Fresno City Council
December 12, 2024

Exhibit D
Public Comments
Public Comment Index

Number Page Date Commenter
1 4 11/19/24 Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Public Interest Law Project
2 18 11/19/24 Brandi Nuse-Villegas
3 21 10/31/24 H.E.A.T for Southwest Fresno Community
4 32 10/28/24 Jovana Morales Tilgren, Housing Policy Coordinator et al.

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, et al. 5 49 10/28/24 Ashley Hedemann, CEO, Habitat for Humanity 6 51 10/28/24 Dave Padilla, Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation
7 53 10/25/24 Tyrone, Roderick Williams, CEO, Fresno Housing 8 55 10/23/24 Betsy-McGovern-Garcia, VP , Self Help Enterprises 9 56 9/30/24 Emmanuel Agraz-Torres, Policy Advocate, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Public Interest Law Project 10 72 8/8/24 Brooke Frost
11 73 8/7/24 Jovana Morales Tilgren, Housing Policy Coordinator, et al, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, et al. 12 102 8/7/24 Greg Terzakis, Senior VP , California Apartment Association 13 103 4/12/24 Emmanuel Agraz-Torres, Policy Advocate, et al, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, et al.
14 111 12/12/23 Jasmine Robinson, Legal Advocate/Legal Fellow, et al, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Public Interest Law Project
15 207 10/20/23 Betsy McGovern-Garcia, Vice President, Self Help Enterprises 16 209 8/15/23 Allen & Brenda Wong
17 211 8/16/24 Susan Barrows
18 212 8/16/23 Stephen P . Yeagle
19 213 8/16/23 Mike O-Banion
20 214 8/16/23 Valerie Feldman, Staff Attorney, Karlo Martinez, Policy Advocate, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and Public Interest Law Project
21 256 8/16/23 Karla Martinez, Policy Advocate, et al, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, et al.
22 267 8/16/23 Scott Miller, president/CEO Fresno Chamber of Commerce 23 268 8/16/23 Greg Terzakis, Senior VP , California Apartment Association 24 271 8/16/23 Brian Domingos, Fresno Association of Realtors 25 273 8/15/23 Joseph and Rachel Gugliemo
26 275 8/11/23 Dennis Statham
27 278 8/9/23 Sarah J. Adams
28 281 8/9/23 Mike C
29 282 8/9/23 Lynette Statham, LCSW
30 284 8/9/23 Jayson Martinez, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
31 289 8/8/23 Valerie Armstrong
32 290 8/8/23 Martha Gonzalez
33 291 8/8/23 Patrick C
Public Comment Index

34 292 7/31/23 Vanesa Donangtavanh, Self Help Enterprises 35 294 7/30/23 Sean Z
36 295 7/27/23 Jeffrey M
37 296 7/27/23 Amber F
38 297 7/20/23 Rudy Quintana
39 298 7/20/23 Kathleen O
40 299 7/20/23 Glenn Miller
41 300 7/20/23 Cheyenne J
42 302 7/17/23 Betsy McGovern, V P, Self Help Housing
43 304 10/3/22 Karla Martinez, Policy Advocate, et al, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, et al.

Summary: 43 comments from 30 commenters
November 19, 2024
Mayor Jerry Dyer
Fresno City Councilmembers
Michelle Zumwalt, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room Fresno, CA 93721
RE: City of Fresno Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Errata Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Dyer, Councilmember, and Ms. Zumwalt:

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) and Public Interest Law Project (“PILP”) submit this comment letter in response to the City of Fresno’s Housing Element Draft Errata (“Errata”) released on November 12, 2024. Thank you for taking the time to meet and discuss our concerns regarding the programs and their lack of affirmative furthering fair housing. We hope that this conversation, along with California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) findings letter released on October 7, 2024, leads to amendments of strong policies and programs identified by R/ECAP communities. The Errata does not adequately respond to HCD’s findings and fails to incorporate programs with meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.

I. Releasing “Erratas” Without Meaningful Opportunities for Input Fails to Demonstrate Diligent Effort to Include Public Participation from R/ECAP Communities.

Every City of Fresno resident deserves the opportunity to engage in the Housing Element process and voice their concerns with revised drafts and elevate their housing needs. The City of Fresno released a revised Housing Element Draft on July 31, 2024. Since then the City has been releasing “Erratas” every month with only seven calendar days for comments: September 23, 2024, October 21, 2024, November 12, 2024. Such a quick turnaround does not allow the City to properly engage with residents and communities; therefore, the City is not taking the time to truly revise the housing element draft to reflect community needs, but most importantly the needs of R/ECAPs.

Michelle Zumwalt

II. The Assessment of Fair Housing Fails to Adequately Analyze Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP).

As part of the comprehensive statutory duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”), the housing needs assessment of a locality’s housing element must comply with the requirements of Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10) by including an “assessment of fair housing” (“AFH”), in addition to an analysis of the locality’s household characteristics and housing conditions. (HCD Guidance, p.22; see also Gov. Code 8899.50.) The AFH must analyze how relevant factors in the locality “cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate” fair housing issues (HCD Guidance, p.24; see also Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c).) Factors to be analyzed include spatial and temporal patterns and trends, local data and knowledge, as well as policies and practices or other information relevant to fair housing conditions. (HCD Guidance, p.25.) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
One mandatory portion of the AFH is an analysis of Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (“R/ECAPs”) which discusses the incidence of concentrated areas of poverty and segregation within the locality, as well as within the region. (HCD Guidance, p.32; see also Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c)(10), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c).) Both the local and regional description are crucial, because any “difference between the locality and the region is an essential part” of evaluating policies based on the priority of fair housing issues. (HCD Guidance, p.33.) The AFH should similarly analyze Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) according to the same temporal and spatial dimensions (HCD Guidance, p.33.) In the October 7 findings letter released in response to the September errata, HCD identified several failings in the draft AFH. According to the findings, to meet the minimum level of analysis to satisfy the City’s statutory obligations, the AFH must “expand the discussion of characteristics of [RECAPs] and changes over time.” (HCD Findings, p.2.) One approach suggested by HCD would be to “consider a specific and individual description of each of the R/ECAPs including past and current neighborhood conditions, disparities in access to opportunity, effectiveness of past policies and investments and unique opportunities to promote equitable quality of life.” (HCD Findings, pp.2-3.) In addition, HCD’s findings stated that the expanded analysis “should incorporate public participation and targeted outreach to better examine needs and formulate appropriate policies and programs.” (HCD Findings, p.3).

In response to these findings, the October 21, 2024 errata released by the City included expanded descriptions of 11 R/ECAPs, identified by neighborhood. (October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-31 - p.1E-3-45.) This section appears not to have been amended since the release of the October 21, as it is not included in the November 12 Errata. However, while the edits to this section did introduce a greater level of detail compared to that included in the previous draft, the Michelle Zumwalt

expanded descriptions fall short of what is necessary for the City to meet its duty to AFFH. In general, in spite of the HCD findings, the descriptions of area development over time are inconsistently detailed, with some R/ECAPs discussed in greater depth than others. Also, there is a general lack of analysis connecting the description of development history to the contemporary fair housing issues, and explaining how the identified programs offer opportunities to address the particular issues present in each neighborhood. Until it includes the appropriate degree of analysis, the City’s AFH fails to conform to the requirements laid out in Government Code Section 65583 as articulated by HCD Guidance, and does not meet the standards set out in the HCD findings regarding the September errata. Because compliance with the requirements of Section 65583 is essential to meet the AFFH duty under Section 8899.50, this violation is inconsistent with the AB 686 goals of addressing fair housing issues and replacing segregated living patterns with integrated ones. (HCD Guidance, p.15.) Specific shortcomings include:
● Downtown
○ While the description of the Downtown neighborhood identifies factors including redlining and the negative consequences of suburban-style development in the 1960s, 1 there is a lack of analysis connecting this historical information to the current neighborhood conditions. For instance, the section identifies “the amount of impervious surfaces results in higher levels of extreme heat” as well as “a high concentration of individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals with disabilities in the Downtown area.” (October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-33.) However, these unique characteristics are not analyzed in connection with any historical trends or patterns. This discussion should be expanded to include an analysis of how policy and investment decisions made following the 1960s period of suburbanization informed the area’s current character, with particular attention to the development of the identified urban-heat issue and the increase in the population of individuals experiencing homelessness as compared to the wider region. Without a discussion of the policies and practices relevant to this area during the past 50-60 years, it is not possible for this description to assist in the formulation of appropriate policies and programs to AFFH in this area.
● Jane Addams Neighborhood
○ The description of this area notes that because “the area was mostly developed while in the County, the roads did not meet City standards, lacking curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.” (October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-37.) However, the section lacks any meaningful analysis of this development pattern, explaining only that “[p]ast policies (or lack thereof) related to freeway construction and City-County coordination of growth and development resulted in negative impacts to this neighborhood.” (Id.) Without any degree of analysis of the particular policies and practices, or their 1 October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-33.

Michelle Zumwalt

negative impacts, this description does not offer guidance for efforts to promote equitable quality of life in the neighborhood. The description should be expanded to include details of the policy gaps related to freeway construction and City-County development, and the negative impacts that have resulted from them. This would inform a better understanding of the unique opportunities to address these issues. ● Southwest Neighborhood
○ The description of this neighborhood states that it developed as a “patchwork of agricultural, residential, and industrial uses, with some commercial sprinkled throughout, resulting in land use incompatibilities” and notes that at present it suffers from “high pollution burden due to … legacy land uses” and is at “risk for extreme heat due to low tree canopy of 8%, compared to the citywide average of 15%.” (October 21 Errata, 1E-3-38.) In addition, the description of the Southwest Neighborhood also refers to a local “transition pursuant to the adoption of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan in 2017, which sought to enhance the plan area by incentivizing housing and commercial development, prioritizing parks and public facilities, and rezoning industrial land to other uses.” (October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-38.) However, this description fails to analyze the recent shift back toward industrial uses in this area; and, although it identifies Program 28: Equitable Community Investments as an opportunity to remedy the results of the inequitable historical development, that program includes language which contemplates land use changes away from those specified in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, potentially opening the door for re-entrenchment of industrial uses in Southwest Fresno. Because this inconsistency between the issues identified in the R/ECAP analysis and the programs identified to address them means that the planned-for transition away from industrial activities might be halted or rolled back, threatening the feasibility of future residential development due to land use incompatibility, this conflict represents a failure to AFFH.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
The October 21 errata includes only the following discussion of RCAAs:
“There are 18 RCAA tracts within the city limits. Several of the RCAA tracts overlap with areas that are not incorporated into Fresno city limits as of 2022.

Within Fresno City, RCAAs are generally found in the North and Northeast Fresno neighborhoods, often characterized by high property values, excellent schools, and well-maintained infrastructure. Neighborhoods deemed as RCAAs include portions of the Woodward Park, Bullard, McLane, and Roosevelt community areas.” (October 21 Errata, p.1E-3-45.)
Michelle Zumwalt

Although there are more identified RCAAs within the city than R/ECAPs, the draft does not individually identify or analyze these areas. This failure is inconsistent with the requirement that an AFH consider RCAAs to “better evaluate trends, patterns, policies, and practices and to guide meaningful goals and actions to address fair housing issues.” (HCD Guidance, p.33.) The AFH should be amended to include an expanded discussion of RCAAs within the city, with the necessary analysis of how factors including public participation, past policies, practices, investments, and demographic trends have resulted in the pattern of development that has resulted in the identified RCAAs.

The AFH Does Not Meet the Minimum Requirements to AFFH
As described above, there is a critical lack of analysis in the draft AFH that should have been amended in the most recent errata. Until the City expands the descriptions of identified R/ECAPs to explain the relationship between historical practices and patterns and current fair housing issues, it will not meet the requirements of Housing Element law. In addition, without this analysis, the AFH cannot support the implementation of programs to address the identified fair housing issues, and the City will fail to uphold the duty to AFFH.

III. Failure to Incorporate Community Identified Programs that will Result in a Beneficial Impact during the Planning Period and AFFH.

HCD’s October 7, 2024, findings letter identified deficiencies the City needs to address in order to comply with state law: “the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing.

Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs. Goals and actions must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.” 2 As stated in section II of this letter, the City failed to complete an adequate assessment of fair housing in the Errata, and without a complete assessment the City is unable to adequately revise the programs in the Errata. Additionally, HCD’s findings letter directs the City to revise its programs to include geographic targeting and metrics, and targeting high resource areas, specific metrics, specific commitments, timing, and specificity regarding Specific Plans. We appreciate that the City included language in some of the programs that target RCAAs as well as additional timelines and specificity in this recent Errata, but additional changes are needed to fully comply with HCD’s findings. Additionally, our previous comments have detailed community-identified programs that are needed to respond to critical housing needs. These programs would AFFH and replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. 2 Department of Housing and Community Development. (2024, October 7). HCD’s Findings Letter to the City of Fresno on their 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element.

Michelle Zumwalt

Program 1 - Maintain Adequate Sites. We appreciate that the City has added in this Errata a commitment to evaluate progress toward completion of pipeline projects annually, and to adjust its inventory relative to that progress. The city should commit to deadlines for those annual reviews to ensure that they occur–e.g., annually by July 1 or annually by the anniversary of the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element.

Program 2 – Variety of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas. This program’s goal is to increase high density housing in high-resource areas. The City acknowledges that high density housing is placed in R/ECAPs and low-density housing like single family homes are built in new growth areas like North Fresno and other RCAAs. In order to create “mobility” the City “will present potential sites or rezoning options for land in high and relatively higher resource and income areas, including RCAAs, for Council consideration to provide opportunities for higher density development in all areas of the city and reduce concentrations of poverty.” Only presenting potential sites or rezoning options in high resource areas for council consideration does not guarantee that they will be approved. As discussed at length in our prior comments, NIMBYism is a barrier to rezoning high density housing in high resource areas; deferring upzoning of sites in RCAAs and other high-resource areas to future discretionary Council action is a recipe for failure.

The City should be identifying sites “throughout the community,” including in RCAAs and other high-resource areas, in its Housing Element. (Gov. Code 65583.2(a).) Where rezoning sites in those areas is necessary to accommodate affordable housing, the Housing Element should include a program to do so. In order to provide adequate capacity for multifamily and affordable housing in high-resource areas, the City must identify those sites in the Housing Element now, not after adoption. But, rather than ensuring a streamlined, ministerial process for housing approvals in high-resource areas, the City’s current plan is to defer to a future discretionary process where City Council will have the opportunity to reject any proposed rezoning. A firm commitment now will also prevent challenges from NIMBY groups. Incorporating this action will truly develop housing opportunities for low income households in high resource areas and AFFH.

Program 2 continues to state that it will “include developing zoning standards to permit residential conversions in the Office Zone District, housing as a permitted use on parcels zoned Office, allow ministerial approval of office-to-residential conversions…” But there is no specificity around whether office zoned parcels in RCAAs will be prioritized over those in R/ECAPs. The goal of this program is “to increase housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households and encourage racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods.” Most of the actions are vague such as “the City will identify and pursue opportunities to promote the development of affordable housing” in RCAAs but it does not specify how this will be done.

Michelle Zumwalt

The last action is also vague: “the City will incorporate Affirmatively Further Fair Housing analysis into decisions affecting funding and land use approvals for housing projects that require consideration by Planning Commission, City Council, or other boards and commissions as appropriate.” As noted in our prior comments, the City already has such an obligation pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50. Program 2 should commit to specific actions the City will take to ensure that it fulfills that obligation.

In order to ensure this program affirmatively further fair housing and increases housing mobility for R/ECAPs, it must:
● Identify sites RCAAs to allow multifamily residential developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households by right, to rezoning the sites accordingly within one year of adoption.
● The City Council should adopt a policy requiring staff memos to the Council and relevant commissions to include an affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis that analyzes the fair housing impacts of any proposed decisions related to housing, as well as any applicable project alternatives. The policy should include affirmative outreach to affected communities, especially for projects in R/ECAPs.

Program 14 – Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers. The goal of this program is “to continue to strengthen partnerships and relationships with affordable housing developers.” It continues to list vague actions such as “supporting,” “pursuing,” “encouraging.” In order to create strong relationships with affordable housing developers, the City should have addressed their concerns in the engagement process of the Housing Element and incorporated them into the Draft. Affordable housing developers need consistency, transparency, and long term commitment from the City. Building affordable housing projects takes time and funding from various avenues, therefore a streamlined process is necessary to build trust among the very few affordable housing developers that exist in the Central V alley. In addition to the existing program commitments, City should incorporate the following:
● Annually publish to the public an inventory of the City’s affordable housing project pipeline that includes housing developments in various stages of development, including pre-development, planning, permitting, and near-construction. This inventory could be published in conjunction with the City’s Housing Element Annual Progress Report. This will create a transparent process for both the affordable housing developers and the public.
● Make commitments to continue financing the project up to three years. Revisit the project and ensure the applicant has everything to move forward with the project.

Michelle Zumwalt

Program 19 – Home Buyer Assistance. We appreciate the City including commitments to offer technical and financial assistance as well as reinforcing the timeframe for the project. However in order for this program to AFFH, the program must be accessible to residents who utilize an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). ITIN holders are part of special needs groups and among the most vulnerable to displacement and unlawful evictions. Creating opportunities to be able to own a home will give them access to opportunity and create fair housing opportunities for them.

Program 20 – Housing Choice Voucher Incentive Program. Under State law, it is illegal for landlords to discriminate against someone due to their source of income such as a voucher recipient solely on the basis of their having a voucher. The source of income discrimination is rampant throughout California. 3 The City must include meaningful actions to ensure that voucher recipients have housing choice throughout the City of Fresno but most importantly in high resource areas and RCAAs. Currently, the Errata has vague language that does not contain meaningful actions that will allow voucher recipients to have greater access to RCAAs. In order to ensure that this program affirmatively further fair housing, integrates communities, and allows for fair housing choice the city must go beyond workshops and trainings. This program should incorporate the following additions and amendments:
● Create a rent registry to keep a list of landlords throughout the City of Fresno, and to allow the City to track complaints against landlords who reject voucher tenants, by December 2025, and ensure that every tenant has access to the Rent Registry in multiple languages.
● Identify and commit to specific actions that the City will take to enforce source-of-income protections.

Program 22 – Housing Rehabilitation. We appreciate the language added to this program, we strongly urge additional actions that ensure this program truly targets residents in R/ECAPs. ● Include provisions that will allow residents with ITINs to apply to this program. ● Include temporary housing assistance, such as emergency housing vouchers, during extreme renovations. This will allow extremely low-income residents the opportunity to secure housing without accumulating additional financial burdens. ● The City must include the HOME program as a source of funding as well as setting aside five percent of its annual general fund revenue to ensure the program remains funded throughout the planning period.
● Release semi-annual reports with data on how many residents apply to the program, how many people are being funded, and whether they live in R/ECAPs. 3 Khouri, A. (2024, Oct. 8). Housing nonprofit alleges widespread discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California. The LA Times. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-08/section-8-discrimination Michelle Zumwalt

● Release an annual survey on how well the program is serving communities and reevaluate the program if it is not addressing the needs of the most vulnerable.

These amendments will ensure that the program is affirmatively furthering fair housing and creating place-based strategies.

Program 27 – Environmental Justice. This Errata does not include strong actions that will create healthy neighborhoods with access to opportunity such as a healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions) particularly for R/ECAP communities. The Errata must include place-based strategies in R/ECAP as Environmental Justice actions that could then be reinforced in the Environmental Justice Element. The program should include the following actions to improve the quality of life in R/ECAPs, specifically in the communities residing in South Fresno:
● Implement land use changes to rezone industrial use and prohibit future industrial uses near sensitive receptors.
● Prohibit the siting of polluting uses near impacted communities and impose impact fees on polluters operating near homes. The funds generated will go towards a community benefit fund managed by the impacted community and utilized to transform R/ECAPs into areas of opportunity.
● Establish a moratorium on warehouses in or near R/ECAPs.

These recommended changes will help ensure that the program improves the quality of life in R/ECAPs and affirmatively further fair housing. 4 Program 33 - Mobile Home Parks. In order to discourage mobile home park conversions, which both displace mobile home residents and reduce the City’s supply of affordable housing, this program should include (1) a commitment to apply mobile home park zoning to existing mobile home parks, and (2) addition of relocation requirements and other protections for mobile home park residents that go beyond the requirements of Government Code sections 65863.7 and 66427.4. The latter could be included in the regulations that the program is already contemplating with respect to replacement units.

Program 34 - Eviction Protection Program. As we discussed in our meeting today, tenants need legal representation, professional mediation, and guidance in navigating the eviction process as well as landlord/tenant law to avoid displacement. The Eviction Protection Program is a critical anti-displacement tool. The Housing Element should commit to ongoing funding of the program, and to codify it in the City’s municipal code by June 2025. 4 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2021). Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:

Guidance for All Public Entities and For Housing Elements. p.54.

Michelle Zumwalt

IV . Community-identified Programs that will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Once again, we appreciate the City taking the time to meet with us to discuss resident-identified priorities. Per our discussion, we encourage the City to consider and ultimately incorporate the following programs that R/ECAP communities identified as anti-displacement measures which will substantially improve their quality of life and affirmatively further fair housing.

A. Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance.

Objective: A Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection ordinance will protect existing residents from displacement. It comprises strategies that protect residents in areas of lower or moderate opportunity and concentrated poverty and preserves housing choices and affordability. Based on the data analysis from the City’s Displacement Avoidance Plan, rent stabilization is critical in ensuring vulnerable tenants stay housed. Such an ordinance will also decrease the amount of evictions, thus lessen the monetary need for the Eviction Protection Program.

Actions and Timelines:
○ The City will adopt a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases and unjust evictions by December 2025.
○ The City will develop the ordinance collaboratively with Fresno tenants, landlords, and community based organizations.
○ The City will make a diligent effort to engage Fresno tenants through outreach including but not limited to, canvassing apartment complexes. The city will host interactive convenings and workshops.
○ All material, information, and verbal public education, including outreach initiatives, will be provided in a variety of languages representative of Fresno including, but not limited to, Spanish, Hmong, and Punjabi. ○ The City will establish a community workgroup to develop a rent stabilization and just cause ordinance draft by March 2025. The working group will meet on a monthly basis.
○ The City will release a draft ordinance for public review and announce the publication of the draft by August 2025.
○ The City will adopt the ordinance no later than December 31, 2025.

Funding: Local Funds.

Responsibility: Office of the City Attorney and Office of Community Affairs.

Michelle Zumwalt

If the City cannot commit to adopting and implementing a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance in the Housing Element, then we recommend that the City evaluate the feasibility of adopting measures to protect residents from displacement.

Example strategies the City will evaluate include:
● Adopting community benefit zoning and/or other land value recapture strategy. ● Adopting an ordinance to provide for extended notice, expanded relocation benefits, and right to return when an owner evicts tenants for “no fault” causes, such as in order to remove the property from the rental market. ● Adopting a just cause eviction ordinance that expands the Tenant Protection Act’s eviction protections to tenants who are not currently protected by state law–e.g., tenants in their first year of tenancy.

The City will partner with three community organizations to conduct community workshops. The City will incorporate the results of community outreach into a feasibility analysis to be released publicly and presented to the City Council in a public study session. Based on Council direction, City staff will develop a workplan to adopt the Council’s recommendations.

B. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

Objective: Currently, the mobility strategies in the Programs section of the Housing Element are insufficient to affirmatively further fair housing, or to create housing choice for residents living in R/ECAPs. An inclusionary housing ordinance would both increase the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing in the City and also also ensure that new units are integrated into market-rate buildings and higher-opportunity neighborhoods.

Racial and economic segregation in Fresno is deeply entrenched, and concrete policies are needed to ensure integration and access to opportunity. Inclusionary housing is one of the most effective policy tools local jurisdictions have to affirmatively further fair housing, and the City should use it.

Actions and Timelines:
○ The ordinance will be developed in accordance with the following guidelines ■ Apply to projects of 5 or more units
■ All new housing developments will set aside 20% of its units as affordable for households with an AMI of 50% or less in perpetuity. ■ As a compliance alternative, developers may pay an in-lieu fee that will then be used towards the development of affordable housing. ○ The City will draft an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and adopt the Ordinance by November 2025.

Michelle Zumwalt

○ The City will implement the ordinance and require Inclusionary Zoning for all new housing developments and inform developers of compliance requirements by December 2025.

Funding: Local Funds
Responsibility: Planning and Development Department
If the City cannot commit to adopting and implementing an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance then the alternative solution is to implement a feasibility study in the Housing Element. Preparing a feasibility study in support of an inclusionary requirement helps ensure that the requirement is right-sized for local conditions. The feasibility study would analyze local market conditions and the economics and tradeoffs of various policy options – affordability percentages and levels, incentives – to make sure the ordinance delivers the number and type of affordable units that a community needs. It also provides a data-driven foundation for the requirement, which can help overcome opposition by showing that it can be implemented without impeding the developers’ability to earn a profit.5 We recommend the following:
● The City will hire a consultant to work on the feasibility study by June 2025.
● The City will present options to the City Council by October 2025. ● The City will adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance by December 2025.

C. Rental Assistance Program.

As we discussed on our call, the creation of a permanent program to provide emergency rental assistance to lower-income households that are unable to pay rent or have past due payments, regardless of immigration status, would help to prevent displacement, strengthen the existing Eviction Protection Program, and affirmatively further fair housing. In light of the expiration of ERAP , the City should commit to creating and funding such a program. Funding sources could include the General Fund and Local Housing Trust Fund, as well as other sources like ESG and HOPW A. The City could time the program to correspond with the adoption of its Consolidated Plan in 2025 to ensure consistency. This would provide rental assistance to households that may not have stable income, including but not limited to field-workers, the elderly, disabled persons, etc.

V . Conclusion.
5 Western Center on Law and Poverty. Meeting California’ s Housing Needs: Best Practices for Inclusionary Housing. Retrieved from https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/inclusionary-factsheet_v2.pdf.

Michelle Zumwalt

Thank you for considering and incorporating several of our comments. Once again, we appreciate the City taking the time to meet with us to listen to our concerns. We hope that our recommendations will be incorporated in the Housing Element Draft, this will ensure a compliant housing element and will fulfill its duty to AFFH. Additionally, we strongly urge the City not to adopt the Housing Element before being found compliant with State law. Public participation and transparency is critical to this process. The undersigned organizations welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating on the City of Fresno’s Housing Element update to ensure the City is committed to meeting the housing needs of all residents, complies with state law, and provides equitable public participation opportunities throughout the revision process.

Sincerely,
/s/
Jovana Morales Tilgren
Housing Policy Coordinator
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
[email protected]
/s/
Seth Alston
Legal Advocate
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
[email protected]
/s/
Melissa A. Morris,
Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
[email protected]
510-891-9794 x 111
Cc:

Architect, Michelle Zumwalt, [email protected] City Manager Georgeanne White, [email protected] Planning Director Jennifer Clark, [email protected] Council President Analisa Perea, [email protected] Councilmember Mike Karbassi, [email protected]
Councilmember Miguel Arias, [email protected]
Councilmember Tyler Maxwell, [email protected]
Michelle Zumwalt

Councilmember Luis Chavez, [email protected]
Councilmember Garry Bredefeld, [email protected] Councilmember Nelson Esparza, [email protected] Mayor Jerry Dyer, [email protected]
Thomas Brown, Policy Analyst, California Department of Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
Paul, McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development, [email protected]
I would like to add comment on needs for Goal 7 and for the housing element at large

1. We need to commit to and implement a robust system of accountability for all programs, service providers, and the city itself. We need third party oversight with the power to address and hold all those providing services and making decisions accountable.

The issue we have seen over the past years is that there have been services implemented, but issues within the programs that aren't being addressed. For instance, due to problems in the shelters, Fresno Housing Authority worked with their service provider, Turning Point, to implement a grievance system, showing that this was needed, and something that many have brought to the city to address. However, there continues to be concerns and reports of unjust exits from the shelters, with no opportunity for the occupant to reach out and seek help addressing this.

In Program 36:

2. The city of Fresno needs to have a robust asset based community development approach, especially regarding those who are unhoused, including, but not limited to implementing a lived experience board of those who have been unsheltered/unhoused.

We cannot be successful unless those whose needs we are addressing are at the table in a meaningful way.

