Commission was so informed.

   Third, the position is projected at a salary level in the high five figures.  With overhead and benefits the amount would probably exceed six figures.  The Planning Commission was informed that the position might be self-sustaining via grant funds, but not until at least two years had passed.  That means the County would be out some quarter of a million dollars (in round figures) before that happened, even assuming grant funding would be a reliable source for funding the position ongoing and, further, that grant funding for housing projects of one kind or another, with the strings that we know attack from the state, is a goal the County should pursue.

   Lastly, and looking at the broader picture, the Board Of Supervisor should consider an approach to the future that places more emphasis on economic development, thereby lifting up many who are in the low income brackets and, in the process, creating less of need for low--income housing.  Low-income housing is the subject of the entire Housing Element and, by extension, the focus of a Housing Coordinator.  That emphasis might include a focus on economic development along the lines of the efforts by Tuolumne County, the General Plan of which includes an Economic Element, and an Economic Development Authority, a JPA with the City of Sonora.

   It is not anticipated that economic growth would eliminate the need for low-income housing. Reducing that need, however, is a worthwhile goal because those of low income benefit far greater from economic growth than from a greater availability of affordable housing alone.  Meanwhile, an improved economy for the entire County would make more affordable the very programs designed to improve the lives of low-income residents; to the extent they would still be needed.  The goal should be economic growth, not economic redistribution.  I caution the BOS against considering this a "chicken-and-the-egg" question.  It is not.  Economic prosperity is the enabling factor that allows for all other goals.  Without it, we will be forever chasing the goal of sufficient affordable housing and to an ever increasing extent.  Like the end of a rainbow, it will just keep moving farther away.

   MEETING PROTOCOL

   Well in advance of the Planning Commission hearing on the Housing Element, I had asked for a meeting to discuss the protocol of that hearing, which would apply to all hearings on subsequent General Plan elements. That request was denied.  There was a component absent from the Commission's hearing that I believe would have been helpful and that I hope will be instated for the upcoming GP hearings, if not all future hearing.

   The hearing consisted of each commissioner discussing with the Planning Department his or her concerns with components of the element.  Various remarks by one commissioner naturally led to comments from other commissioners in an open discussion type of format.  That part of the protocol worked fine, but for the lack of advanced notice on the key issue raised above.

   Lacking from the hearing was a statement of position by each commissioner and a debate session prior to the call for a motion - two separate components.  These components of the protocol would serve two purposes; 1) They would let the public know where each commissioner stood and, just as importantly, why, and 2) They would allow commissioners to openly debate the issues with each other and attempt to influence one another, as they should.  These components might even influence whether or not a motion is made and/or seconded.

   Further, and especially with issues of the magnitude discussed herein, it would be helpful for a break to be taken before the protocol components described above.  This would allow members to collect their thoughts and notes from the lengthy hearing with staff in order to formulate their  position and prepare to present it.  A second break should be taken after the debate and before a motion is called for to allow members to fully consider the points made by colleagues in the debate period.  I believe this is in the best interest of the Commission and the public on these important matters.

   Respectfully submitted,

   David Tunno

   NB:  This document was prepared without consultation with any other members of the Planning Commission, but with consultation from the County Counsel's office with respect to Brown Act compliance.  As instructed by counsel, the Planning Commission may not discuss the contents of this document with one another until or unless it has been agendized.  Another requirement is that it be made available to the public, which I will do.