Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Element topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California City housing element fails after council and public raise data, infrastructure concerns
Summary
Councilors and residents questioned data and infrastructure assumptions in the city's proposed 2023'1 2031 housing element; without a motion to adopt, the resolution failed and staff was directed to return with material corrections and a timeline to resubmit to the state.
Councilors and members of the public on Tuesday declined to adopt California City's proposed sixth-cycle housing element for 2023' 2031, sending staff back to refine data and clarify infrastructure and program details before another vote. The housing element process is a required update of the city's general plan that identifies sites and programs to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) set by state and regional authorities.
PlaceWorks consultant Cynthia Walsh presented the document and told the council the city's RHNA allocation is 427 units: 39 very low-income, 25 low-income, 100 moderate-income and 263 above-moderate units. Walsh said the draft had received repeated review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and that conditional compliance could be achieved if the council adopted the revisions and staff resubmitted the plan.
The element, Walsh said, is an inventory and policy document, not a rezoning or immediate construction mandate: 22We are not proposing any projects or rezones,22 she said, adding the element documents sites that could accommodate development so they are available when a private developer proposes a project.
Public commenters and council members pressed for corrections to multiple data points and analyses in the document. Resident and frequent commenter JM Powers and other speakers questioned tables and age-of-housing counts, the treatment of rehabilitative programs, and whether previously promised water and sewer upgrades had been completed or planned. Council members also asked for clarification of credit taken for 129 recently permitted units and whether those were correctly classified by income category.
Interim City Manager Grayson and staff acknowledged a number of public submissions listing errors and omissions and said staff would work with PlaceWorks to identify which changes are material and which are technical updates. Grayson said staff would return with a tracked list of material changes and a timeline for bringing a revised document back to the council.
No council member moved to adopt resolution 26-3209; the presiding officer announced the resolution failed for lack of motion. The council requested that staff and the consultant incorporate public comment submissions (including detailed lists previously filed by residents) and resubmit the housing element with clear explanations of any material changes before a new adoption vote.
Next steps: staff will work with PlaceWorks to identify and implement agreed revisions and prepare a resubmittal to the Department of Housing and Community Development; the council asked for advance notice of which changes could materially affect policies or programs before the item returns for decision.