The city needs to identify barriers to community engagement within this group, including the need to go out to those who are unhoused to listen not only for ideas but to assess existing projects.

3.The City of Fresno needs to commit in its housing element to a Housing First approach, with the recognition that getting people into permanent housing, and then supplying needed services to ensure that people are able to address any issues that are impediment to long-term permanent housing placement has been shown in research and practice to be much more successful. One of the challenges we face is that people are going into shelter only to be exited out without housing back onto the streets, when they are housing ready, when they are still in the process, even after getting treatment. It is easier to gain and maintain a job or go through the process of getting on disability and other challenges within permanent housing.

4. As well, the city needs a policy to ensure that people are not exited from shelters until they are placed in permanent housing without a just process with oversight and assistance of unhoused advocates or other advocacy if there is a reason stated to exited otherwise and remove the 90 day limit.

From: Brandi Nuse-Villegas
Date: November 19, 2024

5. HART is not a viable program in the effort to address housing needs. While the outreach portion, HOPE Team currently, is helping with navigation and other services, all of those who are unsheltered in Fresno, from the experience of unhoused advocates, and publicly reported at city hall public comments, video documentation, and such show that the law enforcement arm has been throwing away needed belongings of those who are unhoused, including paperwork, ID cards, and such, in violation of the city municipal codes and constitutional rights. This has impeded the victims form the process of getting housing and has resulted in victims losing secured housing in multiple occasions. As well, losing living essentials causes those who are unhoused to redirect their energy from the process of getting housing to simply replacing survival supplies.

This item also highlights the first point regarding accountability.

Regarding Program 34:

6. It may help to have easy to access hotline/website in which to report landlords that fail to meet requirements such as accepting vouchers in addition to violations of living conditions and illegal evictions.

.

October 28, 2024
Mayor Jerry Dyer
Fresno City Councilmembers
Michelle Zumwalt, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: October 2024 Errata to the Revised HCD Draft Housing Element Dear Mayor Dyer, Councilmembers, and Ms. Zumwalt:

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) writes in collaboration with the Public Interest Law Project (“PILP”) and the other undersigned organizations to provide comments on the Errata to the Revised HCD Draft Housing Element 2023-2031. LCJA and the undersigned organizations work alongside the most impacted communities to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, income, and place. As addressed in our previous letters, we advocate for vital policy and practice changes to meet the housing needs of all residents in the City of Fresno, especially low-income communities individuals with special housing needs, and BIPOC communities to overcome fair housing disparities.

I. Inadequate Community Engagement
Following the release of HCD’s October findings, which instructed the City to “incorporate public participation and targeted outreach to better examine needs and formulate appropriate policies and programs” in R/ECAPs; to “continue to employ a variety of methods to gather input from all segments of the community, beyond making the document available as part of future revisions and submittals”; and to “specifically target individuals and organizations that represent lower-income households, including residents or representatives of R/ECAPs,” we anticipated additional community engagement efforts from the City to solicit community input

Michelle Zumwalt

prior to the release of additional revisions. Although we appreciate that the City incorporated relevant feedback collected from the Climate Adaptation Plan and Environmental Justice Element workshops and “Discussions with Affordable Housing Partners,” we would have liked the opportunity to meet with City staff to discuss community concerns before the Errata was released, unfortunately the City released it less within a month of the previous Errata leaving very little opportunity to engage community members.

Lastly, we advocate for additional workshops, meetings, and targeted outreach in Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty to inform, and complete, the Housing Element’s Assessment of Fair Housing and subsequent revisions to Policies and Programs in the Action Plan.

II. Failure to Include Community-Identified Programs That Will Result in A Beneficial Impact During the Planning Period and AFFH.

Although we appreciate the City’s incorporation of many of the suggestions from our most recent comment letter, including recommendations regarding community-identified programs; several of the programs still have deficiencies or could otherwise be improved to address housing needs identified by community members.

Program 1–Maintain Adequate Sites
The Errata adds language regarding project-by-project evaluation of progress toward accommodating the RHNA. However, the City should also commit to a mid-cycle review of pipeline projects, development on identified sites, and development trends, generally, to determine whether identification of additional sites or other actions are necessary to ensure that adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA–especially the lower-income RHNA–are available throughout the planning period.1
Program 2–Variety of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas This program now commits to “[i]ncorporate AFFH into land use and funding decisions beginning in January of 2025.”2 The City is already obligated by Government Code section 8899.50 to affirmatively further fair housing in all land use and funding decisions and cannot 2 City of Fresno. (2024). ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OCTOBER 21, 2024, p.1E-1-11.
1 See Letter from Paul McDougall to Jennifer Clark re: City of Fresno’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element (Oct. 7, 2024) (“HCD 10/7/2024 Findings”), p. 3 (“[T]his Program should commit to monitor progress toward completion in the planning period and take appropriate action if projects are not anticipated to be completed in the planning period.” Michelle Zumwalt

defer compliance with the law until 2025.3 Further, the City needs to commit to concrete actions that it will take to ensure that it follows through on its commitment to incorporate AFFH into future decisions. The City Council should adopt a policy requiring staff memos to the Council and relevant commissions to include an affirmatively furthering fair housing analysis that analyzes the fair housing impacts of any proposed decisions related to housing, as well as any applicable project alternatives. Such a policy would be especially valuable in Fresno, where neighborhood opposition to affordable housing functions as a major constraint to the funding, siting, and development of affordable housing and housing for homeless individuals and families.4 Active consideration of whether a particular project will promote integration and opportunity, and of its impacts on members of groups protected by fair housing laws, will help the City to ensure that it is not allowing animus against low-income people, people with disabilities, and other protected groups to cause it to violate its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Program 3 – Encourage and Facilitate Accessory Dwelling Units and Small Homes Although the City revised the program objective to include the suggested language provided in HCD’s October 7th Findings letter, the City must also include extremely-low and very-low-income households in the 30 percent of ADU development that will take place in relatively higher resource and income areas and RCAAs; as well as throughout the City, in order to AFFH and promote integration. Additionally, this program should be further revised to ensure the development of ADUs is affordable to low-income households in R/ECAPs and effectively serve as a place-based strategy that affirmatively furthers fair housing. Furthermore, the City’s revisions should include a clear definition for “small homes” and the difference from ADUs.

Please refer to our prior comment letter for further information.

Program – 14 Partnership with Affordable Housing Developers We appreciate that the program was revised in the September Errata to include some of the language provided in our August 7th comment letter; however, this program can be further improved with revisions that include strategies to combat NIMBYism for projects in high-resourced areas and a commitment to utilize the quarterly convening to provide stakeholders with a detailed report outlining the success of the program. Furthermore, we restate that the project's timeframe should be revised to commit to bi-annual reporting throughout the planning period, bi-annual review and assessment of potential funding opportunities, and quarterly convening with stakeholders.
4See, e.g., Zisser, D. (Aug. 7, 2024).Letter from David Zisser to Georgeanne White re: Fresno City Council’ s Denial of Fresno Quality Inn Homekey Project – Letter of Technical Assistance 3 See Gov. Code 8899.50(b)(1): “A public agency shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Michelle Zumwalt

Program 17 – Surplus Public Lands
We appreciate that the City revised the program to be in line with the Surplus Land Act requirement to include a “minimum of 15 percent affordable units” and for adding additional strategies to rezone sites for affordable housing. However, this program still fails to outline the additional steps the City will take to ensure the development on sites located in higher opportunity areas.

Program 19 – Home Buyer Assistance
First and foremost, thank you for including commitments to offer technical and financial assistance to prospective homebuyers, ensuring that residents are guided throughout the program will greatly increase the success of the program. However, in regard to financial assistance, residents insisted that in Fresno’s housing market, offering up to $200,000 in assistance, as opposed to the October Errata’s revision of $100,000, will result in the greatest beneficial impact. Additionally, the program should be made available to residents who utilize an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).

Program 20 – Housing Choice Voucher
Although the program was revised in the October Errata in response to HCD’s October findings letter, by adding a commitment “to conduct outreach to developments in high and relatively higher resource and income areas” the revision should have included RCAA and targeted outreach and advertisement in low-resourced areas as well. In doing so, the program will promote housing mobility to all City residents and in turn AFFH. Furthermore, the program still lacks meaningful actions with specific timelines and measurable outcomes that work towards “a beneficial impact.” We reaffirm that this program must include actions that ensure voucher holders do not face any discrimination; for example, commiting to finance a billboard displaying the protections against HCV discrimination and providing landlords with informational material on HCV and the consequences of source-of-income discrimination; the City should also establish and fund a program within the City to actively pursue enforcement against discrimination against voucher-holders and/or funding the Eviction Protection Program, which guarantees access to legal counsel to low-income tenants on housing matters.

Program 22 – Housing Rehabilitation
Thank you for including commitments to offer technical and financial assistance; as well as reinforcing the timeframe for the project. However, this program requires additional revisions to ensure homes are preserved and well maintained. Residents stress the importance of adding Michelle Zumwalt

weatherization and heat resilience policies that commit to offering services that include, insulation and cooling systems, such as heat pumps. It is a necessity and will serve as a preventative measure to rehabilitation services. Additionally, residents identified the need for educational workshops and assistance prior to receiving a fine; therefore, the City’s code enforcement division should serve as a secondary outreach team that refers would-be offenders to the Housing Rehabilitation program. Furthermore, this program must be accessible to residents with ITIN’s. Lastly, offering Temporary Housing assistance, such as emergency housing vouchers, during extreme renovations will allow disadvantaged residents the opportunity to secure housing for themselves and their families without accumulating additional financial burdens. The City must reconsider including our suggested place-based policy to “set aside 5% of its annual general fund revenue” to ensure the program remains funded throughout the planning period.

Program 23 – Comprehensive Code Enforcement
The revisions made to Program 23’s Objective in response to HCD’s October findings should be more explicit. The revisions state that the City will “Conduct focused outreach and programming in older and disadvantaged neighborhoods in central and south Fresno, including Downtown Fresno. Determine any additional neighborhoods that should be identified for outreach and programming.” However, the Assessment of Fair Housing Descriptions of R/ECAP Areas states that Program 23 would be applicable to the Lowell/Jefferson Neighborhood, the Edison Neighborhood, the Southeast neighborhood, the Southwest Neighborhood, Central Southeast Neighborhoods, the Mclane Neighborhood, Fresno High-Roeding Neighborhood, the El Dorado Park neighborhood, and the Shaw/Marks Neighborhood; therefore, the objective should explicitly include these communities and the timeframe should be further revised to reflect when and how often outreach will occur during the planning period. Furthermore, this program still lacks actions that would hold landlords legally accountable for retaliation, harassment, and evictions of tenants who filed code enforcement complaints. Once again, we recommend that the City analyze its code enforcement procedures, incorporate tenant feedback, and commit to adopting a tenant anti-harassment ordinance.

Program 26 – Fair Housing Services
Program 26 was revised in the September Errata, to include an action for geographic coverage and outreach and states that it “should be targeted to the most vulnerable populations as depicted in Figure 1E-3.3 – Racial Segregation by Census Tract, Figure 1E-3.7-Distribution of Poverty, and Figure 1E-3.10 – Percentage of Population with a Disability.” Yet the revisions made to the AFH Description of R/ECAPs in the October Errata state that this program would “promote equitable quality of life” in Southeast and Central Southeast neighborhoods. Therefore, this action should have been further revised to explicitly include these neighborhoods and state Michelle Zumwalt

that this action “will target the most vulnerable populations.” Additionally, this program still fails to establish timelines and concrete steps toward successfully reaching its objective to “mitigate impediments to fair housing opportunities throughout the city, with an emphasis on supporting the needs of populations and neighborhoods most impacted by fair housing issues.” Furthermore, as addressed in our August comment letter, and further reinforced in HCD’s October findings, the City should utilize additional public participation and targeted outreach to ensure input from Fresno residents directly impacted by discrimination, especially in R/ECAPs, so that the City understands and addresses the needs of R/ECAP residents. We still recommend the inclusion of additional legal representation, landlord education on fair housing law, and enforcement mechanisms against bad landlords.

Program 27 – Environmental Justice
The revisions made to the Environmental Justice Program in the September Errata better align the program with the requirements of the Environmental Justice Element. However, the September and October Errata should have also included place-based strategies in R/ECAP as Environmental Justice actions that could then be reinforced in the Environmental Justice Element. The program should include the following actions to improve the quality of life in R/ECAPs, specifically in the communities residing in South Fresno:
● Implement land use changes to rezone industrial use, and prohibit future industrial uses near sensitive receptors
● Prohibit the siting of polluting uses near impacted communities and impose impact fees on polluters operating near homes. The funds generated will go towards a community benefit fund managed by the impacted community and utilized to transform R/ECAPs into areas of opportunity. ● Establish a moratorium on warehouses in or near R/ECAPs and a cargo/freight Prohibition and revenue tax that directly funds community-based housing and development in communities affected by the negative environmental impacts caused by freight.
● Develop Public health impact reports to understand how industrial development may exacerbate existing public health disparities, especially in R/ECAPs; seek the support of public health agencies to complete this analysis; include these impact reports in the permit approval process and in decision making; and make these reports publicly accessible.

Additionally, the program was revised in the September Errata to state: “The City will monitor the impact of the EJ Element policies in the General Plan by developing a data tracking program to assess program outcomes in disadvantaged communities. Every five years, the City Michelle Zumwalt

will collect data to assess its performance against a minimum of five of the following types of measures using 2024 as the base year.” This action should be revised from collecting data every five years to “annually,” and to assess performance “against all of the following types of measures, and make the data publicly available through annual reporting.” These recommended changes will help to ensure that the program improves the quality of life in R/ECAPs and affirmatively furthers fair housing.5
Program 28 – Equitable Community Investments
Although Program 28 was revised in the September Errata to include ongoing investments in West Fresno, Downtown, and Southwest Fresno, potential funding sources, and further revised in the October Errata to include commitments towards implementing and monitoring the Southwest Specific plan and Downtown Neighborhoods community plan, this program still comes short of authentic equitable community investments. The AFH Description of R/ECAP Areas identifies Program 28 as an opportunity “to promote equitable quality of life” in Downtown, Edison Neighborhood, Southeast Neighborhood, Jane Addams Neighborhood, Southwest Neighborhoods, Central Southeast Neighborhoods, McLane Neighborhood, Fresno High-Roeding Neighborhood, El Dorado Park Neighborhood, and Shaw/Marks Neighborhood, yet fails to include actions towards place-based revitalization in these communities other than the ones mentioned above. For example, the City could commit to incorporating complete street principles as an action that is applied into all transportation projects at all phases of development, including planning and land use decisions as well as implementation. The program must be further revised to explicitly describe planned revitalization strategies in all identified R/ECAPs and prioritize the South Fresno communities that have continuously advocated for additional investments that support healthy housing, infrastructure, amenities, and services. Unfortunately, in the October Errata, the language added to this program timeframe will not promote a future of equitable quality of life goals. To state that, “If land use is changed from an adopted use in a specific plan, the City will evaluate impacts and create new targets to better balance for residential industrial compatibility” demonstrates that the City is willing to create an opportunity that allows the poor land use decisions of placing unhealthy industrial zones near residential communities to reoccur. This program will not AFFH until it is revised to include clear actions and commitments for all R/ECAPs.

Program 29 – Equitable Community Engagement
Despite stating that this program will “promote equitable quality of life” for Southeast and Central Southeast neighborhoods in the October Errata’s AFH description of R/ECAP, the 5 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2021).Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and For Housing Elements. p.54.

Michelle Zumwalt

program fails to explicitly address the committed actions and measurable outcomes towards ensuring equitable community engagement of these communities.

Additionally, we recommended that this program be revised to include the establishment of a Housing Element Implementation Committee. As stated in our August comment letter, the Committee should be composed primarily of tenants, low-income homeowners, and at-risk populations. The goal of this committee will be to ensure that implementation meets the needs of at-risk communities and to inform potential revisions throughout the planning period.

Program 30 – Workforce Development
As stated in our August comments, we encourage the City to include additional actions that target services for the unhoused community in the workforce development program. The City should include commitments to support unhoused individuals transitioning from shelters into communities. Providing voluntary job training specifically to assist unhoused individuals apply for jobs, retain employment, and develop skills is strongly recommended. Additionally, this program still fails to integrate R/ECAP and R/ECAA.

Program 33 – Mobile Home Parks
Thank you for addressing the need for rent control policies and policies that discourage rezoning. We encourage greater specificity regarding removal of the requirement that residents must form a committee to oppose rent increases using the mobile home rent control program process, as well as adding commitments to hold Mobile Home Park owners accountable through fines for code violatons and harassment of tenants. Additionally, the October Errata was revised to include “Establish regulations to protect affordable housing on property currently occupied by mobile home parks. If the property is proposed for conversion from a mobile home park, it will be required to redevelop with a number of covenanted affordable units equal to the number of mobile home units lost in the conversion, or 10 percent of new units, whichever is higher." We recommend that the City should further reinforce this policy by committing to apply mobile home park zoning to existing mobile home parks.

More should be done for the rehabilitation and preservation of mobile homes; the city must reconsider adding commitments to weatherization services and prioritizing homes in major need of repair or at risk of having damage exacerbated by the effects of climate change.

Residents have stressed the inability of their outdated and underserviced homes to withstand heat waves during the summer and floods during winter months. The dangers of extreme heat became a reality to the residents of Three Palms Mobile Home Park after a community member was found unresponsive in their home after disappearing for two weeks following an extreme heat wave. Now as residents prepare for the winter, they share that they will have to resort to the use Michelle Zumwalt

of multiple space heaters and the kitchen stove to keep their families warm. Similar to Program 22, residents stress the importance of making mobile home rehabilitation funds and services available to residents who utilize an ITIN, offering temporary housing assistance, utilizing the code enforcement division as an additional method for referrals and outreach, and committing a percentage of the General fund to the funding of this program.

Program 34 – Eviction Protection Program
We must reiterate the importance of securing a permanent source of funding to ensure the Eviction Protection Program remains effective throughout the planning period; therefore, the EPP should be codified in the City’s municipal code and revised to state that “The City will invest in this program with money from the general fund. We strongly encourage the City to include HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant Program as a source of funding and revise the program to include commitments to allocating additional funding from the City’s General fund.

Additionally, the City should include a commitment to adopt a rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinance, developed from community input, as an additional measure that guards tenants against displacement. These policies would make the eviction protection program more effective in achieving its stated purpose.

Program 35–Replacement Housing
We appreciate the City’s adding a reference to the Housing Crisis Act to this program.

Please note that the full citation for the Housing Crisis Act is Government Code sections 66300 to 66301, and the replacement housing requirements are found in section 66300.6. Additionally, the program should identify specific actions that the City will take to ensure that it complies with applicable replacement housing requirements–e.g., adopting a replacement housing ordinance that complies with state law–as well as actions to implement the Housing Crisis Act’s other requirements for new development that demolishes existing: notice, right to return, relocation benefits, etc.

Program 36 – Homelessness Assistance
Although we appreciate the addition of actions that commit to providing “outreach to link unhoused residents with mental health and substance treatment services,” “ mobile home showers and restrooms for unhoused individuals through the Homeless Services Division,” and “ crisis intervention training to City staff that work with the unhoused community” in the September Errata, this program will not lead to a beneficial impact as written given the City’s recent decision to criminalize unsheltered homelessness. The program should be further revised to include commitments towards preventative measures that ensure residents residing in shelters Michelle Zumwalt

remain on a path towards permanent housing, including applying for additional funding to ensure shelters have sufficient beds. Furthermore, the City should include the recommendations outlined in our August comment letter to demonstrate a clear commitment towards homelessness assistance.

III. The Assessment of Fair Housing Fails to Comply with Section 65583(c)(10) The Housing Element fails to include an assessment of fair housing (“AFH”) that meets the requirements of State law, and it also fails to include adequate programs to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”).6 HCD’s findings released on October 7, 2024, ask the City to “expand the discussion of characteristics of [each of the R/ECAPs]and changes over time” including “past and current neighborhood conditions, disparities in access to opportunity” and the “effectiveness of past policies and investments and unique opportunities to promote equitable quality of life.”7The findings also state that the Draft should incorporate public participation and targeted outreach to better examine needs and formulate appropriate policies and programs; such an effort will help complete the assessment of fair housing and clarify the need for the City to add or revise programs.8Furthermore, the new and revised goals and actions “must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.”9 We appreciate the edits to the Local Assessment of Fair Housing Section to include a Description of R/ECAP Areas, that lists the different R/ECAPs, describes them, and reports data that outlines the lack of access to opportunity. Unfortunately, though, the assessment is incomplete. The Errata did not incorporate past local knowledge from residents. It also excludes prominent policies and programs recommended and created by residents from the Here to Stay Report,10 which we incorporated in Section II of this letter. Although theDescription of R/ECAP Areas lists the programs that are intended to create opportunities to promote equitable quality of life, the programs themselves fail to include specific commitment to deliverables, measurable metrics or objectives, definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation in order for them to have a “beneficial impact” during the planning period (please refer to the Section II of this letter).

A. Incomplete Analysis of Displacement Risks
The Errata did not include additional analysis of displacement risks. It fails to consider relevant information such as COVID-19 related rent increases and evictions and its impact 10 Thrivance Group. (2021).Here to Stay: A Policy Based Blueprint for Displacement Avoidance in Fresno. https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report-english.pdf 9 Ibid.
8 Id. p.2
7 HCD 10/7/2024 Findings, p.1.
6 Gov. Code §§ 65583(c)(5),(10); 8899.50; 65583.2(a).

Michelle Zumwalt

relating to existing and potential housing cost pressures confronting low-income residents, residents of color, and other protected classes, as well as significant displacement risks associated with tenant protection limitations, City land use policies and practices, environmental hazards, and climate change. A complete displacement risk analysis must consider these and other relevant factors.11 The AFH’s Displacement Risk section should be revised to consider displacement risks associated with environmental hazards, environmental disasters, and climate change, pursuant to HCD’s AFFH Guidance.12
It is important to note that the City must continue to fully analyze the displacement risks to R/ECAPs and the impacts associated with housing cost pressures. We reiterate that, although data for 2019 has been included, this time period does not capture the sharp and sustained escalation in housing costs (both rental and ownership) that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic between 2019 and 2022.13 Between 2017 and 2021, Fresno experienced the greatest rent increases of all large U.S. cities, with rental prices increasing nearly 39% during that time.28 The City failed to include this vital analysis and therefore the AFH’s displacement risk analysis must be supplemented with and revised based on more recent data in order to adequately fulfill this requirement.14
A complete analysis of displacement risks considers not only displacement risks associated with housing cost pressures, but also other factors which result in housing instability, including factors relating to the adequacy of tenant protections, disinvestment, local land use policies and practices, environmental hazards, and risks associated with natural disasters and climate change. Although the Errata acknowledges that extreme heat impacts R/ECAPs, it failed to analyze those impacts. Based on our direct work with tenants and low-income residents and residents of color, these risk categories represent real and significant risk factors for Fresno residents. Once again, we ask that the City incorporate the following analysis and assessment to the Displacement risk section:
● Address the adequacy of policies and resources to protect tenants from displacement as a result of eviction, harassment, and substandard housing and include additional and stronger policies and programs to protect tenants, including in particular more comprehensive and stringent rent control standards than those established by the state, just cause requirements for eviction, and right to return home for displaced residents. ● Analyze the success and effectiveness of the City’s code enforcement programs. 14 Gov. Code §65583(c)(10)(A)(ii);See also California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2021).Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and For Housing Elements. pp.39.
13 CalMatters, Real estate prices soar during the pandemic, climbing 25% in parts of California, Dec. 5, 2020, available athttps://calmatters.org/california-divide/2020/12/real-estate-climb-pandemic/ 12 Id. at p.42.
11 See California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2021).Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and For Housing Elements (p.40-43).

Michelle Zumwalt

● Consider the extent to which public and private disinvestment and unequal investment continues to impact low-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color, and neighborhoods with a high proportion of tenants and how disinvestment perpetuates and/or increases displacement risk in these areas.
● Consider the City’s land use and permitting decisions which have directed and continue to allow for and promote the concentration of industrial and waste management facilities in and around neighborhoods in Jane Addams, Southwest Fresno, South Central Fresno (referred to by the Draft Housing Element as the “South Industrial Area”), and Southeast Fresno.
● Consider displacement risks associated with environmental hazards, environmental disasters, and climate change, pursuant to HCD’s AFFH Guidance.15 B. Incomplete analysis of the City’s response to homelessness.

As noted in prior comments, the City is aggressively criminalizing unsheltered homelessness while, at the same time, preventing the siting of supportive housing that would serve its unhoused population. These actions cause disproportionate harm to the City’s Black and disabled residents, but the City has failed to engage in a thorough analysis of their discriminatory effects; nor has the identified adequate program actions to address those effects, as discussed above. The Errata adds Figure 1E-3.33 illustrating unsheltered camping locations throughout the City and their proximity to services,16 but it does not acknowledge that the City absolutely bans unsheltered camping and is actively displacing–including through arrest–people attempting to live unsheltered near services and facilities. According to one report, Fresno police arrested 30 people under the City’s new anti-camping ordinance between its September 24, 2024, effective date and October 11, 2024.17 But, other than acknowledging that the local independent living center expressed concerns regarding the City’s criminalization of unsheltered homelessness and its impacts on people with disabilities, the Errata does not discuss the ordinance at all.18 Without an analysis of the City’s criminalization of homelessness, the Assessment of Fair Housing remains incomplete.
18 See, e.g., City of Fresno. (2024). ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OCTOBER 21, 2024, pp. 1E-6-26 (“The representative expressed concern about laws in the City of Fresno that prevent homeless community members from camping or living in their cars. . . .”)
17 Thaddeus Miller, What’s new anti-camping law impact on Fresno homeless? Way more arrests than treatment, Fresno Bee (Oct. 11, 2024), available at
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article293730944.html#storylink=cpy. 16 See City of Fresno. (2024). ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OCTOBER 21, 2024, pp. 1E-3-90 to 1E-3-91. 15 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2021).Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and For Housing Elements, p.42.

Michelle Zumwalt

Similarly, the City also has not added analysis regarding the factors that caused its denial of the Quality Inn Homekey project in December 2023.19 Such analysis is necessary to ensure that the single program identified to prevent future denials–Program 2–will be effective.

IV . Failure to Adequately Analyze Housing Constraints
A. Governmental Constraints
In response to the initial draft released by the City, we raised concerns that the City did not adequately analyze constraints as required by Government Code section 65583(a)(5) , and did not provide sufficient support for the conclusions reached by the City. Further, we have continually advocated for the inclusion of various meaningful suggestions from residents as to actions which would remove barriers to development and further the accessibility of affordable housing in the city in the analysis of governmental constraints.

Further, throughout the drafting process, the analysis of governmental constraints has failed to adequately consider the actual constraints to the development of affordable housing posed by the zoning districts implemented by the development code. In the Local Assessment of Fair Housing of the Draft Housing Element, the City acknowledges the incompatibility of widespread single-family detached only zoning (zoning districts RE, RS-1, RS-2, and RS-3) that prohibits zero lot line dwellings, townhomes, rowhomes, duplexes, and triplexes with the objective of expanded affordable housing.20 At the same time, the zoning code allows single-family detached development by-right in many of the zones identified for increased high-density development: RM-1, NMX, CMX, RMX, CMS, CR, DTN, DTG. As part of the City’s existing land use policies, the zoning districts should be analyzed as potential constraints on the development of multifamily affordable housing.

In addition, as neither the September errata nor the October errata to the July 2024 draft amended the analysis of at-risk housing, we want to restate that the Housing Element’s analysis of at-risk housing is inadequate. A total of 695 units were identified in the September 2024 errata as being at risk of conversion from low-income residential uses to other uses within 10 years from the housing element adoption deadline.21 However, this draft failed to meaningfully address the extent of the risks to publicly assisted affordable housing or to propose actions to meaningfully address these risks. As the October 2024 errata was released without Section 1E-4:
21 City of Fresno. (2024). ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT, SEPTEMBER 23, 2024, p.1E-4-62.
20 “Affordable housing development typically requires high-density zones to support construction and financing; therefore, zones limited to single dwelling units on each lot do not support affordable development.” City of Fresno. (2024). ERRATA FOR THE CITY OF FRESNO REVISED HCD REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OCTOBER 21, 2024, p.1E-3-113 19 See Errata, p. 1E-3-137.

Michelle Zumwalt

Constraints, these errors remain uncorrected. The lack of any expansion of this analysis in the most recently released errata demonstrates that the City has failed to appropriately discuss which action would be most appropriate for the City and whether there would be any constraints posed to the action, as required under Government Code section 65583(a)(5).

Throughout the drafting process, we have uplifted ways this section should be improved to achieve consistency with Housing Element law, to better effectuate the goal of improving access to affordable housing within the City of Fresno, and to reflect the concerns and suggestions of residents. We again urge the City to analyze the lack of tenant protections (e.g. source of income discrimination outreach and education, rent stabilization, and just cause protections) and how they may facilitate the displacement of lower-income renters. Because of the potential for displacement, the lack of these protections should be analyzed as a constraint on the maintenance of housing under Government Code section 65583(a)(5).

B. Non - Governmental Constraints
Although we have made previous comments on the importance of analyzing non-governmental constraints,22 unfortunately the Errata continues to exclude such an analysis even though public comments have been submitted in response to this specific issue. The Draft failed to consider the effect of NIMBY opposition and environmental concerns.

1. NIMBY Opposition
Once again, we reiterate that the Draft must include an analysis of NIMBY opposition to affordable housing development. As a largely sprawling suburban City, Fresno is prone to local opposition to increased density from existing single-family homeowners who have preconceived ideas of the impacts of increased density on their neighborhoods. NIMBY opposition is all too common and a pervasive issue when building multi-family projects in high-resourced areas. We recommend that the City include an analysis and incorporate programs that will address this, such as an inclusionary housing ordinance.

2. Environmental Concerns
The Errata failed to include additional amendments and analyses on environmental constraints.23 Environmental constraints may include limitations to water supply, nearby pollution, or infrastructure development. Per our previous comment letters, we have noted that the City of Fresno relies heavily on groundwater and surface water.24 As climate change makes 24 See Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability. City of Fresno Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Comment Letter, August 16, 2023.
23 Id.
22 See Gov. Code § 65583(a)(6).

Michelle Zumwalt

water availability less predictable the City must analyze how an increased population and land use will affect water availability and whether water availability will eventually constrain growth.

Additionally, the City must consider the infrastructure requirements of delivering water to a denser population. For example, the City estimates that downtown Fresno, where a large portion of new housing development is projected, currently requires significant water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades. Although Program 28 - Equitable Community Investments is amended to acknowledge the need, it fails to include concrete steps to achieve this; it simply says they “will continue to prioritize investment in underserved neighborhoods” or “water, sewer, stormwater, and other infrastructure improvements to accelerate mixed-income infill housing development by 2031.” The program must have concrete steps, objectives, and metrics on how the City plans to improve infrastructure.

The Errata also failed to consider industrial and polluting industries’ effects on future housing development. As we mentioned in our previous comment letters, the City must also analyze as a constraint the proliferation of warehouses and other industrial uses in and around the City, particularly in South Fresno. These industrial and warehouse projects come with an enormous increase in vehicle traffic and worsen already very poor air quality. They also result in light, sound, and vibration pollution. Many of these projects are being approved next to residential development with no buffer, driving down housing value, and worsening housing conditions. The City must consider warehouse and industrial use proliferation as a constraint, and identify impacts to residents. The City must then commit to adopting strong programs and policies with enforceable timelines to address the constraint.

Additionally, the City of Fresno has evolved as a car-dependent City surrounded by heavy industry and highways. Therefore, future housing development will need to carefully consider placement and mitigation measures to avoid perpetuating environmental inequity.

V . Conclusion
Thank you for considering and incorporating several of our comments. The undersigned organizations welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating on the City of Fresno’s Housing Element update to ensure the City is committed to meeting the housing needs of all residents, complies with state law, and provides equitable public participation opportunities throughout the revision process. We look forward to meeting with the City to further discuss community priorities in detail and learn how the City will commit to its duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Respectfully,
Michelle Zumwalt

/s/
Emmanuel Agraz-Torres, Policy Advocate
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Seth Alston, Legal Advocate
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Melissa A. Morris, Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law ProjectPublic Interest Law Project
[email protected]
510-891-9794 x 111
/s/
Sandra F. Celedon, President and CEO
Fresno Building Healthy Communities
/s/
Lilia Becerril, Founder
Familias en Acción
/s/
Marisa Moraza, Political Director
PowerCA Action
/s/
Alexandra Alvarado, Community Organizer
Faith in the Valley
/s/
Dez Martinez, CEO
We are Not Invisible
City of Fresno Community Residents
Lisa Fores, District 2
Yonas Pauloas, District 3
Cc:

Michelle Zumwalt

Architect, Michelle Zumwalt,[email protected] City Manager Georgeanne White,[email protected] Planning Director Jennifer Clark,[email protected] Council President Analisa Perea,[email protected] Councilmember Mike Karbassi,[email protected]
Councilmember Miguel Arias, [email protected]
Councilmember Tyler Maxwell,[email protected]
Councilmember Luis Chavez,[email protected]
Councilmember Garry Bredefeld,[email protected] Councilmember Nelson Esparza,[email protected]
Mayor Jerry Dyer,[email protected]
Thomas Brown, Policy Analyst, California Department of Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
Paul, McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development, [email protected]
Mayor Jerry Dyer
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Rm 3043
Fresno, CA 93721

Date:

Dear Mayor Dyer:

The purpose of this letter is to express our support for the latest draft of the City of Fresno Housing Element, including the Errata dated October 21, 2024. As you are aware Habitat for Humanity Greater Fresno Area (HFHGFA) has worked closely with the City of Fresno on bringing affordable homeownership opportunities to residents of this community for the last 39 years. Most recently, HFHGFA has taken part in the Multijurisdictional Housing Element process since it began in 2022, participating in outreach events and commenting on previous drafts. We are pleased with the efforts the City of Fresno is undertaking to address community needs related to housing availability, affordability and accessibility in this Housing Element cycle.

Most recently we have collaborated with City staff on refining Housing Element programs to further remove barriers to the development of affordable housing in the latest draft.

Specifically, we worked with staff to modify the Action Plan in Chapter 1 as follows:

Program 4: Streamline Development Review Process
 Added a provision to ensure that both the building permitting and entitlement processes were covered for future streamlining efforts

Program 14: Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers  Added a provision to work with affordable housing developers to structure annual funding commitments to support multiple rounds of tax credit applications  Added a provision to identify opportunities to align entitlement and permit approvals for affordable housing projects with funding deadlines (e.g., HOME), including post- entitlement processes like encroachment permits
 Added a provision to participate in joint advocacy for CEQA streamlining of single-unit affordable housing

Program 15: Land Bank
 Added a provision to work to remove blight from any banked properties

4991 E. McKinley Suite 123
Fresno CA 93727
P: 559.237.4102
F: 559.456.9192
www.habitatfresno.org
www.HabitatFresno.org

HFHGFA Board of Directors
Jim Tienken, Chair
Feleena Sutton
Dale Spencer
Steve Jones
Mel Casey
Sabrina Brown
Patrick Prince
Jose Platas
Zak Johnson

CEO
Ashley Hedemann

Program 16: Community Land Trust
 Added a provision to collaborate on maintaining vacant sites once acquired, and to provide support for staff, stakeholder and community education on land trust models

We look forward to continuing our work in partnership with the City of Fresno and doing our part to implement the 6 th Cycle Housing Element through creating additional homeownership opportunities.

Building Together,

CEO Habitat Greater Fresno Area

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 840-6066 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

October 28, 2024
FRE-41-22.50

CITY OF FRESNO

HOUSING ELEMENT
GTS #: FRE-2024-02096

SENT VIA EMAIL

Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno – Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3043
Fresno, CA 93721

Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

Thank you for the opportunity to review of the Errata for the City of Fresno’s, Revised HCD Review of the Draft Housing Element dated October 21, 2024, which includes revisions to extracted chapters from the revised HCD Review Draft Housing Element.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

1. Caltrans fully supports Goal 6 and Program 31, which aligns with essential steps toward energy conservation and sustainable development in our community.

Reducing or waiving fees for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), especially for projects near high-quality transit corridors or those with a significant proportion of affordable housing, reflects a forward-thinking approach. This exemption not only aligns with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements but also incentivizes the creation of affordable housing and bolsters active transportation solutions, like walking and cycling infrastructure, which are key for reducing overall vehicle dependency.

2. By setting clear timelines to establish affordable housing thresholds and a VMT mitigation fee by 2026, the City of Fresno is creating a structured pathway to lessen both the costs and the processing times associated with VMT analysis in new developments. These measures will likely increase project feasibility, promote eco- friendly transit options, and make the community more accessible. Additionally, dedicating funds for active transportation capital improvements will lead to Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos – City of Fresno Housing Element
October 28, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” tangible environmental benefits, creating a cityscape that encourages sustainable travel while improving residents' quality of life.

3. This Goal and Program is a commendable move that balances the need for growth with sustainability, and Caltrans is optimistic about the positive impact it will have on the City of Fresno’s infrastructure and environmental footprint.

If you have any other questions, please call David Deel, Associate Transportation Planner at (559) 981-1041.

Sincerely,

Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief, Transportation Planning

Copy:

City of Fresno, [email protected].

A Nonprofit Housing and Community Development Organization

Main Office: 8445 W. Elowin Court · P.O. Box 6520 · Visalia, CA 93290 · Phone (550)651 -1000 · Fax (559)651-3634 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ [email protected] · www.selfhelpenterprises.org

October 23, 2024

Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
Long Range Planning, Planning & Development
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Re: Housing Element Participation

Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,

This letter serves to confirm Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) involvement in the development of the City of Fresno draft Housing Element (2023-2031). SHE has engaged in several ways through the development of the Housing Element (HE) as follows:

▪ SHE provided specific written feedback on the prioritization of by-right permitting, which has been incorporated in the HE draft.

▪ SHE staff participated in group stakeholder meetings.

▪ The City of Fresno engaged SHE for one-on-one discussion and reviewed specific programs that relate to SHE’s work and comments, and the City absorbed and incorporated that feedback in the draft.

Should you have any questions about SHE’s participation, please contact me at (559) 802-1653 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Betsy McGovern-Garcia
Vice President

September 30, 2024
Mayor Jerry Dyer
Fresno City Councilmembers
Michelle Zumwalt, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: Errata to the Revised HCD Draft Housing Element
Dear Mayor Dyer, Councilmembers, and Ms. Zumwalt:

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) writes in collaboration with the Public Interest Law Project (“PILP”) to provide comments on the Errata to the Revised HCD Draft Housing Element 2023-2031. LCJA works alongside the most impacted communities to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, income, and place. As addressed in our previous letters, we advocate for vital policy and practice changes to meet the housing needs of all residents in the City of Fresno, especially low-income communities individuals with special housing needs, and BIPOC communities to overcome fair housing disparities.

I. Lack of Community Engagement
The Errata, released near the end of HCD’s review of the City’s July 2024 Draft Housing Element with only seven days for public feedback, continues the City’s failure to demonstrate a diligent effort to engage the community throughout the revision process. The City failed to:
● Host additional public engagement opportunities to solicit feedback from the community, particularly R/ECAP communities, to incorporate that feedback into the Errata; ● Communicate to stakeholders about the development of substantial revisions during the HCD review process; and
● Provide sufficient time to ensure that community members, in particular visually impaired residents, are able to review and comment on the Errata.

Michelle Zumwalt

● LCJA, its coalition partners, and community members want to participate in the development of the Housing Element to ensure that its analysis and programs reflect the community’s needs, but, the City’s process has made that participation very difficult.

II. The Errata Amendments fail to contribute to a compliant Assessment of Fair Housing
Although the Errata amends the draft Housing Element on page 1E-3-26, to include an analysis of past actions that led to R/ECAPs in Downtown neighborhoods, South Fresno, the neighborhoods in the Bullard, Shaw/Blackstone area, and the Hoover community of North Fresno, the analysis still fails to contribute to a compliant assessment:
● The amendments fail to evaluate public participation and demographic trends or contributing factors that led to the concentration of South Asians, Hispanics/Latinos, and/or African Americans living in R/ECAP and RCAAs. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii); AFFH Guidance, p. 33. The City has local information at its disposal that should be incorporated into this evaluation to adequately inform policies and programs in the Action Plan.1 ● The City briefly addresses actions leading to R/ECAPs in South Fresno and it claims that “the City is investing in these neighborhoods as well, with several specific planning efforts complete or underway, including …the South Central Specific Plan (SCSP).” However, this fails to address current practices given the fact that the SCSP will only benefit industrial development. Please refer to our previous comment letter addressing the SCSP (see Attachment A).

HCD’s February 1, 2024 findings addressed the need to compare R/ECAP and RCAA’s “in terms of equitable quality of life.” On page 1E-3-29, the Errata includes a section on the impacts the “built environment” has on the quality of life and goes on to list “physical activity, good housing conditions, and access to healthy food and healthcare” as positive impacts of a built environment that are then used as metrics to interpret data from studies comparing access to opportunity in R/ECAPs and RCAAs.2 However, this comparison falls short of an adequate quality of life comparison of the R/ECAP neighborhoods in South Fresno and the RCAA neighborhoods in North Fresno:
● The amendment fails to provide “comparisons to other neighborhoods in terms of equitable quality of life” and only inconsistently identifies the locations of R/ECAP and RCAA within the city when evaluating their proximity to infrastructure and facilities. 2 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 2.
1 Brown, B., Heer, N., Love, N., Pollard, K., Thomas, D. (2021, June 9). Here To Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint For Displacement Avoidance in Fresno.Thrivance Group.
https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report-english.pdf Michelle Zumwalt

● The quality of life comparison acknowledges the disparities in infrastructure between R/ECAPs and RCAAs, but it fails to identify policies, programs, and future investments to address these disparities.
○ For example, the Errata includes “Park Access” amendments acknowledging that RCAAs have more access to green spaces that are in “fair to good condition,” as opposed to the parks in R/ECAPs, which were determined to be in poor to fair condition, and it adds that the Fresno PARCS Department identified 21 high needs neighborhoods that should receive 50% of Measure P funds; yet the Errata fails to identify a solution that would improve access to green spaces in R/ECAP.

Furthermore, community engagement in R/ECAP communities would reveal that residents in Southwest Fresno want additional recreational equipment at Maxie Park, including a completely paved track; Southeast residents near Winchell Elementary want a family-oriented neighborhood park with ample shade trees; and Jane Addams residents have stated that Basin XX park does not meet their families needs.

The amendments on pages 1E-3-137-138 regarding Southwest Fresno fail to acknowledge and analyze the City’s current efforts to promote industrial development in Southwest Fresno, contrary to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and input from local residents.

Therefore, these amendments fail to incorporate the full context of changes over time and current practices in the AFH. AFFH Guidance, p. 33.:
● On page 1E-3-138, the City states that the 2017 SWSP “reimagines this area as transitioning from industrial to a series of small, complete neighborhoods” and “the City recognizes that there are land use incompatibilities that could have negative impacts.”3 However, in recent years, the City has worked relentlessly with developers to rezone Elm Ave from Neighborhood Mixed use zoning back to Light Industrial, and, earlier this year, the City council approved the development of a Warehouse in Southwest Fresno.4 ● The City’s amendment on page 1E-137 states, “given the proximity to industrial uses, the City reviewed sites in the inventory adjacent to existing industrial uses, specifically near State Route 41, and removed those sites which would be most impacted during the timeframe of this Housing Element.” Simply removing these sites from the inventory is not enough to address the impact of industrial uses on existing and future housing in Southwest Fresno and the City should make stronger commitments to prevent the rezoning of this area to light industrial given that the community spent over two years 4 Weaver, G. (2023, Nov 7). ‘I want industrial gone.’ Frustrated residents slam southwest Fresno rezone plans.

Fresnoland. https://fresnoland.org/2023/11/07/southwest-fresno-rezone/, Morano, J. (2024, Feb 22). $100 million warehouse headed for southwest Fresno despite unanswered pollution questions.Fresnoland. https://fresnoland.org/2024/02/22/new-fresno-warehouse/ 3 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 2.

Michelle Zumwalt

creating the SWSP to remove industrial sites away from sensitive receptors of their homes and schools. The City must commit to removing improper land uses near Community.

The Errata failed to include a proper analysis and subsequently a compliant AFH; therefore, the current programs fail to create integrated healthy communities in R/ECAP.

III. Homelessness
The Errata acknowledges a technical assistance letter dated August 7, 2024, from HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit regarding the City’s December 2023 rejection of Homekey 3 funds for a project that would have provided 58 permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing homelessness in a moderate-resource area.5 However, the Errata does not add any analysis regarding the impacts of the denial nor the factors that caused it. As HCD noted: “The City’s decision to return its Homekey award rendered the Project infeasible, thereby worsening access to affordable homes for the unhoused population in areas outside of R/ECAPs and to affordable housing in general. This decision raises concerns about whether it was ‘materially inconsistent’ with the City’s obligation to AFFH.”6 But the Errata’s only response to these serious fair housing concerns is the addition of the following language to Program 2: “The City will include in project approval documentation a statement of the City’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and an accompanying analysis of project consistency with the law.”7 Notably, such a policy would not have had even a nominal impact on the December 2023 Homekey project denial because (1) it only applies to project approvals, not denials; and (2) it does not apply to funding decisions. Further, an after-the-fact recitation of existing law and analysis of how an approved project complies with the duty to AFFH is not adequate to prevent discrimination against projects that serve unhoused individuals and people with disabilities. The Housing Element should commit to a robust AFFH analysis in advance of all discretionary decisions affecting housing siting and funding, including analysis of project impacts and alternatives and discussion of the project’s relationship to Fresno’s long-standing patterns of racial and economic segregation,8 to ensure that future approvals and denials are consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

The Housing Element must also analyze the City’s recent policy choices and the City Council’s demonstrated animus against the City’s unhoused residents as constraints to meeting the needs of unhoused individuals and families, and to affirmatively furthering fair housing 8 See 8/7/2024 HAU Letter, p. 3.
7 Errata, p. 1E-1-11.
6 8/7/2024 HAU Letter, pp. 3-4.
5 Errata, p. 1E-3-123;see also Letter from David Zisser to Georgeanne White re: Fresno City Council’s Denial of Fresno Quality Inn Homekey Project – Letter of Technical Assistance (Aug. 7, 2024), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/fresno-hau-806-ta-080724.pdf (8/7/2024 HAU Letter)..

Michelle Zumwalt

people with disabilities and people of color. HCD’s technical assistance letter also noted that “the City Council’s discussion of assumptions and stereotypes regarding homeless individuals raises further fair housing concerns.”9 And the City recently passed one of the most draconian anti-camping ordinances in the state, amending a prior version of the ordinance to remove language about making shelter and housing available to unsheltered individuals.10 Punitive and carceral approaches to homelessness make it harder for unhoused people to access housing and services and are counter to the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.11 However, the Errata does not analyze the camping ordinance, the anticipated impacts of the recent amendments, or actions the City can take to mitigate the discriminatory impacts of such policies on people with disabilities and people of color. The Housing Element should acknowledge that its current approach to homelessness–both in denying permanent supportive housing and in criminalizing unsheltered homelessness–disproportionately burdens and denies housing choice to people with disabilities and people of color and is, in turn, inconsistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. It must also commit to programs that will result in meaningful policy change to reverse its discriminatory practices.

IV . Sites to Accommodate the RHNA
While the Errata includes amendments and additional information regarding pipeline projects and sites identified to accommodate the RHNA, multiple deficiencies remain, including:
● Program 17 (Surplus Public Land) remains inconsistent with the Surplus Land Act; e.g., it requires only 10% affordable units.12
● More and better information is needed to justify the City’s projections regarding pipeline projects.
○ Lack of info re committed assistance for hotel/motel conversions. Such information is especially important given the City’s recent rejection of Homekey funds for a project that would have converted a hotel into permanent supportive housing.
○ Ambiguous or conflicting info, e.g. re funding and affordability for Village at West Creek North.
● The Errata does not analyze the impact of restrictions on ground-floor residential uses on capacity projections in commercial and mixed use zones.13 13 See 8/7/2024 Comment Letter, p. 8.
12 Errata, p. 1E-1-23;see also 8/7/2024 Comment Letter, pp. 19-20. 11 See HCD AFFH Guidance, pp. 68-70;see also Statement by UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Director Dr . Margot Kushel on the Supreme Court’ s Decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (June 28, 2024), available at https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/resources/press-release/BHHI-grants-pass-statement. 10 Ord. 2024-025.
9 8/7/2024 HAU Letter, p. 4.

Michelle Zumwalt

● The Errata does not add any analysis of existing residential, agricultural, and commercial uses on sites identified to accommodate the RHNA.14 Notably, it relies on many sites–including for the development of lower-income housing–on sites with existing commercial uses along the Blackstone corridor, the City’s main commercial corridor, without adequate information about the existing uses or analysis to support the City’s assumption that the site will redevelop as housing.
● The Errata adds some information and analysis regarding large sites, but it still fails to comply with Government Code section 65583.2(c)(2)(B). While it includes examples of past projects developed on large sites, it lacks information about when those projects were developed, and about the development timelines and phasing for the entire site (as opposed to just the housing portion).15
● The Errata removes some publicly owned sites from the inventory but continues to rely on publicly owned sites with either (1) a lack of information to support the assumption that they will redevelop within the planning period or (2) information that indicates the sites will not be available during the planning period. For example, Table 1E-2-9 indicates that the City plans to use site 287 for tiny homes, “micro homes,” and other uses during the planning period, which means it will not be available for permanent housing units.16 (The description of the proposed project also raises questions about the City’s plans to site interim housing for homeless individuals and/or disaster survivors on an identified brownfield.) It also continues to list sites owned by other government agencies without adequate information about those agencies’ plans for the sites, existing uses, etc. ● The Errata continues to identify sites inconsistent with its duty to AFFH without adequate programs to combat the likelihood that development as projected on identified sites will further entrench existing patterns of racial and economic segregation.17 V . Relocation and Replacement Housing
Program 35 (Replacement Units) references replacement units for density bonus projects and on sites identified in sites inventory.18 However, the City also needs to require replacement units and relocation benefits to displaced households consistent with SB 330/AB 1218. The Errata’s description of its compliance with SB 330 does not include any discussion of that law’s replacement and relocation requirements, nor any reference to AB 1218 (2023), which expanded SB 330’s relocation and replacement housing requirements to nonresidential projects.19 The Housing Element should describe the ways in which the City is (or is not) implementing these requirements currently and amend its programs accordingly. In addition to amending Program 19 Errata, pp. 1E-3-115, 1E-4-43.
18 Errata, p. 1E-1-45.
17 See 8/7/2024 Comment Letter, p. 11.
16 Errata, p. 1E-2-47.
15 See also 8/7/2024 Comment Letter, p. 13.
14 See 8/7/2024 Comment Letter, p. 9; HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 5.

Michelle Zumwalt

35, the City should amend Program 4 (Streamline Development Review Process) to include a commitment to incorporating replacement and relocation requirements into its application processes to ensure that it is not approving projects without the legally mandated relocation benefits and replacement units.

VI. Mobile Home Parks
As the Errata notes, mobile home parks represent an important source of affordable housing in Fresno. However, many mobile home residents are at risk of displacement due to rent increases and/or mobile home park closures. The City should strengthen Program 33 (Mobile Home Parks), including by committing to apply mobile home park zoning to existing mobile home parks to discourage mobile home park conversions and improvements to the City’s mobile home rent control process to make it more accessible to residents–e.g., removal of the requirement that residents form a committee before opposing a rent increase.

VII. Community-identified programs that should be incorporated into the Housing Element
Through our collaboration with low-income residents, community members have identified the following programs and drafted examples that the City should incorporate into the Draft Housing Element:
● Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance ○ Objective
■ Ensure the preservation of available affordable housing, and housing choices, and prevent the displacement of low-income residents and residents belonging to a protected class in R/ECAPs through the implementation of a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance
○ Actions
■ All material, information, and verbal public education, including outreach initiatives, will be provided in a variety of languages representative of Fresno including, but not limited to, Spanish, Hmong, and Punjabi. ■ By December 2025, the City will adopt a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases and unjust evictions.It will establish a rental registry that will be published no later than June 2025.
■ The City will develop the ordinance collaboratively with Fresno tenants, landlords, and community based organizations.

Michelle Zumwalt

■ The City will make a diligent effort to engage Fresno tenants through outreach including but not limited to, canvassing apartment complexes.

The city will host interactive convenings and workshops. ○ Timelines
■ By March 2025, The City will establish a community workgroup to develop a rent stabilization and just cause ordinance draft. The working group will meet on a monthly basis.
■ By August 2025, the City will release a draft ordinance for public review and announce the publication of the draft.
■ The City will adopt the ordinance no later than December 31, 2025. ○ Funding
■ Local Funds
○ Responsibility
■ Office of the City Attorney and Office of Community Affairs ● Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
○ Objective
■ In line with its duty to AFFH, the city will secure affordable housing options for low-income and very low-income residents through the adoption and implementation of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance by December 2025. Once adopted, the City will promote the ordinance through multilingual educational material and community workshops. ○ Actions
■ The ordinance will be developed in accordance with the following guidelines
● Apply to projects of 5 or more units
● All new housing developments will set aside 20% of its units as affordable for households with an AMI of 50% or less in perpetuity.
● As a compliance alternative, developers may pay an in-lieu fee that will then be used towards the development of affordable housing. ■ Following the adoption of the ordinance, the City will host annual workshops to inform developers of compliance requirements. ○ Timelines
■ Beginning in January 2025, the City will draft an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and adopt the Ordinance by November 2025.

Michelle Zumwalt

■ By December 2025, the City will implement the ordinance and require Inclusionary Zoning for all new housing developments and inform developers of compliance requirements.
■ Beginning January 2026, the City will host annual workshops to inform the community of the program and initiate its monthly reports. ○ Funding
■ Local Funds
○ Responsibility
■ Planning and Development Department
● Program 19 - Homebuyer Assistance
○ Objective
■ In order to expand housing opportunities across Fresno, the City will commit to offering financial and technical assistance, as well as counseling services to assist low-income residents in purchasing a home. ○ Actions
■ The program will be promoted through City media outlets, community outreach, informative workshops, partnerships with local media outlets, neighborhood/homeowners associations, realtors’ associations, homebuilders, lenders, Rotary, and Community Based Organizations.

Targeted outreach and promotional efforts will occur in R/ECAP and extremely low and low-income households.
■ This program will be accessible to residents regardless of immigration status. This program will prioritize individuals and households with special needs.
■ The City’s Housing and Community Development Division will offer the following support and assistance in the variety of languages representative of Fresno including, but not limited to, Spanish Hmong, and Punjabi:
● Technical assistance - Guide applicants through the application process, offer technical support throughout the length of the program
● Financial assistance - Offer up to $200,000 in loans, cover down payments and closing costs, zero interest fees, loan fees, or monthly payment fees, loan forgiveness after 15 years, and flexible payment plans calculated according to income at the time of application and adjusted based on changes in grantees income. ● Financial counseling services - Intended to increase the beneficial impact of the program by preparing applicants to become strong financial candidates and offer support as grantees to help them adapt to the financial challenges of becoming homeowners.

Michelle Zumwalt

■ The City will apply to the state’s CalHome Program and the Jose Serna, Jr.

Farmworker Housing Grant to secure funding for the home buyer assistance program on an annual basis.
■ The City will provide quarterly reports every year describing how many applicants were assisted, and a description of outreach efforts and the location of where grantees were able to find housing.
■ The City will establish an oversight committee consisting of low-income residents to address residents' needs and ensure funding is secured for its intended purpose.
○ Timelines
■ Beginning January 2025, the City will host two informative workshops every quarter and emphasize accessibility to extremely low-income and very low-income residents.
■ Beginning in January 2025, The City will perform strong community outreach to notify residents of the availability of the program targeting extremely low-income and very low-income residents.
■ Beginning January 2025, the City will begin accepting applications for the program.
■ Beginning June 2025, the City will release its first quarterly report. ○ Funding
■ CalHome Program, Jose Serna, Jr. Farmworking Grant, Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), NAHREP (National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals) Fresno, Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) of San Francisco, Self-Help Enterprises, and Union Bank ● Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME
Investment Partnership Act Funds, Cal HFA, and California Self-Help Housing Program
○ Responsibility
■ Planning and Development Office of Community Affairs, and nonprofit community development corporations.
● Program 22 - Housing Rehabilitation
○ Objective
■ With the goal of conserving affordable housing, preventing displacement, and cultivating thriving communities, the City of Fresno will assist households who on average have below-moderate incomes by connecting them to resources and services specialized in the rehabilitation and weatherization of their homes regardless of immigration status.

Michelle Zumwalt

○ Actions
■ The City will set aside 5% of its annual general fund revenue for home rehabilitation and weatherization grants and for the rehabilitation grants. ■ The program will be promoted through City media outlets, community outreach, informative workshops, and partnerships with local media outlets, neighborhood associations, and community benefit organizations. ■ Outreach and promotional efforts will occur in R/ECAP, targeting households who on average have extremely low to very low income, households of undocumented residents, homes with substandard living conditions, and households with special needs. All material will be made available in a variety of languages representative of Fresno including, but not limited to, Spanish Hmong, and Punjabi.
■ The City’s Code Enforcement division will immediately refer moderate and below moderate-income homeowners in violation of the City’s Housing code to the program and homeowners who do not seek out services will be listed as a priority for outreach efforts. ■ This program will prioritize rehabilitation for households with special needs, homes with damages that pose a serious health risk, and homes with damages that are likely to be exacerbated by weather and climate change.
■ To prevent future deterioration of substandard homes, the City will provide home weatherization services, including insulation and heat pumps as well as other cooling mechanisms, and prioritize these services for households with special needs such as the elderly, and individuals with disabilities or chronic health issues.
■ The City’s Housing and Community Development Division will offer the following assistance to homeowners in a variety of languages representative of Fresno:
● Technical assistance - Guide applicants through the application process and offer technical support throughout the length of the program.
● Referral assistance - Connect applicants to resources and services based on the level of repair needed.
● Financial assistance - Offer rehabilitation grants to homeowners with no fees on interest.
● Temporary Housing - The City will provide Emergency Housing V ouchers for rehabilitation efforts that require the residents to vacate their homes.
■ The City will employ local licensed general and paint contractors and prioritize partnerships with contractors who predominantly employ or will Michelle Zumwalt

employ local residents including part-time jobs for youth for the duration of their participation in the program.
■ The City will provide annual and quarterly reports describing how many homeowners were assisted with revitalization, how many local residents were employed, a description of outreach efforts including the location where they took place, and the amount of funding allocated from the general fund.
○ Timeline
■ By March 2025, the City will notify the community via city media outlets, notify community benefit organizations, and update its website to promote the development of the Program.
■ Beginning in January 2025, the City will host two quarterly informative workshops. Half of the workshops will occur in an area accessible to residents residing in R/ECAP.
■ The City will begin outreach onemonth before every informative workshop by notifying Community Based Organizations, posting on social media, and canvassing R/ECAP.
■ By August 2025, the City will begin offering rehabilitation and weatherization services.
■ By February 2026, the City will release its first annual/quarterly report. ○ Funding
■ General Fund revenue, CDBG program funds.
○ Implementation
■ Planning and Development Department, Housing and Community Development Division, Office of Community Affairs, Code Enforcement Division
● Program 33 Mobile Home Parks
○ Objective
■ The City will prevent excessive rent increases for mobile home park residents, offer rehabilitation and weatherization services to homeowners regardless of immigration status, and assist in the revitalization and weatherization of mobile home parks, including, urban greening and secure pedestrian and public transportation routes. The City will preserve mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing and hold Mobile Home Park owners accountable for repeated code violations through fines that will fund mobile home park rehabilitation efforts. ○ Actions
Michelle Zumwalt

■ The City will finalize its 5th Cycle assessment of housing-related needs in mobile home parks, release it for public review and comment, and use this information to direct rehabilitation and weatherization efforts. ■ Continue to support the Mobile Home Rent Review & Stabilization Commission. The City will evaluate potential changes to the rent review process to remove unnecessary barriers to mobile home park residents’ participation in the process, including through the possible removal of the requirement that residents form a committee prior to participation. ■ Provide annual notification to park owners about rent increase applications. Hold meetings at mobile home parks to explain the enforcement process.
■ Maintain a list and map of mobile home parks in Fresno. ■ Provide relevant information to interested mobile home park residents, owners, and non-profit organizations.
■ Compile a list of resources and provide technical assistance to mobile home residents and park owners to facilitate the maintenance and preservation of mobile home parks.
■ The City will enforce the California Mobile Home Park Act throughout the City.
■ The City will set aside 2% of its annual general fund revenue for Mobile home rehabilitation and weatherization grants and for the rehabilitation of Mobile Home Parks.
■ Funding generated from fines imposed on mobile home park owners for code violations will be prioritized for mobile homeowners whose homes are older than the maximum year requirement criteria of the City’s Mobile Home Repair program and toward the revitalization and weatherization of Mobile Home parks.
■ The City will apply to HCD’s Manufactured Housing Opportunity & Revitalization Program (MORE).
■ The City will assist with the replacement of mobile homes deemed irreparable.
■ The program will be promoted through City media outlets, community outreach, place-based informative workshops, and partnerships with local media outlets, and community benefit organizations.
■ Upon request by the homeowner, the City’s Community Revitalization Division will assess the safety and integrity of the home and refer the homeowner to the program if deemed necessary.
■ The City’s Code Enforcement Division will immediately refer mobile homeowners in violation of the City’s Housing Code to the program.

Michelle Zumwalt

Homeowners who do not seek out services will be listed as a priority for outreach efforts.
■ This program will prioritize rehabilitation for households with special needs, homes with damages that pose a serious health risk, and homes with damages that are likely to be exacerbated by weather and climate change.
■ To prevent the future deterioration of outdated mobile homes, the city will provide mobile home weatherization services, including insulation and non-evaporative cooling systems, and prioritize these services for households with special needs such as the elderly, and individuals with disabilities or chronic health issues.
■ The City will offer the following assistance to homeowners in a variety of languages representative of Fresno including, but not limited to, Spanish Hmong, and Punjabi:
● Technical assistance - Guide home-owner and landlord applicants through the application process and offer technical support throughout the length of the program.
● Referral assistance - Connect homeowners and landlords to resources and services based on level of repair needed. ● Financial assistance - Offer rehabilitation grants to homeowners with no fees on interest.
● Temporary Housing - The City will provide Emergency Housing V ouchers for rehabilitation efforts that require the family to vacate the home.
■ The City will employ local licensed general contractors and prioritize partnerships with contractors who predominantly employ or will employ local residents including part-time jobs for youth for the duration of their participation in the program.
■ The City will provide annual and quarterly reports describing how many homeowners were assisted, the types of revitalization and weatherization services provided for homeowners and mobile home parks, how many local residents were employed, a description of outreach efforts including the location where they took place, and a breakdown of funding generated from fines imposed on landlords, and the amount of funding allocated from the general fund.
■ Evaluate policy changes and funding sources to discourage mobile home park closures and mitigate the impacts of such closures on residents and the community. Possible policy changes include applying mobile home park zoning to existing mobile home parks to discourage redevelopment of those parks for other uses.

Michelle Zumwalt

○ Timeline
■ Beginning January 2025, the City will notify the community via City media outlets, notify community benefit organizations, and update its website to promote the development of the Program.
■ By March 2025, the City will begin the process of completing its 5th Cycle assessment of housing-related needs in mobile home parks. ■ Beginning in March 2025, the City will host informative workshops at each mobile home park twice a year.
■ The City will begin outreach one month before every informative workshop by notifying community benefit organizations, posting on social media, and canvassing R/ECAP.
■ By September 2025, the City will begin offering rehabilitation and weatherization services.
■ By January 2026, the City will release its first annual/quarterly report. ■ By March 2026, the City will release its 5th Cycle assessment of housing-related needs in mobile home parks.
■ By January 2026, the City will have rehabilitated 25% of owner-occupied mobile homes and Mobile Home parks.
■ By a date certain within the planning period, present ordinance options to the City Council for preserving mobile home parks.
■ By a date certain within the planning period, evaluate and recommend changes to improve mobile home park residents’ ability to access the rent review process.
○ Funding
■ General Fund revenue, rehabilitated home sale revenue, CDBG program funds, Manufactured Housing Opportunity & Revitalization Program (MORE).
○ Responsibility
■ Planning and Development Department, Housing and Community Development Division, Office of Community Affairs, Community Revitalization Division, Code Enforcement Division
VIII. Conclusion
Thank you for considering our comments. We welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating on the City of Fresno’s Housing Element update to ensure the City complies with state law and is committed to meeting the housing needs of all residents. The City of Fresno is Michelle Zumwalt

not exempt from the State’s ongoing housing crisis and must abide by its duty to Affirmatively Further Fair housing and remain committed to securing safe and affordable housing.

Respectfully,
/s/
Emmanuel Agraz-Torres, Policy Advocate
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Melissa A. Morris, Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
[email protected]
510-891-9794 x 111
Cc:

Architect, Michelle Zumwalt,[email protected] City Manager Georgeanne White,[email protected] Planning Director Jennifer Clark,[email protected] Council President Analisa Perea,[email protected] Councilmember Mike Karbassi,[email protected]
Councilmember Miguel Arias,
[email protected]
Councilmember Tyler Maxwell,[email protected]
Councilmember Luis Chavez,[email protected]
Councilmember Garry Bredefeld,[email protected] Councilmember Nelson Esparza,[email protected]
Mayor Jerry Dyer,[email protected]
Thomas Brown, Policy Analyst, California Department of Housing and Community Development
[email protected]
Paul, McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development, [email protected]
1 Rebecca Pope
From: Brooke Frost <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 9:34 AM
To: HousingElement
Subject: Comment on Fresno Housing Element
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hello,
Below are some comments on the housing element. I am a resident in southeast Fresno who is not a housing expert.

Program 21 - Advocate for Repeal of Article 34 - this references a ballot measure that occurred in March 2024, shouldn't the result status be included and the effect of whether the City will place its own measure on the ballot in a subsequent election? I realize this was first prepared before the vote, but since it is being resubmitted in August 2024, shouldn't it be updated?

Vacancy rate math adds up to more than 100%. You say 95.5% are occupied and 5.5% are vacant. Shouldn't it be 4.5% vacant?

Overpayment seems to not include any reference to increases after 2020. There have been significant housing cost increases since COVID and that is not reflected in this section. How can it be included? It seems the same is true for sub-standard housing. What seems to be happening is eviction to improve substandard conditions. But there is nowhere to go that is affordable. How is this to be reflected in the housing element?

In general, I don't see any reference to encouraging outreach for developers to use middle housing (duplexes, cottages/courtyards, 4 plexes) for infill in residential areas that are affordable and fit in better in residential areas. Everything doesn't need to be 3 or 4 story apartments.

Thank you.

Brooke Frost
559-288-4082
August 7, 2024
Mayor Jerry Dyer
Fresno City Councilmembers
Michelle Zumwalt, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Sent via email: [email protected]
RE: City of Fresno Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Mayor Dyer, Councilmembers, and Ms. Zumwalt:

Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability (“LCJA”) and Public Interest Law Project (“PILP”) write in collaboration with local community residents and the undersigned organizations to submit this comment letter on the City of Fresno’s second Housing Element Draft 2023-2031. LCJA and the undersigned organizations work alongside the most impacted communities to advocate for sound policy and eradicate injustice to secure equal access to opportunity regardless of wealth, race, income, and place. We advocate for policy and practice changes to meet the housing needs of all residents in the City of Fresno, especially low-income residents and those with special housing needs, and to overcome fair housing disparities that impact low-income communities. Residents with whom we partner experience high rates of cost burden, escalating housing costs, reside in unsafe and unsanitary rental housing units, experience displacement risks, and are impacted by disparities in access to opportunity, including a lack of access to a healthy environment and public and private investment in critical infrastructure, services, and amenities.

Founded in 1996, PILP provides crucial litigation and advocacy support to local legal services and public interest programs throughout California. For more than two decades, PILP has fought for affordable and fair housing, access to public benefits, homelessness prevention,

Michelle Zumwalt

and civil rights in partnership with low income communities, communities of color and legal services organizations throughout California. In the context of the Housing Element Law, PILP has been instrumental in the passage of legislation to strengthen that law, which has included the review and comment upon thousands of housing elements throughout the state to ensure access to affordable housing opportunities for California’s residents who reside in lower-income communities.

The City of Fresno’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update presents a critical opportunity for the City to identify and address long-standing, wide-ranging, and severe housing needs and fair housing disparities that impact residents, disadvantaged unincorporated communities, and racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (“R/ECAPs”), in particular, the Southwest, South Central and Southeast areas. Unfortunately, the Draft has failed to adequately address these disparities; therefore, we are providing the following comments that highlight further steps and actions the City must take to meet State Housing Element Law requirements. (Gov. Code § 65583 et. seq.).1 We recognize the City made improvements in the second Draft, but we believe further revisions are necessary to substantially comply with Housing Element law. In particular, the City needs to continue to and further engage communities that have been historically left out of previous Housing Element Cycles, adopt and implement enforceable policies and programs with discrete timelines to meet the housing needs of all residents, and abide by its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”). (Gov. Code § 8899.50).

I. Failure to Demonstrate A Diligent Effort to Solicit and Incorporate Input from All Economic Segments of the Community and Protected Classes As stated in our previous letters, and further reinforced by HCD in their February 1, 2024 letter under section E. Public Participation of their findings, the City must make a diligent effort to engage the community during the housing element revision process, including the organizations that represent low-income and special needs households, and describe how it incorporated community feedback into its Draft. Lastly, the City must make information readily available, during the development of the Housing Element. This includes the revision process.

Between February and July 2024, we attempted to communicate with the City to understand how and when it would engage community residents in their Draft revision process.

Despite our multiple efforts, the City demonstrated an unwillingness to offer information. This greatly inhibited residents' ability to contribute to the development of the Draft; including two visually-impaired residents who requested large-font hard copies of the revised Draft to review and provide comments within the anticipated 7 day review period. Furthermore, the City did inform LCJA that the revised Draft had been posted to its website and was available for public comment and review until 5:00 pm on August 7, 2024; however, they neglected to include the 1 Hereafter all Code sections refer to the California Government Code, unless otherwise noted.

Michelle Zumwalt

deadline on the Housing Element webpage, thereby, failing to disclose limited review period to the public. By neglecting to make information readily available, and their lack of making a diligent effort to engage the community, or explain where it incorporated, or did not incorporate community feedback and public comments into the revised Draft, the City demonstrates that it fails to substantially comply with State law.

II. Failure to Adequately Analyze Housing Constraints
A. Governmental Constraints to Housing Development
While the City did address some of the concerns related to their analysis of governmental constraints, there still remains an incomplete analysis. As a reminder the City is required to have “[a]n analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels,. . . and for persons with disabilities. . . including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need. . . and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.” (Gov.

Code § 65583(A)(5)).

In our previous comment letters, we uplifted the need to identify constraints to the development of housing affordable to households at different income levels, as well as possible constraints to the development and maintenance of a variety of types of housing, unfortunately this recent Draft continues to fail in adequately analyzing these constraints.

1. Development Standards
“The housing element must identify all relevant land-use controls, discuss impacts on the cost and supply of housing, and evaluate the cumulative impacts of standards, including whether development standards impede the ability to achieve maximum allowable densities.”2 The City added a Table 1E-4.6 which analyzes multi-family zone requirements for prototype site development and helps identify the ability to achieve maximum densities in the City’s multi-family zones. Unfortunately, this analysis is insufficient and does not address our previous concerns regarding constraints associated with the widespread availability of single family 2 HCD, Building Blocks, Land Use Controls, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/land-use-controls.

Michelle Zumwalt

zoning and the limited availability of high density zoned sites. The city continues to allow by-right single-family units more than multi-family affordable housing developments.

Additionally, the City still permits single family uses by-right in many of the zones identified for increased high-density development: RM-1, NMX, CMX, RMX, CMS, CR, DTN, DTG. But multi-family units are not allowed in RS-1, RS-2, or RS-3 areas, despite the large majority of the City being zoned one of these zones, and where many high resource areas have developed.

Duplexes are similarly constrained, they are excluded from RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, and only allowed through conditional use permit in R-5.

2. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units, Emergency Shelters, Supportive Housing
Although we appreciate the City’s amendment to the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) section to remove the “current limit of 15 guests in SRO units, as well as changing SRO to permitted use in RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, NMX, CMX, and RMX, and evaluating objective design standards for SROs to ensure that units are maintained and safe for all residents long term;” additional analysis must be done for emergency shelters and supportive housing. The City has a significant homeless population and a serious dearth of housing and shelter options to serve that population; it must analyze the constraints to building additional shelters to ensure that the unhoused population has access to housing. Little is said in response to supportive housing and whether it is allowed in any zone where multi-unit or mixed use development is permitted.

3. Parking
The Draft had previously amended the Development Code to remove parking minimums within a half mile of public transit, consistent with AB 2097. In the revised Draft the City added an action to reduce the parking standard for Residential Care, General. But once again failed to analyze whether its parking requirements act as a constraint on housing development, especially in downtown and along transit corridors. Parking requirements increase the cost of housing.3 The Draft states it “determines the required number of parking spaces based on the type and size of the residential unit and has found the required parking spaces to be necessary to accommodate the number of vehicles typically associated with each residence.”4 The analysis ignores principles of induced demand and downstream effects of entrenching car-centric land use. The Draft implicitly acknowledges that parking increases costs and may not be critical as it allows waivers for parking requirements in affordable housing developments and other transit-friendly areas.5 The ad hoc basis of reduced parking requirements introduces uncertainty which can increase the overall cost and time delays in housing development. Once again, the City failed to 5 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-4-10 4 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-4-10 3 Green Trip.Parking Database: http://database.greentrip.org/.

Michelle Zumwalt

include a program that would identify steps to remove this constraint, particularly in the development of affordable housing.

4. Risk Analysis and Distribution of Affordable Housing Additionally, we want to reiterate the Draft’s analysis of at-risk housing is incomplete and under-analyzes the risks to publicly assisted affordable housing and its distribution. The Draft identified 695 units at risk of conversion to uses other than low-income residential within 10 years from the housing element adoption deadline. Although the City considered the cost of replacing the at-risk units as required under §65583(a)(8), it failed to examine which pathway would be most appropriate for the City and what constraints, if any, would be associated with the pathway chosen.

Once again, we urge the City to analyze the lack of tenant protections, such as source of income discrimination outreach and education, rent stabilization, and just cause protections, and how they may operate as a constraint on the maintenance of housing available to lower income people and facilitate the displacement of lower income renters. The lack of these protections should be analyzed as a constraint on the maintenance of housing under Government Code section 65583(a)(5).

5. Accela
In Table 1E-2.3, the Draft identifies Accela, the City’s land management software, as a barrier to the timely completion of multiple projects on which it is relying to accommodate its RHNA.6 The Draft should describe how Accela is creating barriers to the completion of new housing development–especially affordable development–analyze these barriers as constraints, and, if appropriate, add program language to reduce or mitigate any constraints caused by the system.

B. Non-Governmental Constraints to Housing Development
In addition to analyzing governmental constraints, the Draft must also analyze the potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. Gov’t Code § 65583(a)(6). Unfortunately, the second Draft continues to exclude such an analysis even though public comments have been submitted in response to this specific issue. The Draft failed to consider the effect of market forces, availability of financing, environmental concerns, and NIMBY opposition. 6 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-2-10 to 1E-2-11.

Michelle Zumwalt

1. NIMBY Opposition
The Draft must include an analysis of NIMBY opposition to housing development. As a largely sprawling suburban City, Fresno is prone to local opposition to increased density from existing single-family homeowners that have preconceived ideas of the impacts of increased density on their neighborhoods. Further, the zoning code requires conditional use permits for duplexes and multi-family housing in some areas, making them especially susceptible to opposition and defeat from NIMBY residents.

NIMBY opposition is all too common and a pervasive issue when building multi-family projects in high resourced areas. The latest example: on July 25, 2024, the City Council voted (4-3) to uphold the Planning Commission’s vote to reject the development permit application for a market-rate housing complex at the northeast corner of West Herndon and North Prospect Avenues (North of the City of Fresno). Even though this project is market-rate without any subsidy for people who cannot afford rent, comments were made that perpetuate stereotypes that have been mostly disproven— such as decreasing property value, increased crime rates and worsening traffic.7 This is just one example of how pervasive NIMBY-ism is in the City of Fresno and thus a significant reason to complete a full analysis of this constraint.

2. Environmental Concerns
Once again, the Draft failed to consider environmental constraints as part of its analysis under Gov’t Code § 65583(a)(6). Environmental constraints may include limitations to water supply, nearby pollution, or infrastructure development. Per our previous comment letters, we have noted that the City of Fresno relies heavily on groundwater and surface water. As climate change makes water availability less predictable the City must analyze how an increased population and land use will affect water availability and whether water availability will eventually constrain growth. Additionally, the City must consider the infrastructure requirements of delivering water to a denser population. For example, the City estimates that downtown Fresno, where a large portion of new housing development is projected, currently requires significant water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades.

Again, we must reiterate the fact that the Draft failed to consider industrial and polluting industries’ effect on future housing development. The City must also analyze as a constraint the proliferation of warehouses and other industrial uses in and around the City, particularly in South Fresno. These industrial and warehouse projects come with an enormous increase in vehicle traffic and worsen already very poor air quality. They also result in light, sound, and vibration pollution. Many of these projects are being approved next to residential development with no buffer, driving down housing value, and worsening housing conditions. The City must consider 7 Parsons, R. (2024, May 19). A Big Housing Project Gets Rejected.Fresnoland. https://fresnoland.org/newsletter/a-big-housing-project-gets-rejected/ Michelle Zumwalt

warehouse and industrial use proliferation as a constraint, and identify impacts to residents. The City must then commit to adopting strong programs and policies with enforceable timelines to address the constraint.

Additionally, the City of Fresno has evolved as a car dependent City surrounded by heavy industry and highways. Therefore, future housing development will need to carefully consider placement and mitigation measures to avoid perpetuating environmental inequity.

III. Further Revisions and Analysis are needed to determine if the City’s Draft Includes Adequate Sites

1. Entitled and Permitted Units
The Draft adds information about the entitled and permitted units that the City seeks to credit against its RHNA obligation, but the information provided for multiple projects still remains inadequate to comply with the requirements of Housing Element Law.

Hotel/Motel Conversions—the Draft relies on four hotel/motel conversions to accommodate 211 units of its lower-income RHNA. However, the Draft is missing the requisite information and program language to claim credit for these units.8 Government Code 65583.1(c)(2)(D) allows credit for such units, but they must be converted with committed assistance from the City and be made available to people experiencing homelessness, and the Housing Element must include a program for the conversion(s). Table 1E.2-3 should be amended to specify the committed assistancefrom the City for each of these projects and to clarify whether each of them will be made available to people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, the City should add concrete program language toProgram 36 (Homeless Assistance) to specify the committed assistance and other actions on the part of the City to facilitate hotel conversions and to ensure that the converted units remain safe and habitable over time.

Additionally, for project P-23 (San Joaquin Hotel), Table 1E.23 does not describe the status of entitlement review for the 59 units on which the Draft relies; nor does it provide any information about build-out, phasing, or projected rents.

City-Caused Barriers to Completion—The City relies on project P-12, Fresno Rescue Mission RTC 2, to accommodate 49 units of its low-income RHNA. However, the Draft acknowledges that there is no phasing plan for the project and no expected completion date—there is no indication that this project can be completed during the planning period.

Additionally, the Draft identifies “having difficulties with affordable housing contracts with the City” as a barrier to completion.9 The Draft should describe the “difficulties” and analyze the 9 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-2-8. 8 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-2-5, 1E-2-9 to 1E-2-11 Michelle Zumwalt

City’s role in creating or ameliorating project delays. Such analysis should inform program language to expedite the funding and development of affordable units.

Unsupported Affordability Assumptions for Moderate-Income Units—the Draft still lacks adequate information and analysis to support its assumptions regarding the affordability of market-rate units. Table 1E-2.2 does not include any information about the unit type, number, or density of rental units in projects it lists as examples. Table 1E-2.3 does not include information about the expected tenure of many of the projects, so it is unclear whether the units will be rental or for-sale; the draft does not provide any indication that new market-rate for-sale units will be sold at prices affordable to moderate-income households. By way of example, Table 1E-2.3 acknowledges that the City is “not sure of rents” for project P-8, a market-rategated duplex community but nonetheless has switched its affordability projection since the prior draft from above-moderate to moderate-income without any justification. The City should provide additional information and analysis to ensure that its assumptions regarding the affordability of market-rate units are supported.

Ambiguous Entries—Several entries in Table 1E-2.3 include ambiguous or conflicting information about project timelines and projected affordability. For example, for project P-1, the Village at West Creek North, the Table identifies funding sources but then indicates that the “challenge is getting funded” and that the affordability levels “will be dictated by funding source.” It’s also unclear if the project is one development or multiple developments. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to assess whether the planned units will be available at the projected affordability levels during the planning period.

The City should provide additional information and analysis regarding recent and pending developments that it seeks to credit against its RHNA. Where there is not adequate information to support projections that a project will develop at a particular affordability level during the planning period, that project should be removed from the list, and the site inventory should be adjusted accordingly.

2. Unsupported Capacity Projections
The Draft adds information about sites in zones that allow nonresidential development–including 100% nonresidential development–but it still lacks adequate information and analysis to support its capacity projections, especially with respect to affordable development. For example, while the Draft notes that the City recently removed the absolute prohibition of ground-floor residential development in mixed use zones to facilitate the development of lower-income housing, it notes that “all five [commercial and mixed use] zones have some level of restrictions on ground floor residential uses in order to activate the sidewalk.”10 All of the pipeline projects listed in Table 1E.2-3 that have ground-floor 10 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-2-18.

Michelle Zumwalt

nonresidential uses are market-rate projects. But the Draft does not indicate whether or not the sites identified in commercial or mixed use zones prohibit residential uses on the ground floor, nor does it analyze ground-floor restrictions as a potential constraint to affordable development.

Similarly, the Draft adds information about which commercial and mixed-use zones allow 100 percent non-residential development, but it does not describe whether the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allow 100 percent non-residential development, nor does it break down past mixed-use development trends by zone. Draft, 1E-2.18 to 1E-2.19. While the summary table of “Project Examples” has been amended to cover 2018-2023 instead of 2018-2020, the Draft does not provide information about the projects themselves. It is therefore impossible to assess whether the capacity projections are supported by past and current development trends.

3. Non-V acant Sites
The City continues to rely on non-vacant sites with a variety of uses—including residential, agricultural, parking lots, commercial buildings, and at least one “trucking” use--to accommodate its RHNA without the requisite analysis. The Draft adds examples of past development on sites with similar prior uses, but it does not include “an analysis of additional representative sites from the sites inventory” or “analyze recent development trends.”11 It does not include any site-specific information to support its assumptions that existing uses will discontinue or that owners are interested in redevelopment. It also does not analyze any potentially negative impacts of replacing existing uses with new housing, including potential displacement of lower-income households caused by the demolition of existing, unspecified “residential” uses; the health and environmental justice impacts of housing development on sites with current or recent commercial, industrial, or “trucking” uses (e.g., site 823); or the loss of apparently active agricultural uses (e.g., site 2434, agricultural and farm stand).

4. Publicly Owned Sites
The City continues to rely on government-owned sites to accommodate a significant portion of its RHNA. Some of these are owned by the City and its Redevelopment Successor Agency, while others are owned by other government entities. The Draft does not describe any communications with the other government entities to gauge their interest in or ability to redevelop the sites—many of which have existing uses—with housing. It does not “discuss the status, remaining steps to be available for development and any known barriers to development in the planning period including leases for existing uses or relocation of existing uses.”12 More information and analysis is needed to support the City’s assumptions regarding these sites. 12 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 5.
11 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 5.

Michelle Zumwalt

With respect to City-owned properties, the City should strengthenProgram 17 (Surplus Public Lands) to describe, not only how it will comply with the Surplus Land Act, but also proactive steps it will take to solicit and support 100 percent affordable projects on City and Successor Agency sites during the planning period.

5. Large Sites
The Draft adds further discussion of large sites but still fails to adequately support its projections for sites over 10 acres.13 The Draft provides examples of prior developments on large sites, but it is lacking information critical to understanding whether these examples support the City’s assumptions regarding large site development. For example, it does not describe additional uses included in the project, timeline and phasing, or the percentage of the total site area that developed as residential v. commercial. Accordingly, the 60% residential assumption applied to large sites is not supported, nor is the assumption that units could be built within the planning period. Further, just comparing overall residential densities projected for identified large sites to overall residential densities for the large site examples indicates that the City is projecting generally higher densities for the sites than were realized in past projects, without explanation or justification.14 The City should provide additional information and analysis to support its projections, or it should revise its projections downward. Because the Draft relies so heavily on large sites to accommodate its lower-income RHNA, the City should reviseProgram 5 (Large and Small Sites) to adopt incentives for affordable development on large sites, rather than deferring the consideration of such incentives to a later date.

6. Environmental Constraints
Both community groups and HCD commented on the prior Draft’s lack of analysis regarding environmental constraints to development of identified sites. The current Draft removes sites within Zones 1-4 of the new Airport Influence Area for Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport and indicates which sites are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain but does not provide any additional site-specific information regarding “shape, access, contamination, property conditions, easements, Williamson Act contracts, conservation easements, overlays and airport and military compatibility.”15 It does not discuss the impact of adjacent freeways, industrial uses, or agriculture on site conditions, even though many identified sites have existing agricultural or commercial uses, and at least one has a highway on/off ramp.16 The Draft acknowledges the disproportionately severe environmental health conditions in the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and Downtown areas, where the Draft identifies the bulk of sites for new housing, lower-income housing in particular.17 However, this recognition did not prompt a reevaluation of sites nor commitments to 17 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-3-131. 16 See Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-7-47. 15 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 5.
14 See Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-2-54 to 1E-2-61. 13 See Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(2)(B).

Michelle Zumwalt

place-based strategies to mitigate environmental hazard on or near identified sites. The City should review the site inventory, informed by community input, and revise as necessary to address environmental justice concerns with site identification. It should also commit to concrete actions to address environmental hazards in neighborhoods with existing and planned lower-income housing.

7. Site Concentration and AFFH
The housing element must identify sites “throughout the community,” consistent with the duty to affirmatively further fair housing.18 The Draft does not do so, instead acknowledging:
“The distribution of sites across the city displays a concentration of lower-income housing in areas like Downtown and the West Area, while other areas like McLane and Woodward Park have a higher proportion of moderate and above moderate income housing, reflecting an unequal distribution of housing capacity across the city. This has the potential to exacerbate fair housing issues in Fresno by providing more capacity for lower-income housing in disproportionately impacted communities.”19 In other words, the Draft admits that the City’s selection of sites for new development during the planning period is inconsistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.20 In making this admission, the Draft references, in general terms, policies and actions elsewhere in the document, but it does not identify any specific program that will mitigate the acknowledged segregative impacts of the City’s chosen site distribution.21 HCD’s February 1, 2024, findings instructed the City to “add or modify goals and actions, specifically increasing housing mobility options and housing opportunities in high-opportunity areas.”22 However, the Draft’s programs to address these and other fair housing issues remain inadequate, as discussed in greater detail below. We strongly encourage the City to amend the Draft to include programs that will identify different sites, and directly invest in infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods.23

8. Electronic Sites Inventory
As noted in HCD’s February 1, 2024, findings, the City must utilize HCD’s electronic sites inventory, but the current Draft does not. We encourage the City to create an electronic site inventory as soon as possible for ease of review by both HCD and community members.

IV . The Assessment of Fair Housing Fails to Comply with Section 65583(c)(10) 23 https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report-english.pdf 22 HCD 2/1/2024 Findings, p. 3.
21 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-3-127. 20 See Gov. Code § 8899.50(b)(1) (“A public agency shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”) 19 Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element July 2023, Appendix 1E: City of Fresno, 1E-3-127. 18 Gov. Code § 65583.2(a).

Michelle Zumwalt

Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends; as well as Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (R/ECAA). A complete assessment must identify key issues and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues; it must also point to the clearest fair housing issue trends and patterns within the jurisdiction as well as be detailed and comprehensive enough to develop strong actions and programs that will overcome and undo the identified fair housing issues. See AFFH Guidance, pp. 25.

Although we appreciate the City adding data, some historical context, and descriptions of the policies that have contributed to the formation of Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) continues to fall short. It lacks an in depth analysis of and fails to incorporate public input as necessary to address the requirements set forth in Section 65583(c)(10) and does not achieve the requirement to ensure that the City AFFHs through its housing element.

A. Integration and Segregation and R/ECAP and Concentrated Area of Affluence Analyses Lack Required Detail
In our previous comment letters, we outline the gaps that render the AFH analysis incomplete (please see attachment A) such as failure to provide any data or analyze integration and segregation patterns for racial groups other than Hispanic/Latinos; failure to accurately or thoroughly analyze distribution of low- and high-income households across Fresno; the AFH’s analysis of R/ECAPs and RCAAs fails to address “public participation, past policies, practices, [and] investments” as required. HCD Guidance, p. 33. Although the current Draft was amended on page 1E-3-27 to include bullet points outlining the policies and historical background that contributed to the creation of R/ECAPs it did not include an evaluation or analysis on why certain ethnicities or races live in certain areas or which past policies or practices led South Fresno to have a higher concentration of low-income households or households that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino and/or African American. Reports have shown that “the cultural evolution of resident identities and land-use purposes in Fresno includes a series of hostile land acquisitions imposed on Indigenous Americans, forced labor exploitation of Black farmers, unjust labor practices toward Brown migrants, and the socio-economic alienation of Hmong residents.”24
Similarly, the RCAAs section which is on page 1E-3-31 was only amended to include additional areas that are considered affluent such as North and Northeast Fresno neighborhoods 24 Brown, B., Heer, N., Love, N., Pollard, K., Thomas, D. (2021, June 9). Here To Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint For Displacement Avoidance in Fresno.Thrivance Group.
https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report-english.pdf Michelle Zumwalt

and McLane community area. Once again it fails to include an in-depth analysis of how and why these areas are high-resourced and more affluent, as well as the policies and programs that have led to creating and building opportunities. It goes on to include a list of characteristics and a list of programs that will promote inclusivity, affordability, and diversity in RCAAs. But without an adequate analysis of RCAAs and R/ECAPs, these programs will continue to fall short and therefore fail to comply with Government Code section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii).

B. Incomplete Analysis of Disproportionate Housing Needs Based on Race, Ethnicity, Familial Status, Disability, and Income
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs must analyze needs relating to cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, homelessness and other factors for protected characteristics, including at least race and ethnicity, familial status, persons with disabilities, and income. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii); AFFH Guidance, p. 39. The requirement to analyze disproportionate housing needs is fundamental to achieving the purpose of the AFH to ensure that the housing element affirmatively further fair housing by identifying disparities impacting protected classes which have been subject to historic discrimination, describes the factors contributing to those disparities, and adopts meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and address disparities in housing needs and opportunity for protected classes.

Unfortunately, this recent Draft failed to satisfy this requirement once again.

In our previous letters (see attachment A), we made recommendations to include any information about the separate occurrence of overcrowding, cost burden, and substandard housing conditions based on race or ethnicity and provide any information at all about how these factors disproportionately impact Fresno residents based on familial status and disability. We also recommended that the Draft include information relating to familial status. We strongly urge the City to include information that reflects “local knowledge” or public input, which would strengthen the analysis with details about specific housing needs within the categories identified above and the scale of those needs in relation to others. Again, the City must supplement its disproportionate needs analysis to include the required demographic information and revise the AFH further to ensure its contributing factors and meaningful actions reflect that information.

The Draft acknowledges that homelessness in Fresno disproportionately impacts people of color–in particular Black residents of the City–and people with disabilities. However, it does not analyze the City’s role in causing the segregation and forced displacement of its unhoused residents. The City is in the process of amending sections 10-1703(a), 10-1707, 10-2101, 10-2204, 10-2205 of the Fresno Municipal Code, Relating to the Prohibition of Encampments in Michelle Zumwalt

Public Places, with a second reading of the ordinance scheduled for August 15, 2024.25 The purpose of the ordinance is the increased criminalization of unsheltered homelessness within the City, and it explicitly removes any requirement that the City ensure that shelter is available before citing, arresting, or displacing unsheltered individuals from public space. Such criminalization makes it harder for unhoused people to access housing, shelter, employment, medical care, and other services. The Housing Element must analyze these practices, including the disproportionate impact of these practices on people with disabilities and people of color, and it must include programs to ensure that its law enforcement and policing practices are not creating or perpetuating “disparities in access to opportunity.” HCD AFFH Guidance, 69.

C. Incomplete Analysis of Displacement Risks
Although we appreciate the amendments in the Draft identifying tracts that are assigned the different levels of displacement, on page 1E-3-82, and a note stating that concentrated areas of poverty, lower medium income neighborhoods with greater populations of color and larger proportion of renter households are most sensitive to displacement, the Draft has once again failed to evaluate and analyze the impact displacement has on R/ECAP and protected classes and therefore has failed to incorporate meaningful policies and programs that will protect residents.

The AFH’s displacement risk analysis falls short by failing to consider other relevant information relating to existing and potential housing cost pressures confronting low-income residents, residents of color, and other protected classes, as well as significant displacement risks associated with tenant protection limitations, City land use policies and practices, environmental hazards, and climate change. A complete displacement risk analysis must consider these and other relevant factors. See AFFH Guidance, pp. 40-43.

Additionally, we are extremely concerned that the Draft has removed the displacement risk assessment regarding climate disaster.

The risk of climate disaster can also put pressure on lower income communities. South Fresno neighborhoods have been impacted by a series of fires at warehouse, recycling, and other industrial facilities that have occurred during the increasing number of high and extreme-heat days over the past five years. Potentially toxic smoke from these fires has at times densely concentrated in South Fresno neighborhoods, which can make breathing difficult and unsafe for residents even within their homes with windows closed. pg. 1E-3-82.

As mentioned in our previous comment letters (see attachment A), the AFH’s Displacement Risk section should be revised to consider displacement risks associated with environmental hazards, 25 MCC § 10-1703(a). Retrieved from:
https://fresno.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=13187124&GUID=01FAFD3D-FA86-4812-9928-3F4ECF7AECB4 .

Michelle Zumwalt

environmental disasters, and climate change, pursuant to HCD’s AFFH Guidance. AFFH Guidance, p. 42. By removing this analysis the Draft fails to adhere to its AFFH duty. We urge the City to reinsert this section and build on this analysis to ensure implementation of strong programs that address the needs of communities impacted the most by climate disaster.

We must reiterate26 that using The Urban Displacement Project’s criteria alone is not sufficient to accurately describe displacement risks impacting residents associated with housing cost pressures. Although data for 2019 has been included, this time period does not capture the sharp and sustained escalation in housing costs (both rental and ownership) that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic between 2019 and 2022.27 Between 2017 and 2021, Fresno experienced the greatest rent increases of all large U.S. cities, with rental prices increasing nearly 39% during that time.28 The City failed to include this vital analysis and therefore the AFH’s displacement risk analysis must be supplemented with and revised based on more recent data in order to adequately fulfill this requirement. §65583(c)(10)(A)(ii); AFFH Guidance, pp. 39.

As previously stated, the “Displacement Avoidance Efforts” do not remedy the need for a complete analysis addressing the displacement risk factors above, including relevant City policies and practices, and the adoption of meaningful actions to address those risks. And although it mentions the City’s Displacement Avoidance Plan (DAP) and the Here to Stay Report29, we must once again ask that the AFH incorporate and consider relevant information and policy recommendations contained in that report.

1. Tenant Protection, Land Use, Environmental, and Climate-Related Displacement Risks Not Considered in the AFH Displacement Risk Analysis
A complete analysis of displacement risks considers not only displacement risks associated with housing cost pressures, but also other factors which result in housing instability, including factors relating to the adequacy of tenant protections, disinvestment, local land use policies and practices, environmental hazards, and risks associated with natural disasters and climate change. The Draft Housing Element considers none of these risk categories, yet, based on our direct work with tenants and low-income residents and residents of color, they represent real and significant risk factors for Fresno residents. 29 Brown, B., Heer, N., Love, N., Pollard, K., Thomas, D. (2021, June 9). Here To Stay: A Policy-Based Blueprint For Displacement Avoidance in Fresno.Thrivance Group.
https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report-english.pdf 28 Los Angeles Times, The Nation’s Hottest Housing Market? Surprise – it’s Fresno, Mar. 31, 2021, available at https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-03-31/fresno-rent-spike-taps-into-california-covid-housing-t rends
27 CalMatters, Real estate prices soar during the pandemic, climbing 25% in parts of California, Dec. 5, 2020, available at https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2020/12/real-estate-climb-pandemic/ 26 See attachment A, previous comment letters from LCJA.

Michelle Zumwalt

Once again, we ask that the City incorporate the following analysis and assessment to the Displacement risk section:
● Address the adequacy of policies and resources to protect tenants from displacement as a result of eviction, harassment, and substandard housing and include additional and stronger policies and programs to protect tenants, including in particular more comprehensive and stringent rent control standards than those established by the state, just cause requirements for eviction, and right to return home for displaced residents. ● Analyze the success and effectiveness of the City’s code enforcement programs. ● Consider the extent to which public and private disinvestment and unequal investment continues to impact low-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color, and neighborhoods with a high proportion of tenants and how disinvestment perpetuates and/or increases displacement risk in these areas.
● Consider the City’s land use and permitting decisions which have directed and continue to allow for and promote the concentration of industrial and waste management facilities in and around neighborhoods in Jane Addams, Southwest Fresno, South Central Fresno (referred to by the Draft Housing Element as the “South Industrial Area”), and Southeast Fresno.
● Consider displacement risks associated with environmental hazards, environmental disasters, and climate change, pursuant to HCD’s AFFH Guidance. AFFH Guidance, p.

42. The City must revise the AFH to include a complete and accurate Displacement Risk analysis as described above and modify other sections of the Housing Element, including the AFHs contributing factors and meaningful actions to overcome disparities relating to access to a healthy environment associated with these land use patterns.

V . The AFH Fails to Consider Significant Disparities in Access to Opportunity to Multi-Modal Transportation Options, a Healthy Environment, and Quality Education
As a reminder, the AFH must include an analysis of disparities in access to opportunity. § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii). Access to opportunity broadly encompasses the place-based characteristics which are linked to critical life outcomes, including “education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, recreation, food, and a healthy environment (air, water, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions). (AFFH Guidance, p. 34).

Michelle Zumwalt

Although the previous Draft was amended to include some of the barriers to transit, unfortunately, the analysis continues to fail in comparing access to transportation opportunities based on protected characteristics; assess any disproportionate transportation needs for members of protected classes; provide important information about the adequacy of public transportation service in different areas of the City, protected classes, and low-income households; and entirely fails to consider access to other forms of transportation, including walking and bicycling.30 The Draft states that, in order to “address these issues, the Housing Element includes a program to direct investments to address infrastructure and public service deficiencies in high-need areas including areas classified as high segregation and poverty, low resource, and moderate resource.” But without a comprehensive analysis, the City cannot create programs that will address the needs of communities living in R/ECAP.

As discussed in our previous letter, a complete analysis of access to a healthy environment should consider any impacts on access to a healthy environment associated with the zoning, siting and operation of polluting or toxic land uses in disadvantaged communities and with climate change. Id. at pp. 16, 73. It must also be informed by public input, which is especially important in Fresno given the high concentration of communities in low-income South Fresno neighborhoods of color that rank among the most burdened by multiple sources of pollution in the state. Once again, the current Draft failed to incorporate this analysis. City policies and practices have intentionally concentrated polluting and noxious industrial and waste management land uses in South Fresno neighborhoods and policies and practices remain in place that all promote the exacerbation of these patterns to the detriment of housing opportunities and quality of life for South Fresno residents. The City must fulfill a robust analysis to inform better policies and programs such as impact fees for a community benefit fund, public health impact reports, and cargo/freight prohibition and revenue tax.

The current Draft failed to include any additional analysis for educational opportunities.

Per our previous comment letter, we urge the City to consider how policies, practices, and investments or disinvestments relating to access to green space, tree canopy, and climate resiliency (including adequate cooling and wildfire smoke protection) impact educational opportunities at schools, especially in low-income neighborhoods. The City must revise its analysis of educational opportunities to address these and other issues not addressed in the Draft Element and revise and add to its actions accordingly.

VI. Failure to Adopt Community-Identified Programs That Will Result in A Beneficial Impact During the Planning Period and AFFH
Program 1–Maintain Adequate Sites. HCD’s February 1, 2024, findings instructed the City to include program language to facilitate development of pipeline projects during the planning 30 See our past comment letters, attachment A.

Michelle Zumwalt

period, to monitor the progress of those projects, and to take alternative actions if the projects are not on track to be available before the end of the Sixth Cycle. The City has amended Program 1 to indicate that the City will “work with applicants of pipeline projects,” to “monitor the progress made on these sites,” and to reevaluate pipeline sites if their entitlements expire. However, this program needs more specific language about the concrete actions the City will take to facilitate the timely development of pipeline projects–especially affordable pipeline projects–and timelines for reevaluating sites when pipeline projects are abandoned or modified, as well as for when entitlements expire.

Additionally, prior comments stressed the importance of community outreach and transparency in site identification, including in future site identification to address changes in pipeline projections and/or no-net-loss issues. The City should add commitments to this program to ensure that it is seeking, receiving, and acting on community input regarding the identification of new sites. Local knowledge and input regarding proposed sites can help ensure that the City is identifying sites in a way that encourages affordable development, avoids environmental harms, and promotes racial and economic integration.

Program 2 – Variety of Housing Opportunities in High Resource Areas. The City must go beyond their revision to “encourage racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods” and provide a detailed explanation on how it will promote the development of affordable units to lower income households. Furthermore, the program still lacks a clear commitment to zone sites for multi-family development in areas of high resource, a commitment to ensure that units are affordable to all income levels, and a commitment to match funding opportunities with the identification of available sites to facilitate their development. Although the Timeframe was revised to increase the number of units for high density-multifamily development in high resource areas from 750 to 1250, specifically by adding 500 additional units by December 2031, the timeline should still be shorten to ensure the City is making a clear effort to promote housing mobility and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

Program 3 – Encourage and Facilitate Accessory Dwelling Units and Small Homes. The revisions made to program 3 should have outlined the City’s intention to make the development of ADUs affordable to low-income families, specifically as a place-based revitalization strategy in order to AFFH. The City must also provide a definition for “small homes” that clearly explains how they differ from ADU’s. Furthermore, the City should do more than “subsidize”ADU inspection fees and keep the original language to “waive” these fees. Lastly, the revisions made to the objective should not exclude the development of ADUs for extremely-low and lower-income families and maintain its original goal to facilitate the development of 50 ADUs for these households while also keeping the revised goal to make 50 small homes available for lower-income households.

Michelle Zumwalt

Program 9–Use of Sites in Previous Housing Elements. Government Code section 65583.2(c) requires that non-vacant sites identified in at least one prior housing element and vacant sites identified in at least two prior housing elements must be rezoned “to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.” Because the City failed to adopt a housing element that substantially complies with Housing Element Law by April 29, 2024 (120 days from the City’s statutory deadline to adopt), it must complete that rezoning within one year of the City’s statutory deadline to adopt. Gov. Code 65583.2(c). Accordingly, the timeframe for this Program must be amended to ensure that rezoning will be complete by December 31, 2024.

Program 11 – Incentives for Housing Development. Although the program to incentivize housing development was revised to include access to resources “for lower-income residents, and promote racially and socially inclusive neighborhoods,” when working with multifamily and affordable housing project developers it still lacks a clear commitment towards actions taken to complete the program. Furthermore, the City should do more than “consider additional incentives” and provide additional incentives as well as list all available incentives on a publicly accessible database. Lastly, in order to promote housing mobility and AFFH, the city must do more than “Consider incorporating the location of affordable housing in High Resourced Areas” and ensure the placement of affordable housing in these areas.

Program 14 – Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers. Program 14 should be further revised to state that the City will “identify site opportunities for affordable housing in higher-resourced areas and areas with higher median incomes to reduce concentrations of poverty and improve access to resources.” Furthermore, when convening stakeholders to identify ongoing regulatory and funding barriers to affordable and mixed-income development, the City should include lower income households, special needs households and individuals in protected classes. (HCD AFFH Guidance pg. 20). The program should be amended to include strategies to combat NIMBYism, which has stalled and terminated several affordable housing projects in high resourced areas. The quarterly convenings should also be used to provide stakeholders with a report on the success of the program. Additionally, the time frame should be changed to bi-annual reporting throughout the planning period, bi-annual reporting review and assessment of potential funding opportunities, and quarterly convenings with stakeholders. In order to truly integrate communities this program must be amended. (HCD AFFH Guidance pg. 12).

Program 17–Surplus Public Lands. The City should review and revise Program 17 to ensure that it complies with the Surplus Land Act. HCD’s just-releasedUpdated Surplus Land Act Guidelines (Aug. 1, 2024)can be a helpful resource. For example, the current Draft replaced 15 percent with 10 percent in describing the minimum percentage of affordable units in developments built on surplus land, but the Act requires 15 percent affordable units in projects of 10 or more units.See HCD SLA Guidelines, p. 28. Additionally, the reference to evaluating Michelle Zumwalt

surplus sites for “other community-serving uses” prior to disposition under the SLA is ambiguous but could be read to indicate that the City plans to attempt to use surplus City-owned sites for commercial or other uses in violation of the SLA.

Additionally, because the City has identified so many City-owned sites in its site inventory, this program should include proactive steps, beyond the base requirements of the SLA, to facilitate affordable housing development on those sites, especially sites in higher-opportunity areas. The list of potential sites, disposition and disposal strategy, and rezoning of city-owned sites are good first steps.See Draft 1E-1-23. Since land acquisition is one of the biggest challenges for affordable developers, these sites represent a rare and valuable opportunity for the City to facilitate the development of much-needed affordable housing.

Program 19 – Home Buyer Assistance. This action commits the City to “strive to support a total of 40 low- and moderate-income households with home purchases during the planning period.” These commitments lack specificity and do not ensure a beneficial outcome within the planning period. Without a complete and comprehensive AFH, it is impossible to create a meaningful and impactful Home Buyer Assistance program since they failed to analyze constraints, access to opportunity, past programs etc. We reiterate that this program must include additional commitments to ensure that low-income residents, undocumented residents, residents who speak languages other than English, and residents in racially and /ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) have the opportunity to benefit from these funds. If the City had done their due diligence in engaging the community, they would have heard from residents that during the 5th Cycle planning period, residents without social security numbers or who faced language access barriers were unable to apply for the City’s homebuyer assistance program.

The City must amend this program, possible solutions include: ensuring that low-income residents are knowledgeable about the programs, undocumented residents are able to successfully apply for this program, including closing costs as part of funding packages. In order to ensure that residents living in R/ECAPs are targeted, we recommend the City create annual reports listing how many applicants were assisted, outreach efforts made and whether they live in R/ECAPs. Due to the concerns outlined above, the program as currently implemented and drafted fails to adhere to HCD’s AFFH Guidance that “actions must be specific with timelines, discrete steps and measurable outcomes to have a ‘beneficial impact’ during the planning period.”
Program 20 – Housing Choice Voucher Incentive Program. The revisions made to Program 20, Housing Choice V oucher Incentive program, did not incorporate meaningful actions with specific timelines and measurable outcomes that would result in a “beneficial impact.” The City should take steps to ensure that voucher holders face no discrimination or limitations. The City should do more than conduct HCV outreach to developments in high resourced areas and revise Michelle Zumwalt

this program to incorporate targeted community outreach and HCV advertisement in low-resourced to promote Housing Mobility throughout the City. Please refer to our previous letter, Attachment A for further recommendations regarding how to limit HCV discrimination.

Program 22 – Housing Rehabilitation. The current program fails to meet its AFFH duty. It does not address the needs of extremely low income residents and vulnerable populations such as undocumented residents. This program fails to address equity concerns, disparities, and neglects the needs of marginalized communities particularly in R/ECAP; and it fails to incorporate strong actions and concrete steps. The Draft states that it will aim to connect at least 80-120 lower-income households with rehabilitation resources during the planning period and complete a third of these in areas of concentrated poverty.” This is not enough. Proper AFH analysis would have shown that the most impacted are extremely low income households and therefore these should be prioritized with at least half or more than half. Additionally, once again we ask that this include rehabilitation in response to the negative effects of climate change such as weatherization, cooling mechanisms, like heat pumps, air conditioning, insulation and other cooling assets to increase resilience to extreme heat as part of the rehabilitation program.

Program 23 – Comprehensive Code Enforcement. Unfortunately, this program as written continues to fail to address critical housing issues since the last housing element cycle. The program should be revised to include actions around legally holding landlords accountable for retaliation, unlawful evictions, and harassment towards tenants who file code enforcement complaints such as a commitment to adopt a tenant anti-harassment ordinance. As stated, we recommend that the City adequately analyze code enforcement’s procedures and incorporate tenant feedback for a comprehensive code enforcement program.

Program 26 – Fair Housing Services. This program is vague. Although it states that the goal is to “mitigate impediments to fair housing opportunities throughout the city, with an emphasis on supporting the needs of populations and neighborhoods most impacted by fair housing issues,” it fails to establish timelines and concrete steps on how the City will achieve this. A full AFH analysis would have helped identify the needs of R/ECAP as well as strong milestones, objectives and timelines. Housing discrimination has been a pervasive issue in the City of Fresno and only those who have been impacted can inform this program, for example additional legal representation, landlord education on fair housing law, enforcement mechanism against bad landlords etc.

Program 27 – Environmental Justice. The City is already required to work on their Environmental Justice Element. In order to transform R/ECAP into areas of opportunity (AFFH Guidance, p.15), this program should focus on placed-based strategies in R/ECAP areas such as Southwest, South Central and Southeast Fresno. Such actions must include land use changes to rezone industrial uses away from sensitive receptors, prohibit siting of polluting uses in Michelle Zumwalt

communities identified as R/ECAP and adding a moratorium on warehouses in these areas. As written, this current program and its actions fail to affirmatively further fair housing. (AFFH Guidance, p.54).

Program 28 – Equitable Community Investments. This program states that the City has “initiated multiple efforts to incentivize investment in established areas rather than in new growth areas,” they will focus on areas in the General Plan Figure IM-1 which have been identified as areas of priority for incentives and that they closely align with census tracts designated as areas of greatest need (high segregation & poverty, low resource, and moderate resource).” Unfortunately, the map only highlights areas, there is no analysis beyond the map.

We strongly recommend that the City amend this program to prioritize South Fresno neighborhoods explicitly. South Fresno is identified as a R/ECAP, residents have continuously called for and advocated for increased investment for decades to support healthy housing, infrastructure, amenities and services. The program must include actionable items and strong commitments in order to comply with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Program 29 – Equitable Engagement. The goal of this program is to “expand outreach and public education strategies to increase engagement amongst historically underrepresented populations and residents with the greatest need.” This action contains non-specific commitment and fails to identify measurable outcomes with respect to equitable engagement. This program is identified as one that will improve the quality of life and access to opportunities in R/ECAPs but fails to identify how exactly it will accomplish this.

Program 30 – Workforce Development. Although we appreciate changes to this program, we strongly encourage the City to include a program that targets the unhoused community. Residents have identified a systemic issue within the unhoused community when they receive keys to their new unit, where once they transition out of the shelter they are sent back out into communities, expected to get a job and maintain it without proper training on how to apply for a job, keep it and budget for their expenses. As written this program fails to integrate R/ECAP and R/ECAA.

Program 33 – Mobile Home Parks. Although we appreciate language that acknowledges the additional need of this specific group, it still falls short in fulfilling AFFH requirements. Once again, we request that the Draft address the need for heat resiliency such as weatherization and insulation especially to older mobile home parks by funding a mobile home park renovation fund for all mobile homes. This fund will help low income families with issues that they need to address due to inspection violations or other habitability concerns. The Draft must also include HCD’s Manufactured Housing Opportunity & Revitalization Program (MORE) as an additional funding source. These funds can be used for the acquisition, conversion to resident organization ownership, rehabilitation, reconstruction and replacement of mobilehome parks, as well the Michelle Zumwalt

remediation of health and safety items of both parks and individual mobile homes.31 Additionally, this program should include a commitment to penalize and fine mobile home park owners who are not providing adequate and safe conditions for their tenants. The 5th Cycle Housing Element included Program 10A, a similar program, that directed the City to “Conduct and publish an assessment of housing-related needs in mobile home parks through communications with residents and owners, identifying city, state, federal, and private resources available to address those needs.” The City must include an action in this program that finalizes this report, releases it for public input and implements MHP resident needs. The City must amend this program to fulfill their responsibility to AFFH, support quality of life and access to opportunity improvements for all mobilehome parks in Fresno.

Program 34 – Eviction Protection Program. In 2021, the City created their Eviction Protection Program (EPP) in response to communities’ advocacy for a comprehensive Right to Counsel Program. Despite heavy resident support, the City opted to establish a less comprehensive program which failed to address specific community needs. During this year’s budget hearing, the City shared data going back to 2021 showing the total number of tenants the City has supported - a total of 2,199 since the inception of the program; and a majority of them live in District 3, which is primarily a R/ECAP area. The data shows that the program has done the following:
● 364 people by preventing unlawful detainers filed,
● 597 People had their move-out time extended
● 107 people had the money owed to a landlord reduced
● 18 families helped with the Cash for Keys program
● 267 tenants remain in the home
● 293 Settlement with the landlord
● 580 Unlawful Detainers were prevented on the tenant's record ● 25 families had unlawful detainers removed from the record ● 18 Families, stopped lock-outs
● 186 people's unlawful detainers were successfully dismissed Currently the City has allocated $2 million to continue the program. Unfortunately, this is an inadequate response to vulnerable communities’ needs. The Draft’s revisions soften the commitment to this program by striking “implement” and replacing it with “seek funding” and notes that funding will end in 2025. We strongly recommend that the City improve the EPP by 31 California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2024). Manufactured Housing Opportunity & Revitalization Program (MORE).
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/manufactured-housing-opportunity-and-revitalization-p rogram
Michelle Zumwalt

adopting and implementing a comprehensive Right to Counsel program,32 create a permanent source of funding, and increase the annual funding for this program. The City can also include HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant Program (EPGP) as an additional source of funding. This grant will fund nonprofit organizations and government entities to provide no cost legal assistance to low-income tenants at risk of or subject to eviction.33 This City must improve this program in order to comply with AFFH law.

Program 36 – Homeless Assistance. Although we appreciate the Draft’s amendment to establish a pilot program funded by Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) to resolve the experience of unsheltered homelessness for people residing in encampments, we strongly urge the City to host additional workshops to engage directly with the unhoused community to include much needed programs such as:
● Providing mental health outreach by doing home visits, trainings on how to deal with family members who have severe mental illnesses, as well as offering educational tools such as pamphlets and other services
● Helping newly housed individuals who show symptoms of hoarding issues, continued care is essential for a recently housed individual in order for them to continue living in their unit and not face eviction
● Currently, the City provides stationary showers in locations where few unhoused individuals live. We recommend adding mobile bus showers, along with an outreach team to assist the unhoused community throughout the City
● Mental health services provided longer than 60 days. The City can collaborate with the County to create such a program
● Open detox centers that allow an individual to stay 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without a 10 day limit in order for them to seek assistance anytime of the day or night ● Create an advisory board or an oversight committee with diverse stakeholders that include a majority of individuals that work directly with the unhoused community for accountability and transparency regarding the decision making process for all homelessness funds
● Trainings for City staff that work primarily with the unhoused community that have mental health and substance abuse illnesses
● Create free sober living with job training and housing navigation for a year ● Use of emergency funds to support the outreach and care for unhoused children/youth with a response of 24 hours.
33 Office of Policy Development and Research. (2024). Eviction Protection Grant Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/eviction-protection-grant.html 32 The Fresno Right to Counsel Coalition. (2020) Right to Counsel Proposal. Retrieved from:
.https://leadershipcounsel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Fresno-Right-to-Counsel-Coalition-Community-Proposal .pdf.

Michelle Zumwalt

● Development and implementation of shelter standards for all City-supported shelters to provide due process for shelter residents facing “exits” from shelters and to ensure that shelters are providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities.

Additionally, the Draft element lacks policies and programs that have been uplifted by community residents for decades, also identified in LCJA’s August 2023 comment letter (see attachment A). We strongly urge the City to incorporate community-identified programs listed below into the Draft before submitting to HCD.
● Reinstate the Emergency Rental Assistance Program and Incorporate a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance. Once again we must reiterate that the data from Figure 1E-3.31: Percent of Renters Overpaying, Fresno, 2014-2019 fails to capture data from the housing crisis that ensued after the pandemic. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey data, 52% of all Fresno tenants renting are cost burdened and 92% of the 18,259 households that earn less than $20,000 annually are rent-burdened.34 The need for an Emergency Rental Assistance was created to respond to the needs of all residents but particularly those living in R/ECAP communities. This program was removed entirely from the July Draft to the November Draft and remains excluded in this revised Draft, even after continuous advocacy from residents. More than 19% of all households are cost burdened and more than 20% of all households are severely cost burdened. Additionally, the increase in rents are only exacerbating the housing crisis. This program would help R/ECAP communities as a placed based strategy.

Additionally, we recommend the inclusion of a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Protection Ordinance, which will protect existing residents from displacement and preserve housing choice and affordability. (HCD AFFH Guidance pg. 74). We recommend the following:
○ The City will implement a Rent Stabilization and Just Cause ordinance by December 2025 to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases and unjust evictions, and develop a rental registry.
■ The City will establish a community workgroup to develop a rent stabilization and just cause ordinance draft by Winter 2025. ■ The City will conduct at least one community workshop to inform the development of the ordinance by Spring 2025.
■ The City will release a draft ordinance for public review by Summer 2025.
■ The City will adopt the ordinance by December 2025.
34 Montalvo, M. (2024). Fresno Family Spends Over 30% of Its Income on Housing. Would Rent Control Change That? The Fresno Bee. Retrieved from:https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article276839841.html.

Michelle Zumwalt

● Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. In order to replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns and comply with local fair housing laws, the City must add stronger programs to their Draft. (HCD AFFH Guidance pg. 30). We strongly recommend that the City create and implement an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Per our analysis on governmental and non-governmental constraints and AFH, the City’s inadequate assessment does not provide sufficient information to create strong programs. Based on decades of experience, residents understand and want the City to adopt an Inclusionary Zoning program that would help the City reach its VLI and LI household units for this planning period. NIMBYism is a top constraint to build housing in Fresno, for example theMartinez v. City of Clovis case highlighted this issue.

Advocates were instrumental in winning this case where the court required sites to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA for lower income housing or for the RHNA carried over from the prior planning period must be made available at minimum densities as well as being available for development by-right…the Court decided that the City’s failure to zone for multi-family housing also violated the City’s AFFH duty.35 ● Establish a safe maximum indoor air temperature for residential dwellings. The Draft failed to complete an adequate AFH, site inventory analysis and a disaster-driven displacement risk analysis that assessed the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities particularly R/ECAP. As climate change exacerbates the intensity and longevity of heat waves, the City must take swift action to ensure the health and safety of all residents, but particularly at-risk populations such as children, senior citizens, people with disabilities, people with section 8, and people with autoimmune diseases. Therefore, we recommend the City include a program to establish a safe maximum indoor air temperature threshold for residential dwellings and a program to help facilitate the provision of cooling systems, such as heat pumps.
● Urban Greening. We strongly recommend the Draft include a program that addresses urban greening inorder to transform R/ECAP into areas of opportunity. Urban greening should be used to create buffer zones for residential dwellings that are surrounded by polluting land uses to mitigate health impacts.
● Citing Industrial Uses. In order for the City to fulfill their AFFH duty, they must incorporate place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization. (AFFH Guidance, pg. 73). We recommend that the City include a program that limits placing housing projects aways from heavy, light industrial uses or phasing out light/heavy industrial zones near R/ECAP. This will address the negative environmental, neighborhood, housing and health impacts associated with siting and operation of land 35 Insert link to case.

Michelle Zumwalt

uses such as industrial, agricultural, waste storage, freeways, energy production, etc. in disadvantaged communities. (AFFH Guidance, pg. 73).
● Impact Fees. We urge the City to include a program that places impact fees into a community benefit fund when polluting land uses and practices are placed near housing.

The community benefit fund will create revenue and should be managed by the community directly impacted to dictate where funds will be allocated in order to transform R/ECAP and fulfill the City’s AFFH duty.
● Developing Public Health Impact Reports for new industrial development in order to understand existing public health disparities and the potential of those conditions worsening as a result of industrial development, particularly in R/ECAP. Public health agencies should be resourced to support this analysis. The findings of these reports should be available publicly and be included in permit approval processes and other key decision-making milestones.
● Establish a Cargo/Freight Prohibition and Revenue Tax to directly fund community-based housing and projects in the neighborhoods most negatively impacted by years of environmental toxicity caused by freight.
● Incorporate Complete Streets principles into all transportation projects at all phases of development, including planning and land use decisions, scoping, design, implementation, maintenance, and performance monitoring. ● Establish a Housing Element Implementation Committee to oversee the timelines and implementation of each program and policy. The committee should be composed primarily by tenants, low-income homeowners, and at-risk populations to ensure implementation meets the needs of most at-risk communities.

Including the program recommendations listed above will ensure the City reaches state law compliance on their Housing Element and ensure programs and policies have clear timelines, metrics and Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. We reemphasize the need for the City to identify funding sources for all programs to ensure they will effectively be implemented in the upcoming years.

VII. Conclusion
The undersigned organizations welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating on the City of Fresno Housing Element Update to ensure the housing needs of all residents in the City are met in the upcoming years. Housing is an essential component of everyday life and tenants Michelle Zumwalt

who live in fear of losing their homes suffer tremendously, not just economically, but mentally and physically as well. California is currently facing a devastating housing crisis and the City of Fresno has a responsibility to ensure residents throughout the City live in safe, equitable and healthy housing.

Respectfully,
/s/
Jovana Morales Tilgren, Housing Policy Coordinator,
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Emmanuel Agraz-Torres, Policy Advocate
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
/s/
Melissa A. Morris, Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
[email protected]
510-891-9794 x 111
/s/
Lilia Becerril, Founder
Familias en Acción
Marisa Moraza, Political Director
PowerCA Action
Alexandra Alvarado, Community Organizer
Faith in the Valley
Dez Martinez, CEO
We are Not Invisible
Julian Mosley, Chair
Fresno Homeless Union
City of Frenso Community Residents
Lisa Fores, District 2
Ilda Villa, District 7
Guillermina Leon, District 3
Michelle Zumwalt

Rosalina Peña, District 3
Jose Jimenez, District 3
Araceli Sanabria, District 5
Yonas Pauloas, District 3
Cc:

Architect, Michelle Zumwalt,[email protected] City Manager Georgeanne White,[email protected] Planning Director Jennifer Clark,[email protected] Council President Analisa Perea,[email protected] Councilmember Mike Karbassi,[email protected]
Councilmember Miguel Arias,
[email protected]
Councilmember Tyler Maxwell,[email protected]
Councilmember Luis Chavez,[email protected]
Councilmember Garry Bredefeld,[email protected] Councilmember Nelson Esparza,[email protected]
Mayor Jerry Dyer,[email protected]
Jose Ayala, Housing Policy Specialist, California Department of Housing and Community Develoment
[email protected]
Paul, McDougall, California Department of Housing and Community Development, [email protected]

August 7
th, 2024

Michelle Zumwalt
Planning and Development Department, City of Fresno,
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721

On behalf of the California Apartment Association (CAA), I reiterate CAA’s support for the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element Update as currently written and as a follow-on to our letter from August 2023. The Housing Element update’s core goals and proposed policies reflect the importance and urgency of developing housing across Fresno County that is affordable and available to families of all income levels. CAA looks forward to working with all jurisdictions in successfully implementing this plan’s goals.

CAA appreciates the work Fresno County, the incorporated cities of Fresno County, and the Council of Governments have done on this Housing Element update. CAA looks forward to working with all stakeholders in the passage and implementation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element in its current iteration.

Sincerely,

Greg Terzakis
Senior Vice President

April12,2024
MichelleZumwalt,Architect
PlanningandDevelopmentDepartment,CityofFresno
2600FresnoStreet,Room3065
Fresno,CA93721
Sent via Email
RE: StateNoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresno’sRevisedPublicReviewDraft 2023–2031HousingElement
DearMs.Zumwalt:

LeadershipCounselforJusticeandAccountability(LCJA)worksalongsidethemostimpacted communitiestoadvocateforsoundpolicyanderadicateinjusticetosecureequalaccessto opportunityregardlessofwealth,race,income,andplace.WesubmittedlettersinOctober2022, August2023,andDecember2023(attachedinsameemail)tocommentontheNovember2023 RevisedDraftHousingElementsubmittedtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofHousingand CommunityDevelopment(HCD)onNovember3,2023(theDraft).WeappreciatetheCityof Fresnotakingthetimetoreadandrespondtoourcomments.Thereare,however,substantial revisionsneededbeforetheseconddraftisreleased,includingaddressingcommunityconcernsand

April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page2
prioritiesandadheringtotherequirementsinHCD’sNoncomplianceFindingsLetterfrom February1,2024. 1
I. TheCityMustEngagetheCommunityThroughouttheHousingElementDraft RevisionProcess
TheCitymustmeaningfullyengagealleconomicsegmentsofthecommunityinvariedwaysthat considerthediverseanduniqueneedsofcommunitymembers.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(9).Asstated inourpreviousletters,theDraftwasnotinformedbyadequateengagement.HCD’sNoncompliance FindingsrequiretheCitytoadequatelyengagecommunityresidentsindisadvantaged communities—speci
fically
,theresidentsinSouthwest,SouthCentral,andSoutheastFresno,the mobilehomeparkcommunitiesofThreePalmandJaneAddams,andthecommunity-based organizationsthatrepresentthem—astheCityrevisesitsDraft.HCDAppendixat9.LCJAhasnot beenmadeawareofanye
ort
bytheCitytoconductcommunityengagementorinformresidents
ofitsstatutorilymandatedHousingElementrevisionstodate.

WerecommendtheCityengagethecommunityinthefollowingways:(1)conductworkshopsin impactedcommunities2atvarioustimes,includingoutsideofthetypicalworkinghoursof5AM– 6PM;(2)providemultilingualmaterialsandtranslationservices(e.g.,Spanish,Hmong,Punjabi); (3)providehelpfulservicestofacilitatemoreinclusiveengagement(e.g.,childcareservices,meals, transportation);(4)supplyamixofin-personandvirtualengagementopportunities;and(5) conductvaried,targeted,andmultilingualoutreachconsideringtheuniqueneedsofindividual communities(e.g.,mailers,localneighborhoodnewsletters,leavingmaterialsincommunityspaces, bilingualradioads). SeeAFFHGuidanceat11.Withoutthisengagement,theCitywillnotbeableto adoptacompliantFinal6thCycleHousingElement.

II. TheCityMustCompleteanAnalysisofFairHousingandConstraints A.B.686(Cal.2018)addressesdiscriminatorylanduseandhousingpoliciesandpracticesby imposinganindependentstatemandateexpandingthedutyofallCalifornia’spublicagenciesto 2 E.g.,Southwest,SouthCentral,andSoutheastFresnoandthemobilehomeparksofThreePalmsandJaneAddams.. 1LetterfromtheDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopmenttoMichelleZumwalt,Architect,Planningand DevelopmentDepartmentoftheCityofFresno(Feb.1,2024),https://fresnomjhe.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ fre-fresno-draft-out-020124.pdf[hereinafterHCDLetter];LetterfromtheDepartmentofHousingandCommunity DevelopmenttoMichelleZumwalt,Architect,PlanningandDevelopmentDepartmentoftheCityofFresnoapp.(Feb. 1,2024),https://fresnomjhe.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/fre-fresno-draft-out-020124.pdf[hereinafterHCD Appendix].

April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page3
AFFHandalsoensureslocaljurisdictionscomplywithnewhousingelementrequirements.Gov’t Code§8899.50; seeAFFHGuidanceat7.Inordertoamelioratepastactionsthatledtoinequity, decisionmakersmustcreateland-useandfundingpoliciestoincreasea ordable housinginhigh
resourceneighborhoodsandbringadditionalresourcestotraditionallyunder-resourced neighborhoods.AFFHGuidanceat6.HCDhasstipulatedcertaininadequacieswiththeCity’s AFFHdutyandhousingelementrequirementswhichrequirerevisionfortheCitytobefoundin complianceforits6thCycleHousingElement. SeeHCDAppendixat1–3,8.

TheNovemberDraftandtheCity’splansanddiscussionstodateregardingthe6thCycleHousing ElementanditsimplementationdonotAFFHandare materially inconsistentwiththisduty. Gov’t Code§8899.50; seeAFFHMemoat1;AFFHGuidanceat8–9.Forexample,pleaseseethe discussionregardingtheexclusionofresidentprioritiesintheCity’screationofitsprograms infra SectionI.Inaddition,theCityhasrecentlyengagedinproblematicrhetoricaroundthe2023 AnnualProgressReportonits5thCycleHousingElement,itsRHNA,andthe6thCycleHousing Elementdrafting:TheCityhasreiterateditisnotprioritizinga ordable
housingproduction;itis
not willing to create the necessary conditionstofacilitateitsdevelopment;anditissubjectingitselfto theconsequences 3ofanoncomplianthousingelement,includingshorterrezoningdeadlines, possiblelegalenforcement,and forfeiture of millions of dollarsindevelopmentfunding. 4Through theseactions,theCityhasviolateditsbroadAFFHDuty.HCD’sFindings,whichtheCityhasnot prioritizedortakenseriously, 5compeltheCitytodiscusshowitcomplieswithfairhousinglaws, includingtheCity’sbroaddutytoAFFH.HCDAppendixat1; seeGov’tCode§8899.50.TheCity mustcriticallyexamineitspastandcurrentpoliciesandpractices(includingCitysta ’s
rhetoric,
characterization,andactionsregardingstatehousingandcivilrightslaws)andensureits6thCycle HousingElement,inaccordancewithHCD’sFindings,ful fills
itsdutytoAFFH.
5 See3/21CCMeeting supranote4.TheCitydelayedinnotifyingCityCouncilandthepublicthatitwasoutof compliancewithits6thCycleHousingElement,showingtheyarenotseriouswithcomplyingwithstatehousingand civilrightslaws.
4 SeeHearingtoReceivePublicCommentonthe2023HousingElementandGeneralPlanAnnualProgressReports, CityCouncilMeeting,CityofFresno(Mar.21,2024),https://fresno.granicus.com/player/clip/1603?view_id= 1&redirect=true[hereinafter3/21CCMeeting].Duringthismeeting,theCitypresentedits2023HousingElement AnnualProgressReport(APR).SophiaPagoulatos,theSeniorManagerofLongRangePlanning(LRP)fortheCity’s PlanningandDevelopmentDepartmentgaveapresentationcoveringanoverviewoftheAPR,includingdiscussing whatthehousingelementis,the
fivemainobjectivesoftheCity’shousingelement,theCity’sRegionalHousingNeeds Allocation(RHNA)data,housingapplicationsprocessed,a ordablehousinginthepipeline,highlightsaboutprograms, andoutreach.Thispresentationwasfollowedbypubliccommentandcouncilmembers'responsetothepublic comment.
3HCDLetterat1–2.

April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page4
A. TheCitymustadoptprogramsthataddressdisproportionatehousingneeds, resultinabene ficial
impact,anda rmativ
elyfurtherfairhousing.

HCDfinds
thattheCityfailstoevaluatethecharacteristicsofRaciallyandEthnicallyConcentrated AreasofPoverty(R/ECAP),their“changesovertime,comparisonstootherneighborhoodsinterms ofequitablequalityoflifeandconsiderotherrelevantfactors,suchaspublicparticipation,past policies,practices,andinvestmentsanddemographictrends.”HCDcontinuestostatethatmostof theSouthernportionoftheCityisanareaofHighSegregationandPovertythatwasnotproperly analyzedandthereforetheCityfailedtoincludesigni ficant
andbeneficial
actions,including
place-basedstrategiestowardcommunityrevitalizationthataretargetedtowardstheseareas.

InordertoA rmatively
FurtherFairHousing(AFFH),theCitymustengagecommunitiesand incorporatepoliciesandprogramsthataddresstheirneeds,butspeci fically decreasethetrajectoryof
continualconcentratedareasofpoverty.Outlinedbelowisalistofcommunity-basedprioritieswe submittedonOctober3,2022thattheCityshouldincludeintheseconddraft. ● Adoptalocalrentstabilizationordinance,toprotecttenantsfromcontinuously risingrents,includingarentstabilizationboardtohearandapproverentalincreases submittedbylandlords
● Adoptionoftenantprotectionstoreducedisplacementrisks,includingjustcause evictionthataddressgapsinprotectionsa
orded
underthe2019TenantProtection
Actandarighttocounselguaranteeingaccesstoa ordable
legalcounselfor
low-incometenantsinhousingmatters
● InclusionaryZoningOrdinance
● IndustrialZoningMoratoriumforheavilyburdenedlowincomeresidentialareas ● FutureIndustrialZoningsitingprohibitednearunderservedcommunities-placing housingsitesawayfromheavy,lightindustrialusesorphasingoutlight/heavy industrialzones
● Establishapermanentemergencyrentalassistanceprogramtoassistresidentsatrisk ofhomelessnessduetorentincreasesandchangedcircumstancesandabilitytopay.

Identi
fication
ofapermanentlocalsourceoffundingwillensurecontinuousfunding andthattheprogramcanbeusedtopreventdisplacement.TheCityofFresnocan leveragetheLocalHousingTrustFunddollarsandtheStateiscontinuingtogrant moniesforrentalassistanceprograms
● Establishapermanent
first-time
homeownershipassistanceprogramtohelptenants
becomefirst-time
homeowners.Closingcostsanddownpaymentassistancefor
April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page5
low-income,first-time
homebuyerscanhelpclosethehousinggap.Residentswith
ITINnumbersshouldbeeligibleforthisprogram
● Investmentsinimprovementstomobilehomeparkstoaddresstheneeds,including needsfromthemobileparkassessmentstudy,includingweatherizationandclimate resiliencyneeds,toimproveindoorandoutdoorairquality,andtoexpandaccessto greenspace
● Establishasafemaximumindoorairtemperatureforresidentialdwellings ● Extremeheatandweatherizationprogramstoaddressclimatechange.Thisincludes fundingforweatherizationupgradestohomesandrentalunits,speci fically
incensus
tractsthatrankthehighestonCalEnviroScreenforpollutionandpoorhealth outcomesandaremostvulnerabletoclimatechange
● Establishanacquisitionandrehabilitationfundtopurchaseolder,blighted,and/or abandonedhomes/buildings.TheCountyandtheCityofFresnocanestablisha revolvingfundtoinsurethatrehabilitatedhomesaresoldbacktothecommunityat alowcost
● Grantsforresidentswhowanttodevelopa
ordable
accessorydwellingunitson
theirlandinboththeCityandCountyofFresno.Someresidentsarewillingtosell parcelsoflandtotheCountytodevelopa
ordable
housingandincreasehousing
supply
● UrbanGreeningisusedasbu er
zoneswhenresidentialisplaced oralreadyplaced
nearexistingpollutinglandusestomitigatehealthimpacts
● SuitableVacantLandshouldbeprioritizedfora ordable
housinginordertobring
VeryLowIncomeandLowIncomeRHNAallocationsintocompliance
● Impactfeesshouldbeplacedintoacommunitybene fit
fundwhenpollutingland
usesandpracticesareplacednearhousing.Thecommunitybene fit fundwillbe
managedbythecommunitydirectlyimpactedtodictatetowhothesefundsshould beallocated.

HCDnotesthattheelementmustreevaluatethepatternsandtrendsofRaciallyConcentratedAreas ofAuence
(RCAA)intheCityand,dependingontheoutcomeoftheanalysis,implementor modifymeaningfulprogramsthattakeactiontopromotehousingmobilityinthecitysuchas:
● AntiDiscriminationandHarassmentRenterProtections
● Developmentofmorea ordable
housingrentalunitsinHighOpportunityZonesof
Auence
April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page6
● PrioritizeSuitablevacantlandfordevelopmentofa ordable purchasablehousing
buildersie:HabitatforHumanityorSelfHelpEnterprises
Additionally,sectionC-2inHCD’s findings
statethat,“basedontheoutcomesofacomplete
analysis”theelementmustmakespeci fic
eorts
towardsprogramsthatincludethehousingneedsof
Farmworkers.Communitymembershighlightedthebene fit
ofaprogramthatinforms
Farmworkersoftheirrightsinawaythatisaccessibletothem.Aprogramsuchasthiswould involve:
● Employingabilingual/multilingual outreachteamthatreasonablyoperatesoutside ofthetypicalworkinghoursofaFarmworker.
● ImplementingOutreachMethodsthatmeetFarmworkerswheretheyarewithout fearofhostilityorinquiryoflegalstatusinspacesfrequentedbyFarmworkers(i.e FresnoCherryAuction,ResourceFairsthattakeplaceinheavilyimpacted communities.)
B. GovernmentalConstraints
TheCitymustalsoidentifyconstraintstothesitesidenti
fied
forpotentialhousingasrequiredby
Gov.Code§65583(a)(5),andabidebyitsdutytoA rmatively
FurtherFairHousing(“AFFH”)by
“notonly[conducting]ananalysisofsitecapacitytoaccommodatetheRHNA,butidentif[ying] sites[that]servethepurposeofreplacingsegregatedlivingpatternswithtrulyintegratedand balancedlivingpatterns,transformingraciallyandethnicallyconcentratedareasofpovertyinto areasofopportunity.”HCDAFFHGuidance,p.12,Gov.Code§8890.50.subd.(b).

DependingonacompleteanalysisofpotentialGovernmentconstraints,thecitymayhavethe opportunitytoreviseoraddprogramsandpotentially“addressandremoveormitigateany identi
fied
constraints”.SectionB4ofHCD’sFindingslistLandusecontrols,Localprocessingand permitprocedures,andon/o siteimprovements,andConstraintsonHousingforPersonswith disabilities(ResidentialCareFacilities,landusecontrols,andReasonableaccommodationsappeals).

InourprevioushousingElementCommunitymeeting,residentsidenti fied
thefollowingpriorities
thatcouldbedevelopedintoprogramsthatmeaningfullyaddressgovernmentalconstraints. ● Allowinghigher-densityunitsinhighresourcedareas
● Supportingmulti-familydeveloperswhoareincompetitionwithsinglefamilydevelopers forthesamesites
● Reducedpermittingtimelinesformulti-familydevelopments April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page7
● TheCityshouldcommitnotonlytoremovingthelimitonthe
numberofunitsthatcanbecontainedinanSRObutalsoadditasapermitteduseinthe followingzones:RM-MH,RM-2,anddowntownwhileremovingconditionalusepermit requirementsfromRM-2,RM-3,NMX,CMX,andRMX.
● ChangestotheMuniCodesection15-2729,whichwillremoveconstraintsonthe developmentofemergencyshelters
● Programstosupportat-riskhousing
III. Conclusion
WeurgetheCitytoaddresstheissuesoutlinedinthisletterandpreviousletterssubmittedbyLCJA andHCD.WelookforwardtodiscussingthemwithyouandcontinuingtoworkwiththeCityto ensurethatitadoptsaHousingElementthatfullycomplieswiththelawandaddressestheserious housingneedsanddisparitiesthatimpactCityofFresnoresidents.

Sincerely,
EmmanuelAgraz-Torres
HousingPolicyAdvocate,CityofFresno
LeadershipCounselforJustice&Accountability
JasmineRobinson
LegalAdvocate/LegalFellowSponsoredbyWeil,Gotshal&MangesLLP LeadershipCounselforJustice&Accountability
ValFeldman
Sta
Attorney
PublicInterestLawProject

April12,2024 NoncomplianceFindingsfortheCityofFresnoCommentLetter Page8
MarisaMoraza
PoliticalDirector
PowerCalifornia
EdithRico
ProjectDirector
FresnoBuildingHealthyCommunities
NayminMartinez
ExecutiveDirector
CentralCaliforniaEnvironmentalJusticeNetwork
MarcelWoodru

CommunityOrganizers
FaithintheValley
CC:

LandUseandPlanningUnit([email protected] ),CaliforniaDepartmentof HousingandCommunityDevelopment
JoseAyala,HousingPolicySpecialist,CaliforniaDepartmentofHousingand CommunityDevelopment
RobertSwanson,DeputyAttorneyGeneral,DepartmentofJustice—CaliforniaAttorney General’sBureauofEnvironmentalJustice
LucasWilliams,Partner,LexingtonLawGroup
December12,2023
MichelleZumwalt,Architect
PlanningandDevelopmentDepartment,CityofFresno
2600FresnoStreet,Room3065
Fresno,CA93721
Sent via Email
RE: CityofFresno’sRevisedPublicReviewDraft2023–2031HousingElement DearMs.Zumwalt:

LeadershipCounselforJusticeandAccountability(LCJA)writesthiscommentletterin collaborationwiththePublicInterestLawProject(PILP)andresidentsofSouthFresno neighborhoodsimpactedbytheseverelackofdecentquality,a
ordable,
andpermanenthousing
options,gapingdisparitiesinaccesstoopportunityinFresno,andcontinuedrefusaloftheCityof Fresno(theCity)tomeaningfullyengagewithresidents,especiallythoseindisadvantaged communities,andincorporatetheirprioritiesintocityplanningandpolicies.Thiscommentletter addressestheNovember2023RevisedDraftAppendix1-E:CityofFresnointheFresno Multi-Jurisdictional2023–2031HousingElement(NovemberDraft).

LCJAworksalongsidethemostimpactedcommunitiestoadvocateforsoundpolicyanderadicate injusticetosecureequalaccesstoopportunityregardlessofwealth,race,income,andplace.

Throughcommunityorganizing,research,communications,legalrepresentation,andpolicy advocacy,LCJAin
fluences
landuseandtransportationplanning,shiftspublicinvestmentpriorities, guidesenvironmentalpolicy,andpromotestheprovisionofbasicinfrastructureandservices.PILP worksstatewidetosupportlocallegalprogramsthataddressissuesinvolvinghousing,landuse, publicbene
fits
andhomelessness.PILPhasbeenprovidingsubstantivetraining,litigationsupport, andtechnicalassistanceintheseareasforovertwenty- five
years.

Thefollowingrecommendationsarebasedonourexperiencetopushfortransformative community-ledandidenti
fied
solutionstoelevateandadvancetheirprioritiesforsafe,a ordable housing
optionsandfairhousingchoices.TheHousingElementisanimportantpieceofplanning ourcommunitiesandsolvingourhousingcrisistogether.Further,theStateofCaliforniahas recentlystrengthenedthelawsgoverningtheHousingElement.WithlawssuchasA.B.686 (Santiago,2018)andA.B.1397(Low,2017),weexpectthisHousingElementtoberobust, LCJA: 2210 San Joaquin Street, Fresno, CA 93721 | (559) 369-2790 PILP: 449 15th Street, Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 891-9794

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

meaningful,andindicativeofsolvingourhousingcrisis.Asalways,wearewillingtopartnerand workalongsidetheCitytoensurethattheserequirementsareful filled andevenexceededinorder
tocreatethechangewewanttoseeintheSanJoaquinValley.

OurcommentsbelowhighlightfurtherstepsandactionstheCitymusttaketomeetstateHousing ElementLaw,A rmatively
FurtheringFairHousing(AFFH)law,andstateandfederalcivilrights lawrequirements.Wehavealsoattachedpreviouscommentlettersthatwehavecollaboratively writtenwithothercommunity-basedorganizations(CBOs)regardingtheCity’s6thCycleHousing Element(2023–2031)identi
fied
asAttachmentsA, 1B,2andC. 3WhiletheNovemberDraftdoes
includesomerevisionsthataddresscertaincommentsinourpreviousletters,manyissuesweand communitymemberspreviouslyraisedremainunaddressed.Inshort,theNovemberDraftfailsto meetFresno’shousingneedsandrelevantstatestatutoryrequirementsinseveraldi erent
waysand
theCitymustundertakethefollowing:
● MeaningfulPublicParticipation
○ Conductmeaningfulandvariedcommunityengagement,targetedoutreachand considerationoftheuniquecommunitiesandpopulationsserved,especially communitieswithprotectedcharacteristics,beforethe
final
adoptionoftheHousing
Element.SeeGov’tCode§65583(c)(9); Aғғɪʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ Fᴜʀᴛʜᴇʀɪɴɢ Fᴀɪʀ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ:

Gᴜɪᴅᴀɴᴄᴇ ғᴏʀ Aʟʟ Pᴜʙ. Eɴᴛɪᴛɪᴇs & ғᴏʀ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs, Cᴀʟ. Dᴇᴘ'ᴛ ᴏғ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ & Cᴍᴛʏ. Dᴇᴠ'ᴛ18(2021)[hereinafterHCDAFFHGuidance].
○ Provideformeaningfulongoingpublicparticipationandincorporationof communityprioritiestofacilitateimplementationofhousing-relatedpolicies throughoutthe6thCycleplanningperiod. SeeGov’tCode§65583(c)(9);HCDAFFH Guidanceat18.
● AdequateIncorporationofPublicComments
○ Summarizeallcommentsreceived—thisincludesinformationgatheredin stakeholderconsultations,studysessions,communityworkshops,thecommunity survey,anypubliccommentsandcommentlettersreceivedduringcitycouncil meetingsandreceivedviaemail. SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat22.
○ DiscusstheprocesstheCityusedtoprioritizethehousingissuesraisedacrossall comments.Seeid.
3CommentLetterfromPub.Int.L.Project&LeadershipCouns.forJust.&AccountabilitytoMayorJerryDyer,Fresno CityCouncilmembers,&MichelleZumwalt(Aug.16,2023)(on
filewithauthor)[hereinafterAttachmentC].
2CommentLetterfromLeadershipCouns.forJust.&Accountabilityetal.toMayorJerryDyer,FresnoCity Councilmembers,&MichelleZumwalt(Aug.16,2023)(on filewithauthor)[hereinafterAttachmentB]. 1CommentLetterfromLeadershipCouns.forJust.&Accountabilityetal.totheFresnoCnty.Bd.ofSupervisors,the CitiesofFresnoCnty.CityCouncils,&DeputyDir.KristineCaioftheFresnoCouncilofGov’ts(Oct.3,2022)(on file withauthor)[hereinafterAttachmentA].

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

○ ExplainhowtheprioritizedhousingissueswereincorporatedintotheHousing Elementandacknowledgethehousingissuesraisedinpubliccommentsthatwere notincorporatedintotheHousingElementandwhy. Seeid.
● AnalyzeandPrioritizeConstraintsandContributingFactorstoFairHousingIssues ○ Analyzeandprioritizegovernmentalconstraintsondevelopinga ordable
housing.

SeeGov’tCode§65583(c)(3);HCDAFFHGuidanceat52.Ultimately,ananalysis shouldbethoughtofasadetailedandcriticalquestioningofanythingcomplexin ordertounderstanditsnature,determineitsfeatures,andassessitsprogressor fitness.Seediscussion
onthede finition
ofthewordanalysis infranote9.Speci fic
analyses
include,butarenotlimitedto:
■ Impactsofcurrentandplannedzoningregulations.
■ Riskstopubliclyassisteda ordable
housinganddistribution.
■ Impactsofthelackoftenantprotectionsonthemaintenanceofhousing. ■ Impactsoftheimplementationandenforcementofthebuildingcode. ■ Delaysorrestrictionsindevelopmentresultingfromrequiredonsite/o site improvement
standards.
○ Analyze,seediscussiononthede finition
ofanalysis infranote9,andprioritize
nongovernmentalconstraintsthatdelaydevelopinga ordable housing.SeeGov’t
Code§65583(c)(3).Speci fic
analysesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
■ ImpactsofNIMBYs.
■ Risksofclimatechange,extremeweather,pollution,waterinstability, infrastructuredevelopmentandotherenvironmentalconstraints. ■ E
ects
ofmarketforcesandavailabilityof financing.
■ Significance
oflandandconstructioncosts.
○ Analyze,identify,andprioritizeallfairhousingissuesandcontributing factors—consideringcommunityinput,theLocalAssessmentofFairHousing (AFH),andthesitesinventory—especiallyconsideringtheadditionofdatainthe NovemberDraftprovidingevidenceofmorehousingissuesbutafailuretoidentify anynewcontributingfactors. SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat25.
○ Justifytheimplementationprogramswithmeetingtheneedsaddressingthe contributingfactorstofairhousingissues—thismeanslinkingthecontributing factorstopolicyandmeaningfulactions.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(10)(A)(iv); seeHCD AFFHGuidanceat12.
○ Analyzehow5thCycleHousingElementprogramshavecontinuedsegregationand notadequatelyfacilitatedintegration,healthycommunities,andaccessto opportunity.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(10)(A)(iii); seeHCDAFFHGuidanceat46. ● AdequateSitesandAFFHCompliance
○ Analyzetheviabilityofnon-vacantsitesandlargesites. SeeGov’tCode §§65583(c)(1);65583.2;HCDAFFHGuidanceat12.
○ Provideevidenceofapprovalduringtheprojectionperiodcreditedagainstthe RegionalHousingNeedsAssessment(RHNA). SeeGov’tCode§65583(c)(1).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

○ Analyzeenvironmentalconstraintsontheoverallavailabilityofinventorysites. See Gov’tCode§65583(5).
● AdequateImplementationPrograms
○ Addneededimplementationprogramsthatarere flective
ofcommunity
priorities—thisincludesprioritiesfromarecentLCJACommunityMeetingon December5,2023,previouscommentletters,andpublichearingsandworkshops.

SeeGov’tCode,§8890.50(a)(1),(b),(d);Gov’tCode§65583(c). ○ ReviseimplementationprogramswhicharenoncompliantwiththeHousing ElementandAFFHlawsregardingspeci
fic,
concrete,enforceableactionswith
measurableoutcomes,milestones,andtimelines. SeeGov’tCode,§8890.50(a)(1),(b), (d);Gov’tCode§65583(c).
○ Strengthenimplementationprogramstobetterconstitutemeaningfulactions. See Gov’tCode,§8890.50(a)(1),(b),(d);Gov’tCode§65583(c).

I. TheCityFailstoFacilitateMeaningfulPublicParticipationInfrastructureinIts HousingElementPracticestoPromoteSustainableCommunityInvolvement.

Thepreparation,adoption,andimplementationofahousingelementrequiresadiligente ort to
includealleconomicsegmentsofthecommunity.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(9).Theelementmust describemeaningful,frequent,andongoingcommunityparticipation,consultation,and coordinationthatisintegratedwiththebroaderstakeholderoutreachandcommunityparticipation processfortheoverallhousingelement.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(9)–(10);Gov’tCode §8899.50(a)–(c).TheCitymustproactivelyreachouttoindividualsandorganizationsthat representlowerincomehouseholds,peopleinprotectedclasses,andhouseholdswithspecialneeds todevelopopenandmutualcommunication.HCDAFFHGuidanceat18.TheCity’sNovember Draftdoesnotdemonstratecompliancewiththestatutorypublicparticipationrequirements.A shortoutlineoftheseissuesincludes:
● Afailuretodemonstratemeaningfulandvariedcommunityengagementande ective
meetings.
● A
lackofe ective
targetedoutreachandconsiderationoftheuniquecommunitiesand populationsserved.
● Alackofregardforongoingpublicparticipationandconsiderationofresidents’housing issuepriorities.

AstheCBOOctober2022CommentLetterhighlighted,theCity’spublicparticipatione orts
should
proactivelyandbroadlybeconductedthroughvariousmethods 4toensureaccessand 4TheCaliforniaHousingandCommunityDevelopmentDepartment(HCD)providesguidanceonapproachestopublic participation,includingthefollowing:

Beproactiveinreachingouttothecommunity.Visitneighborhoodsandparticipateinlocalevents.

Establishanongoinghousing-elementupdateandimplementationcommittee....Usedirectmail, December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

participation(e.g.,holdingworkshopsindisadvantagedcommunitiesandconductinge ective outreach
forthem;conductingtargetedoutreachtospecialneedspopulations/protectedclasses; advertisingopportunitiestoparticipateinandprovidefeedbackonthehousingelementupdatein non-Englishlanguageprintmedia,radio,andtelevision,includingmediainSpanish,Hmong,and otherlanguagesspokenbyFresnoresidents). SeeAttachmentAat2–4.Successfulpublic participationisimportantbecauseadiversecrosssectionofthepopulationcanbeengagedin de
fining
thehousingproblemandincraftingsolutionsthatworkforeveryoneinthecommunity. 5 A. TheHousingElementisNotInformedbyMeaningfulorVariedEngagement TheCitylackstheabilityto“maintainintegrity”withthecommunitybyfailingto“conduct e
ective
meetingsandestablishrapportearly”andbytreatingpublicparticipationrequirementsas anopportunityto“‘rubberstamp’apredeterminedobjectiveorpolicy.” 6WhiletheCitydidconduct aseriesofcommunityworkshops 7afteritsreleaseoftheJulyDraft,thereisnoevidencethatthis publicengagementwasmeaningfulforthecommunityorprovidedanavenuetotranslateanyof theirprioritiesintoconcreteactions.TheCitydidcollectalotofinformation,notingthatthese workshopsprovidedalmosttwohundredcomments, 8butthereseemstobenoanalysis(de fined
by
Merriam-Webster’sDictionaryas“adetailedexaminationofanythingcomplexinorderto understanditsnatureortodetermineitsessentialfeatures:athoroughstudy”), 9discussion,oreven 9Itisimportanttonotethatananalysisisnotameresummaryordescription.Itinvolvesquestioningatopicinmore detail.Ultimately,ananalysisshouldbethoughtofasadetailedandcriticalquestioningofanythingcomplexinorderto understanditsnature,determineitsfeatures,andassessitsprogressor fitness.Merriam-Webster’sDictionaryde finition
ofanalysisis:“adetailedexaminationofanythingcomplexinordertounderstanditsnatureortodetermineitsessential features:athoroughstudy.” Analysis,Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ: Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ.ᴄᴏᴍ Dɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ,https://www.merriam- 8Id.at1E-6-14.
7TheCityconductedsixcommunityworkshopsbetweenJuly20andAugust9,2023. SeeNovemberDraftat1E-i, 1E-6-2,1E-6-3.
6PublicParticipation,supranote4.
5PublicParticipation,supranote4; seealso A
rmativelyFurtheringFairHousing,80Fed.Reg.42272,42293–94(July16, 2015)[hereinafterHUD’sAFFHRule](describinghowalllocalities“shallensurethatallaspectsofcommunity participationareconductedinaccordancewithfairhousingandcivilrightslaws”andthat“communityparticipation processesmustconsiderthepopulationsserved,andwheretheyarelocated,andtheymustchoosepublicparticipation approachesthatwillreachthepopulationsserved”).
radioads,andlocalprintorelectronicmedia(suchasneighborhoodnewsletters)tocommunicate opportunitiestoengageinthehousing-elementprocess.Alwaysconsiderthecompositionofyour targetaudienceandusecommunicationtoolsthatarelanguage-appropriate,culturallysensitive,and grade-levelreadability.Usecreativemethodstocommunicatetheimportanceofallstagesofthe housing-elementprocess.Useattractivedirect-mailbrochuresandsurveystocaptureinformation.

Considermobileresources....Considerhavingbarbequesorsetupinformationdisplaysat communityeventstoenhanceinteractionwiththepublic. PublicParticipation, Cᴀʟ. Dᴇᴘ’ᴛ ᴏғ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ & Cᴍᴛʏ. Dᴇᴠ.: Bʟᴅɢ. Bʟᴏᴄᴋs: A Cᴏᴍᴘʀᴇʜᴇɴsɪᴠᴇ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ-Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ Gᴜɪᴅᴇ, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks /public-participation(lastvisitedonDec.7,2023).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

acknowledgmentoftheimportanceofthisfeedback,followingupwithresidents,oranye ort to
showthattheCitytookthecommentsseriouslyandincorporatedthemintotheNovemberDraft. 10 Communityparticipation“meansasolicitationofviewsandrecommendationsfrommembersof thecommunityandotherinterestedparties,aconsiderationoftheviewsandrecommendations received,andaprocessforincorporatingsuchviewsandrecommendationsintodecisionsand outcomes.”HCDAFFHGuidanceat64.Notcommunicatingwiththecommunityaboutwhat happenedtotheirfeedback,whereyouareintheprocessandwhat
final
decisionsaremadecan
easilybreakthetrustyouareworkingtobuildthrougharobustcommunityengagementprocess. 11 Additionally,theCityprovidedlimiteddirectengagementmethods:communityworkshopsand sendingoutacommunitysurvey. 12Themainsourceofdirectengagementwithresidentswas workshopsandthisdoesnotconstitutevariedorcreativemethodstoengagethecommunity. 13 Communitymembersneedtobeengagedthroughavarietyofformssothatresidentswhohaveless capacitytoattendtraditionalmeetingsorarenotascivic-mindedhaveachancetomaketheir voicesheard. 14Werecommendfocusingonbuildingrapportandtrustinthecommunity,providing otherformsofengagementoutsideofcommunitymeetings(e.g.,guidedtoursofhousing developments/sites,mobilesources,andattendingcommunityevents),followingupwithresidents afterthisengagement,andcreatingsafeandaccommodatingspacesforcommunity-focusedpublic meetings.

TheCityshouldengageinmorepublicengagementbeforeitsJanuary31,2024deadlineforits adopted6thCycleHousingElementinordertobecompliantwiththestatutorymandatesunder GovernmentCodesection8890.50(a)(1),(b)and(d)andGovernmentCodesection65583(c)(9).

Thisengagementmustbevariedandmeaningful.Werecommendfocusingonbuildingrapportand trustinthecommunity,providingotherformsofengagementoutsideofcommunitymeetings(e.g., 14Pillar3:Engage, supranote10.
13SeePublicParticipation ,supranote4(givingexamplesofcreativeengagementmethodssuchas:mobileresources, barbeques,informationdisplaysatcommunityevents,guidedtoursofmarket-rateanda ordabledevelopmentsand
sitesbeingconsideredforhousingdevelopment,trainingandeducationworkshops,andcomputersimulations). 12NovemberDraftat1E-6-1.
11Id.provideshelpfullinkstoadditionalpublicparticipationresources;foronehelpfulresource,see Pillar3:Engage, Iɴsᴛ. ғᴏʀ Lᴏᴄ. Gᴏᴠ’ᴛ: Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ & Pᴜʙ. Eɴɢᴀɢᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ Tᴏᴏʟᴋɪᴛ,https://housingtoolkit.ca-ilg.org/post/pillar-3-engage(last visitedDecember7,2023).
10SeePublicParticipation ,supranote4(describinghowlocalitiesshould“[f]ollowupaftereachevent.Afterholdinga publicforumoractivity,establishaproceduretofollowupwithconcreteactiontoaddressthecommunity’sconcerns.

Besurethatallinformationrelevanttotheprocessismadeavailable,eitheratregularmeetingsorbypostingtoa website.Thiswillhelptoestablishandmaintainthejurisdiction’scredibility”). webster.com/dictionary/analysis(lastvisitedDec.10,2023).Forfurtherclari fication,thewordexamineisde finedas:
“toinspectclosely...totestbyquestioninginordertodetermineprogress, fitness,orknowledge.” Examine, Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ: Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ.ᴄᴏᴍ Dɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ,https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/examine(last visitedDec.10,2023).And finally,thewordinspectisde finedas:“toviewcloselyincriticalappraisal:lookover.” Inspect, Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ: Mᴇʀʀɪᴀᴍ-Wᴇʙsᴛᴇʀ.ᴄᴏᴍ Dɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴀʀʏ, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspect(lastvisitedDec.10,2023).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

guidedtoursofhousingdevelopments/sites,mobilesources,andattendingcommunityevents), followingupwithresidentsafterthisengagement,andcreatingsafeandaccommodatingspacesfor community-focusedpublicmeetings.Wealsorecommendmaximizingthee ciency
ofmeetingsby
havingtheHousingDivisionpromoteinvolvementofallappropriatelocaldepartmentstoensure interdepartmentalissuesareaddressedinacomprehensiveande cient
manner.15
B. TheCityFailedtoFacilitateTargetedandInclusiveOutreachandMeetings.

GovernmentCodesection65583(c)(9)requiresthatthelocalgovernmentshallmake“adiligent e
ort
...toachievepublicparticipationofalleconomicsegmentsofthecommunityinthe developmentofthehousingelement,andtheprogramshalldescribethise ort.” Inaddition,the
FederalDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment’s(HUD)AFFH2015FinalRule—which was“essentiallypreserve[d]”bythepassageofCalifornia’sA.B.686,HCDAFFHGuidanceat 13—statestheimportanceoflocalitiesoutreache
orts,
sayingtheyshould“tailoroutreache orts
to
ensureeectiveness
giventhepopulationsintheirareas....thatwillprovideformeaningful actions....[Localities]shouldemploycommunicationsmethodsthataredesignedtoreachthe broadestaudience,andthatareconductedinaccordancewithfairhousingandcivilrightslaws, includingTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964.”HCDAFFHGuidanceat16;80Fed.Reg.at 42295.

TheCityhasfailedtodemonstrateadequateoutreachandmeetingsinclusiveofallsectorsofthe population.FortheJuly/Augustcommunitymeetings,theCitystatesitsonlyoutreachconducted wasthatcitysta
sentoutfourcitywideemailblastsandfoursocialmediaposts.NovemberDraftat 1E-6-13.TheCityprovidesnoinformationontheadequacyoftheoutreachtoallsectorsofthe community,providingnoexplanationregardingthedemographicsoftheirfollowersand subscribersorexplanationwhatlanguagestheinformationwaspresentedin.Thisisproblematic consideringthedemographicstatistics:28.3percentofpeople,approximately245,209individuals, inFresnoCountyhavelimited-Englishspeakingpro
ficiency16and

15.9percentofhouseholds,
approximately28,000households,lackaccesstointernetintheCityofFresno, 17withtheserealities disproportionatelyaecting
low-incomeneighborhoodsandcommunitiesofcolor.

Furthermore,theCityappearstonothaveo ered
translationservicesattheJuly/Augustmeetings
anddidnotindicatehavingprovidedmaterialsatthemeetingsinmultiplelanguages.November Draftat1E-6-13to1E-6-16.Thesesameissues—lackofadequateoutreach,translationservicesat 17AnnalisaPerea, FresnoCouncilmemberSeekstoClosetheDigitalDivideWithMoreInternetAccess|Opinion , Fʀᴇsɴᴏ Bᴇᴇ (July25,2023,11:02AM),https://www.fresnobee.com/article277638528.html#storylink=cpy. 16 Fʀᴇsɴᴏ Cɴᴛʏ. Rᴜʀᴀʟ Tʀᴀɴsɪᴛ Aɢᴇɴᴄʏ, Fʀᴇsɴᴏ Cɴᴛʏ. Rᴜʀᴀʟ Tʀᴀɴsɪᴛ Aɢᴇɴᴄʏ’s Tɪᴛʟᴇ VI Pʀᴏɢʀᴀᴍ: Uᴘᴅᴀᴛᴇ 2023–2026,at29(2023),
https://www.ruraltransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/FCRTA-Title-VI-2023-Final.pdf. 15PublicParticipation,supranote4(“Forexample,thepublicworksdepartmentmaybeabletoprovideinformationabout infrastructureissues,andthecodesdepartmentmayhaveinformationabouttheconditionofthehousingstock.”).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

meetings,andmultilingualpresentationmaterials—seemedabsentattheCity’sEvents#2-10:

CommunityandStakeholderMeetings(October/November2022)andEvents#11-15:Community Workshops(February/March2023)aswell:TheCityprovidednoinformationordiscussiononthe availabilityofthesefacetsinrelationtothesemeetings. SeeNovemberDraftat1E-6-8to1E-6-13.

Thisallstandsinstarkcontrasttothedetailedinformationregardingoutreachandlanguage accessibilityrelatedtoEvent#1:CommunityWorkshop(August31,2022), 18inwhichoutreachwas describedasvaried,targeted,andmultilingual,themeetingprovidedtranslationservicesand multilingualmaterials,andthemeetinghadrefreshmentsandactivitiesforkids. SeeNovember Draftat1E-6-3.Thus,theHousingElementindicatesthattheCityengagedintargeted,varied, multilingualoutreachforEvent#1andnothingelsefortheremainingfourteenevents.Such meaningfuloutreache
orts
mustbecontinuousthroughouttheHousingElementprocess:One
meetingreflective
ofappropriatecommunityengagementstandardsattheoutsetoftheHousing Element’sdevelopmentisinadequateandconstitutesnoncompliancewithstatelaw.

TheCityshouldengageinmorepublicengagementbeforeitsJanuary31,2024deadlineforits adopted6thCycleHousingElementinordertobecompliantwiththestatutorymandatesunder GovernmentCodesection8890.50(a)(1),(b)and(d)andGovernmentCodesection65583(c)(9).

Theengagementmustre
flect
thattheCitywasdiligentinitse orts
toconductoutreach. 19We
recommendutilizingmoremethodsthatwillreachdisadvantagedcommunitiessuchasdirectmail, radioads,andlocalprintorelectronicmedia(suchasneighborhoodnewsletters)tocommunicate opportunitiestoengageinthehousing-elementprocess. 20Anotherstrategyistospeci fically
target
disadvantagedandspecialneedsgroups, 21manyofwhichareidenti fied inourpreviouscomments.

SeeAttachmentAat2–3.TheCitymustalwaysconsiderthecompositionofitstargetaudienceand 21Id.(listingthefollowingasspecialneedsanddisadvantagedgroups:“tenantsinunitsatriskofconversionto market-rate,health-andhuman-serviceproviders,homeless-shelterandmental-healthserviceproviders,placesof worship,seniors,farmworkers,andnon-andfor-pro fitaordablehousingdevelopers”). 20PublicParticipation,supranote4.
19SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat22(“Outreachactivitiesintendedtoreachabroadaudience,suchasutilizingavarietyof methods,broadandproactivemarketing,includingtargetedareasandneeds,promotinglanguageaccessand accessibilityforpersonswithdisabilities(whichcanincludee ectivecommunication,reasonableaccommodations,and
remoteparticipationopportunities),andconsultingwithrelevantorganizations.”). 18TheCitynoti fiedthecommunityofthismeetingwith flyersdistributedinEnglish,Spanish,HmongandPunjabi throughtheFresnoCouncilofGovernments(FCOG)listservofregionalstakeholdersandcommunity-based organizations(CBOs),andthroughtheFresnoHousingAuthority.NovemberDraftat1E-6-3.Linguisticainterpreters wereavailableforSpanish,Hmong,andPunjabimonolingualspeakers. Id.MaterialsinSpanish,HmongandPunjabi wereavailablein-personattheworkshopandonlineattheprojectwebsite,accessibleviaQRcode. Id.AnEventbrite registrationpageandFacebookeventwascreatedadvertisingthatSpanish,Hmong,andPunjabilanguage interpretationwouldbeprovided,alongwithrefreshments,andactivitiesforkids. Id.Flyersweresentoutthroughthe FresnoHousingAuthoritytoa
ordablehousingresidents. Id.Citystadistributedtheeventtotheemailliststhatthey maintainforGeneralPlanupdatesandtheAnti-DisplacementTaskForce. Id.FresnoCityCommunityA airs RepresentativesdistributedtheeventtoHmongandPunjabispeakingcommunities. Id.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

usecommunicationtoolsthatarelanguage-appropriate,culturallysensitive,andgrade-level readability.22
TheCitymustalsorevisetheoutreachsectionofitsNovemberDraftto“clearlydescribee orts to
engagethecommunitythroughoutthehousingelementprocess(e.g.,typesofoutreach,meetings)” relatedtoitsoutreachmethodsandadequacyoftranslationandmultilingualservicesfor CommunityMeetings#2–15. 23TheNovemberDraftmustdescribewhowasinvitedtoparticipate, howtheywereinvitedtoparticipate,whichgroupsactuallyparticipated,andhowtheengagement providedaninclusiveandaccommodatingenvironmentforallsectorsofthecommunityto participate.24Finally,theCityshouldanticipatealllogisticalconcernsandaddressthem,including:
languagebarriers,transportation,meetingtimes,andchildcare. 25 Additionally,theCitymustrevisetheNovemberDrafttoincludeanexplanationofwhytherewasa lackofparticipation,particularlyfromdisadvantagedgroups,initspublicparticipationprocess.

TheHCDAFFHGuidancestates:“Theelementmustdescribe...[a][s]ummaryofissuesthat contributedtolackofparticipationinthehousingelementprocessbyalleconomicsegments, particularlypeoplewithprotectedcharacteristics,ifthatprovestobethecase.”HCDAFFH Guidanceat22.WerecommendtheCityacknowledgeitslackofinclusive,varied,andtargeted outreachandengagementforitsCommunityMeetings#2–15tobeincompliancewiththe guidance.BecausetheHousingElement“wasdevelopedwithouttherequiredcommunity participationortherequiredconsultation,”HCDmust
find
theCityofFresno’sHousingElementis
“substantiallyincomplete.” See80Fed.Reg.at42358.

II. TheCityFailstoSummarizePublicCommentsReceivedandHowThoseComments WereConsideredandIncorporatedIntotheHousingElement.

TheHousingElementmust“describeandincorporatemeaningfulengagementthatrepresentsall segmentsofthecommunityintothedevelopmentofthehousingelement,includinggoalsand actions.”HCDAFFHGuidanceat21,62.TheCity’sobligationstodiligentlyengagealleconomic segmentsofthecommunityandtoAFFHthroughthehousingelementrequiremorethanjust seekinginputaboutthecontentsofthehousingelement.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(9);Gov’tCode§ 8899.50(a)(1),(b),(d).Asdiscussedinourpreviouscommentletters,invitingresidentstoprovide inputbutfailingtoincorporatethatinputintothehousingelementunderminesthepurposeof residentparticipationinthehousingelementupdate,fostersdistrust,andfailstoconstitute “engagement”asrequiredbyGovernmentCodesection65583(c)(9)oftheHousingElementLaw.

AttachmentAat4,6;AttachmentBat1;AttachmentCat2–3,13.Inshort,theCitymust:
25Id.
24Id.
23PublicParticipation,supranote4.
22Id.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

● Summarizeallcommentsreceived—thisincludesinformationgatheredin stakeholderconsultationsandfocusgroups,studysessionswithplanning commissions,citycouncils,andtheCountyBoardofSupervisors,community workshops,thecommunitysurvey,anypubliccommentsreceivedduringcity councilmeetingsrelatedtotheHousingElement,andallcommentsandcomment lettersreceivedviaemail.
● DiscusstheprocesstheCityusedtoprioritizethehousingissuesraisedacrossall comments.
● ExplainhowtheprioritizedhousingissueswereincorporatedintotheHousing Element.
● Acknowledgethehousingissuesraisedinpubliccommentsthatwerenot incorporatedintotheHousingElementandwhy.

TheHCDAFFHGuidanceexplainshowhousingelementsmustdescribe“asummaryof[public] commentsandhowthecommentsareconsideredandincorporated(includingcommentsthatwere notincorporated),particularlywithchangestothehousingelement.”HCDAFFHGuidanceat22; see80Fed.Reg.at42315,42356,42361–62,42364.TheNovemberDraftfailstocomplywiththe statutoryandregulatoryrequirementsregardingthesummaryofcommentsandreasonstheywere orwerenotincorporated.AshappenedwiththeJulyDraft,theNovemberDraftprovidessome descriptionofpublicinputprovided,itssummaryofpubliccommentsgenerallylackssu cient
detail
forthereadertounderstandthenatureoftheissueraisedorthesolutionproposed. See AttachmentCat2–3.TheCityfailstoexplainhowitprioritizedthehousingissuesraisedin commentsduringtheworkshops,publiccommentsreceivedviaemail,andcommentletters submittedbyCBOs,includingLCJAandPILP’smultiplecommentletters.Inaddition,the NovemberDraft,liketheJulyDraft,failstodemonstratetheCity’sincorporationofinputprovided andtoidentifyinputtheCitychosenottoincorporateasrequired. SeeAttachmentCat2–3.

Thus,theCity’ssummaryofcomments—includingcommentsfromworkshops,thesurvey,focus groups,commentletters,andcommentsreceivedviaemail—explanationforprioritizationof housingissues,explanationofhowthecommentswereincorporatedintotheNovemberDraft, 26 and“summaryofanycomments,views,orrecommendationsnotacceptedbythe[City]andthe reasonsfornonacceptance”isgrosslyinadequateandmustberevised.HCDAFFHGuidanceat22; see80Fed.Reg.at42356.WerecommendtheCityadheretothestatutoryandregulatory requirementsregardingthefullsummaryofallcommentsreceivedandexplanationof incorporation(andlackofincorporation)ofthosecomments.
26TheCityisexpectedto“[d]escribethedatesthatthehousingelementandsubsequentrevisionsweremadeavailable forpubliccommentandhowthosecommentswereincorporated.” PublicParticipation,supranote4.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

III. TheCityFailstoAnalyzeandPrioritizeConstraintsandContributing Factors—IncludingWaystheCity’s5thCycleHousingElement’sImplementation ProgramsFellShort—ThatLimitorDenyFairHousingChoice/AccesstoOpportunity andNegativelyImpactCivilRights.

A. TheCityFailstoAnalyzeGovernmentalandNongovernmentalConstraints HousingElementlawrequiresananalysisofpotentialandactualgovernmentaland nongovernmentalconstraintsuponthemaintenance,improvement,ordevelopmentofhousingfor allincomelevelsincludingland-usecontrols,buildingcodesandtheirenforcement,site improvements,feesandotherexactionsrequiredofdevelopers,andlocalprocessingandpermit procedures.”Gov’tCode§65583(a)(5)–(6); seeHCDAFFHGuidanceat55;80Fed.Reg.at42275, 42279.WhiletheCitydidaddressourpreviouscommentletter’sconcernsregardingtheparking requirementsconstraintanalysis,AttachmentCat6–7,theNovemberDraftfailstoaddressthe remainingconstraintsanalysisissuesfromourcommentletterandremainssubstantiallyoutof compliancewiththestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsregardingconstraintsanalysis, justi
fication,
andcreationofaprogramtoremovethoseconstraints.Gov’tCode§65583(a), (a)(5)–(6),(c)(3);HCDAFFHGuidanceat52; seealso discussionontherequirementforaprogram toremoveconstraints infraSectionV.

TheNovemberDraftonlymadeninechangestotheentiretyoftheconstraintsanalysis.Whilethe constraintssectiondoesadequatelylistlaws,ordinances,andconditions,itlackssu cient
analysis
(seediscussiononthede finition
ofthewordanalysis supranote9)howthesecomponentscould
delay,prevent,ornegativelya ect
themaintenance,improvement,ordevelopmentofhousingfor
allincomelevels.Anyanalysisgivenconcludesthattheconstraintsarelimitedornonexistent.

Listingconstraintswithoutanalysis,however,willnotresultinmeaningfulaction.Thefollowing referencesourpreviouscommentsthatwentunaddressedbytheCityintheNovemberDraft:
● TheHousingElementunderanalyzestheimpactsofcurrentandplannedzoning regulations27onhousingdevelopment.AttachmentCat4–5; seeMartinezv.CityofClovis, 90Cal.App.5th193,271(2023);HCDAFFHGuidanceat55;80Fed.Reg.at42310. 27Itshouldbenotedthatcourtshavefoundcivilrightsviolationsregardingzoningordinanceswithdiscriminatory e
ects.Martinezv.CityofClovis,90Cal.App.5th193,271(2023)(holdingaCitydefendant’szoningordinanceviolated theFEHAandtheFHAbyhavingadiscriminatorye ect—whichincludesadisparateimpactandasegregativee ecton protectedclasses—whenhousingopportunitiesweremadeunavailableforprotectedclasses); see80Fed.Reg.at42310 (“Zoningandlanduselawsthatarebarrierstofairhousingchoiceandaccesstoopportunitycanbequitevariedand oftendependonthefactualcircumstancesinspeci ficcases,includingzoningandlanduselawsthatwereintendedto limitaordablehousingincertainareasinordertorestrictaccessbylow-incomeminoritiesorpersonswith disabilities.”).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

● Theconstraintanalysismustexaminewhatconstraintsexisttothedevelopmentof:
supportivehousing,transitionalhousing,single-roomoccupancyunits,andemergency shelters.AttachmentCat5–6; seeGov’tCode§65583(c)(1).
● TheDraft’sanalysisofat-riskhousingisincompleteandunder-analyzestheriskstopublicly assisteda
ordable
housinganditsdistribution.AttachmentCat7.
● TheCity’slackoftenantprotectionsshouldbeanalyzedasaconstraintonthemaintenance ofhousingunderGovernmentCodesection65583(a)(5).AttachmentCat7. ● TheCitylacksanalysisonnongovernmentalconstraints:
○ TheDraftmustincludeananalysisofNot-In-My-Backyard(NIMBY) 28andother localoppositiontoa
ordable
housingandhousingdevelopment.AttachmentCat8;
seeHCDAFFHGuidanceat55.
○ TheDraftdidnotconsiderenvironmentalconstraintsaspartofitsanalysisunder GovernmentCodesection65583(a)(6).Environmentalconstraintsmayinclude limitationstowatersupply,nearbypollution,orinfrastructuredevelopment.

AttachmentCat8–9.
○ TheDraftfailedtoincludeanexplanationofthee
ects
ofmarketforcesand
availabilityof financing.2
9AttachmentCat9.

Uponfurtherreview,we find
additionalplacesintheconstraintsanalysisthataremissingthe requisiteandrequiredcomponentsasputforthbyHCD:
● Describehowthebuildingcodeisimplementedandwhethertheprocessoptimizes predictabilityfordevelopers. 30
● Identifyandanalyzeanylocalamendmentstothestatehousinglaworbuildingcode. 31 ● Discussthetypeanddegreeofbuildingcodeenforcement. 32
● Describeanye
orts
tolinkcodeenforcementactivitiestohousingrehabilitation
programs.33
33Id.
32Id.
31Id.
30CodesandEnforcementofOnsite/O siteImprovementStandards, Cᴀʟ. Dᴇᴘ’ᴛ ᴏғ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ & Cᴍᴛʏ. Dᴇᴠ.: Bʟᴅɢ. Bʟᴏᴄᴋs: A Cᴏᴍᴘʀᴇʜᴇɴsɪᴠᴇ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ-Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ Gᴜɪᴅᴇ,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community- development/housing-elements/building-blocks/codes-and-enforcement-and-onsite-osite-improvement-standards (lastvisitedDec.10,2023)[hereinafter ImprovementStandards]. 29SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat53;80Fed.Reg.at42346(“Abasictenetofplanningandperformancemanagementis recognitionof‘externalfactors’andotherbarrierstoachievinggoals,andwhicharebeyondanorganizationtocontrol. ...Includedinsuchconsiderationsistheidenti ficationoffundingdependenciesandcontingencies.”). 28Justthismonth,inDecember2023,“[e]venatthethreatenedlossoffuturestatemoney,theFresnoCityCouncil... sidedwithneighborswhosaidahotelconversionnearFresnoandBullardavenuesisthewrongplacefora ordable housing.EdwardSmith, FresnoCouncilVotesDownA ordableHousingProjectinNorthFresno, GV Wɪʀᴇ(Dec.8,2023), https://gvwire.com/2023/12/08/fresno-council-votes-down-aordable-housing-project-in-north-fresno/.“Opposing councilmemberscitedcostconcernsandtheviewthata ordablehousingwouldbringblighttothearea....Advocates fortheproject,however,accusedthedetractorsofNIMBYism(not-in-my-backyard).” Id.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

● Identifyandanalyzeimprovementstostreetwidths,curbs,gutters,sidewalks,waterand sewerconnections,landscaping,circulationimprovement,andanyotheronsite/o site improvement
requiredbythejurisdictionthatcouldpotentiallybeaconstraintto developmentofhousing.Inaddition,thehousingelementmustdescribeanygenerally applicablelevelofservicestandardsormitigationthresholds. 34 ● Discussthefollowingnongovernmentalconstraints: 35
○ Landcosts—Estimatetheaveragecostortherangeofcostsperacrefor single-familyandmultifamily-zoneddevelopableparcels.
○ Constructioncosts—Generallyestimatetypicaltotalconstructioncosts,including materialsandlabor.
○ Availabilityof
financing
—Considerwhetherhousing financing,
includingprivate
financing
andgovernmentassistanceprograms,isgenerallyavailableinthe community.Thisanalysiscouldindicatewhethermortgagede ficient areasor
underservedgroupsexistinthecommunity.The financing
analysismayalsoidentify
theavailabilityof financing
fromprivatefoundations(includingbankfoundations)
corporatesponsors,communityfoundations,communitybanks,insurance companies,pensionfunds,and/orlocalhousingtrustfunds.

Thus,theCityisstillunder-analyzingoromittingrequiredgovernmentalandnongovernmental constraintsanalysesunderGovernmentCodesection65583(a)(5)–(6).Therefore,werecommend theCityreviseallsubsectionsofitsgovernmentalconstraintsanalysisintheNovemberDraftas wellasaddtheentirelymissingnongovernmentalconstraintssubsectionsofanalysis.

B. TheHousingElementLacksAdequateAnalysis,Prioritization,andJusti fication
of
ItsIdentified
ContributingFactorsandEvidenceofCorrelationtothe
ImplementationPrograms.

A.B.686bothcreatesabroaddutytoAFFHinpoliciesandpractices,Gov’tCode§8899.50(a)(1), (b),aswellasadvancesaHousingElementframeworkofAFFHwhichrequireslinkingfairhousing issuesanalysiswithpolicyandactionformulation.Gov’tCode§65583(c)(10)(a)(iii).Aswe mentionedinourpreviouscommentletter,theCityisrequiredtoidentifyandprioritize contributingfactorstofairhousingissuesbasedonallthepreviouslyrequiredanalysis(outreach, fairhousingassessment,siteinventory).AttachmentAat6;Gov’tCode§65583(c)(10)(a)(iii); see HCDAFFHGuidanceat12;80Fed.Reg.at42279–80.Thisidenti
fication
andprioritizationmust
givehighestprioritytofactorsthatlimitordenyfairhousingchoiceoraccesstoopportunityor negativelyimpactfairhousingorcivilrights.HCDAFFHGuidanceat12.TheNovemberDraftis notincompliancewithGovernmentCodesections8899.50(a)(1),(b)and65583(c)(10)(a)(iii) 35Non-GovernmentalConstraints, Cᴀʟ. Dᴇᴘ’ᴛ ᴏғ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ & Cᴍᴛʏ. Dᴇᴠ.: Bʟᴅɢ. Bʟᴏᴄᴋs: A Cᴏᴍᴘʀᴇʜᴇɴsɪᴠᴇ Hᴏᴜsɪɴɢ-Eʟᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ Gᴜɪᴅᴇ,https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/ building-blocks/non-governmental-constraints(lastvisitedDec.10,2023). 34ImprovementStandards,supra note30.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

relatedtoAFFHasitscontributingfactorsareunder-analyzed,notprioritizedaccordingto communityprioritiesandlocalknowledge, 36andnotdescribedinanywaytoshowjusti fication for
linkingthecontributingfactorstotheimplementationprograms. 37 HCDhasmadecleartherequirementsregardingidenti fication,
prioritization,andjusti fication
of
contributingfactorsastheyrelatetoimplementationprograms:

Contributingfactorsshouldbebasedonallthepriore orts
andanalyses:outreach,
assessmentoffairhousing,andsiteinventory.Contributingfactorsmustalsobe prioritizedintermsofneededimpactonfairhousingchoiceandstronglyconnectto goalsandactions.Theidenti
fication
andevaluationofcontributingfactorsmust:

Identifyfairhousingissuesandsigni ficant
contributingfactors;[p]rioritize
contributingfactors,includinganylocalinformationandknowledge,givinghighest prioritytothosefactorsthatmostlimitordenyfairhousingchoiceoraccessto opportunityornegativelyimpactfairhousingorcivilrightscompliance;and [d]iscussstrategicapproachestoinformandstronglyconnecttogoalsandactions.

HCDAFFHGuidanceat49.

WhiletheCity’sNovemberDrafthasmyriadrevisionsregardingdata,statistics,maps,tables,and diagramswithinitsAFH, 38ithasfailedtocomplywithitsrequiredstatutoryandregulatory requirementsinvolvingcontributingfactors.ThefollowingshowsthecomponentsoftheAFHand 38Weacknowledge,speci
fically,thattheCityrespondedtoourpreviouscommentlettersandaddedthefollowingtoits NovemberDraft:(1)ashortdescriptionrelatedtodevelopmenttrendsacrossincomelevelsinitscontributingfactorsto segregationsection,NovemberDraftat1E-3-30; seeAttachmentCat9;(2)datarelatedtointegrationandsegregation patternsforracialgroupsotherthanHispanic/Latinos,NovemberDraftat1E-3-9to1E-3-13; seeAttachmentCat13;(3) descriptionregardingthedistributionoflow-andhigh-incomehouseholdsacrossFresno,NovemberDraftat1E-3-14 to1E-3-18; seeAttachmentCat13;(4)informationabouttheseparateoccurrenceofovercrowdingandcostburden basedonraceorethnicityandinformationabouthowthesefactorsdisproportionatelyimpactFresnoresidentsbased onfamilialstatus,NovemberDraftat1E-3-62,1E-3-63; seeAttachmentCat14–15;(5)informationrelatingtofamilial statusofunhousedresidents,NovemberDraftat1E-3-70; seeAttachmentCat15;(6)considerationoftheextentto whichpublicandprivatedisinvestmentandunequalinvestmentcontinuetoimpactlow-incomeneighborhoods, neighborhoodsofcolor,andneighborhoodswithahighproportionoftenantsandhowdisinvestmentperpetuatesor increasesdisplacementriskintheseareas,NovemberDraftat1E-3-85,1E-3-86; seeAttachmentCat18–19. 37TheHousingElementmustcreateprogramsforovercomingthee
ectofcontributingfactorsasprioritized. SeeHCD
AFFHGuidanceat49;80Fed.Reg.at42288.Foreachprogram,theCitymustidentifyoneormorecontributingfactors thattheprogramisdesignedtoaddress,describehowtheprogramrelatestoovercomingtheidenti fiedcontributing
factor(s)andrelatedfairhousingissue(s),andidentifymetricsandmilestonesfordeterminingwhatfairhousingresults willbeachieved. SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat49;80Fed.Reg.at42288. 36TheHousingElementisinformedbycommunitiesandresidentsofthesecommunitieswillhavetheopportunityto weighinonwhetherjurisdictionshaveaccuratelyidenti
fiedcontributingfactorsandhaveestablishedprograms
appropriateforidenti fiedcontributingfactorsandrelatedfairhousingissues. SeeHCDAFFHGuidanceat49;80Fed.

Reg.at42288.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

itsdeterminationandanalysisofcontributingfactors—someidenti fied inourpreviouscomment
lettersandincorporatedbyreferenceherein—thatneedtoberevisedintheNovemberDraft:
● IntegrationandSegregation
○ TheAFH’sanalysisofR/ECAPsandRCAAsfailstoaddress“publicparticipation, pastpolicies,practices,[and]investments”asrequired.HCDAFFHGuidanceat31; seeAttachmentCat14.
● DisproportionateHousingNeeds
○ TheAFHdoesnotincludeanyanalysis,orevenacknowledgementof,housingneeds ofundocumentedimmigrants. SeeAttachmentCat3.
○ TheNovemberDraft,whilenotingadi
erence
betweencommunitiesofcolorand
predominantlywhitecommunitiesasitrelatestoovercrowdingandcostburden, failstoidentifytheseparateoccurrencebasedonindividualraceorethnicity. See AttachmentCat14–15.
○ TheNovemberDraftincludesnoinformationabouttheoccurrenceofsubstandard housingconditionsbasedonraceorethnicity. SeeAttachmentCat14–15. ○ TheNovemberDraftfailstoprovidesu
cient
informationabouthow
overcrowding,overpayment,andsubstandardhousingconditions disproportionatelyimpactFresnoresidentsbasedonfamilialstatus 39anddisability.

SeeAttachmentCat14–15.
○ Theanalysisdoesnotadequatelyre
flect
localknowledgeorpublicinput. See
AttachmentAat6.
● DisplacementRisk
○ TheAFH’sdisplacementriskanalysismustbesupplementedwithandrevisedbased onmorerecentdata—thedatausedisfrom2012–2017;theCityshouldusedataat leastfrom2019andlater,withpreferenceformorerecentdata. SeeAttachmentCat

16. ○ Mustidentifyandevaluatetheexpirationofa
ordability
covenantsattachedto
Low-IncomeHousingTaxCredit financed
propertiesduringthePlanningPeriod.

SeeAttachmentCat16.
○ Mustidentifyandevaluatethemajorfederal,state,andlocalinvestmentsinpublic worksinfrastructureprojectsinSouthFresnoneighborhoods. SeeAttachmentCat

17. ○ ConsidertheimpactofspeculationassociatedwithHighSpeedRailonhousing availability,prices,anddisplacementrisk. SeeAttachmentCat17. ○ Analyzetheconversionofhousingunitstoshort-termrentalsandtheirimpacton housingcostpressuresanddisplacementrisk. SeeAttachmentCat17. 39Therewasonesentenceaddedregardingfamilialstatusasitrelatestoovercrowding:“Inaddition,thereisagreater presenceofsingle-parenthouseholdsandlowlevelsoflabormarketengagement.”NovemberDraftat1E-3-62.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

○ Giventhesigni ficant
stakeholderengagementconductedforthedevelopmentofthe
HeretoStayReport 40theAFHshouldincorporateandconsiderrelevantinformation andpolicyrecommendationscontainedinthatreport. SeeAttachmentCat18. ○ Addresstheadequacyofpoliciesandresourcestoprotecttenantsfromdisplacement asaresultofeviction,harassment,andsubstandardhousing. SeeAttachmentAat7; AttachmentCat17.
● DisparitiesinAccesstoOpportunity
○ Analyzeinadequateorabsentinfrastructuretofacilitatesafeande cient active
transportation.41SeeAttachmentAat5,9–10;AttachmentCat8,17,24,26,28. ○ Analyzeinadequateorabsentprotectionfromextremeweather,including climate-relatedweathereventsthatimpactwalking,biking,andpublic transportationuse. SeeAttachmentAat8;AttachmentCat24,26,35. ○ Analyzethepresenceofhighvolumesoftra
c,
includingheavy-dutytrucktra c,
on
roadwaysusedbypedestriansorbicyclists,includinginandnearareaszonedfor industriallandusesandalongdesignatedtruckroutes. SeeAttachmentCat23, 26–28.
○ Analyzeanddescribepolicies,practices,andinvestmentsthatimpactaccesstoa healthyenvironmentforprotectedgroups.WhiletheNovemberDraftaddssome datarelatedtothis,itlackssu
cient
analysis(see discussiononthede finition
ofthe
wordanalysis supranote9). SeeAttachmentCat24–28.
■ Secondarily,theNovemberDraftmentionsthatanEnvironmentalJustice (EJ)ElementwillbecompletedbytheCity.Thisstatement,however,isnot su
cient
tofind
compliancewiththisrequirement;theCitywouldneedto
havetheEJElementalreadycompletedandbeabletousespeci fic
citationsto
thecompliantEJElementtoshowtheCityhasadequatelyconsideredEJand accesstoahealthyenvironmentfordisadvantagedcommunities. SeeHCD AFFHGuidanceat11.
○ Considerimpactsonaccesstoahealthyenvironmentregardingzoning,sitingand operationofnoxiouslandusesindisadvantagedcommunities,andclimatechange.

SeeAttachmentAat8–9;AttachmentCat26–27.
○ AnalyzethebasisforpollutiondisparitiesimpactingtheCityofFresnoitself, includingWestFresno,JaneAddams,andSouthEastFresno. SeeAttachmentCat

27. ○ Considerhowpolicies,practices,andinvestmentsordisinvestmentsrelatingto accesstogreenspace,treecanopy,andclimateresiliency(includingadequatecooling 41TheNovemberDraftdoesmentionthisasaconcernforstudentstravelingtoschoolbutdoesnotanalyzethisforthe publicasawhole.NovemberDraftat1E-3-33.
40 Tʜʀɪᴠᴀɴᴄᴇ Gʀᴏᴜᴘ, Hᴇʀᴇ ᴛᴏ Sᴛᴀʏ: A Pᴏʟɪᴄʏ-Bᴀsᴇᴅ Bʟᴜᴇᴘʀɪɴᴛ ғᴏʀ Dɪsᴘʟᴀᴄᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ Aᴠᴏɪᴅᴀɴᴄᴇ ɪɴ Fʀᴇsɴᴏ(2021), https://www.transformfresno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/transform-fresno-here-to-stay-report- english.pdf.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

andwildfire
smokeprotection)impacteducationalopportunitiesatschools, especiallyinlow-incomeneighborhoods. SeeAttachmentCat27. ● OtherRelevantFactorsandLocalKnowledge
○ Considercurrent,plannedandpastdevelopments,investments,policies,practices, demographictrends,publiccomments,andotherfactorstoinformtheLocal Knowledgesection—theNovemberDraftaddedacouplestatementsrelatedtothis, buttheyarenotsu
cient.SeeHCD
AFFHGuidanceat45.
○ Consideranyotherfactorsimpactingsocio-economicpatternsandsegregation relatingtoaccommodatingtheRHNA—thiscanincludependingorapprovedplans, otherelementsofthegeneralplan,relevantportionsofthehousingelementandsite inventoryanalysis(e.g.,e
ectiveness
ofpastprograms,suitabilityofsites,existing
usesandimpactsofadditionaldevelopmentpotential,includingpotentialfor displacementofresidents,businessesandothercommunityamenitiesand infrastructurecapacity).HCDAFFHGuidanceat46.
● SiteCompliancewithAFFHDuty
○ Considertheimpactsofintegrationandsegregationonthedistributionof Hispanic/Latinohouseholdsmorethoroughly;andconsidertheimpactonrelative integrationandsegregationofotherraces—astheNovemberDraftdoesnot considerotherracial/ethniccommunities.NovemberDraftat1E-3-101to1E-3-104; seeAttachmentCat28.
○ Acknowledgehowthelackoflower-incomesitesidenti
fied
inhigh-resourceareas,
willperpetuatepatternsofRCAAsandR/ECAPs. SeeAttachmentCat28. ○ Analyzetheimpactofsitelocationsonaccesstospeci fic
formsofaccessto
opportunity.SeeAttachmentCat28.
○ Analyzetheimpactsonaccesstoahealthyenvironmentofsitinghousingin low-incomeneighborhoodswithpoorenvironmentalhealthindicators,industrial zoningnearhomes,heavytra
c,
andmajorhighways. SeeAttachmentCat28.
○ Analysishowabsentorincompleteinfrastructure,services,andamenitiesimpact accesstoopportunityonsitesincludedintheinventory. SeeAttachmentCat28. ○ Includediscussionoflocalknowledgeandcommunityinput,pendingdevelopment, developmentpotentialandotherrelevantfactors. SeeAttachmentCat29.

TheAFHisdesignedtoanalyzeinequitiesrelatedtofairhousing,identifycontributingfactorsto theseinequities,prioritizethosefactorsbasedonpubliccommentandhighestneed,andcreate programsthatarejusti
fied
bythoseprioritizedfactors.TheCityisgrosslyoutofcompliancewith thelegalrequirementsoftheAFHduetothefollowing:
● AfailureinboththeJulyDraftandtheNovemberDrafttoadequatelycompletetheanalyses offairhousingissuesintheCityofFresno.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

● Afailureinidentifyingallcontributingfactors 42tothefairhousingissuesintheCityof Fresno—infact,theCitycontinuestoegregiouslyfailinthisregardwiththeadditionof dataandinformationintheNovemberDraftthatprovidesevidenceofmorehousingissues butafailuretoidentifyanynewcontributingfactors.
● Afailuretoprioritize,andexplainitsprioritizationprocess,contributingfactorsbasedon communityinput,theAFH,andthesitesinventory.
● Afailuretoadequatelyjustify—linkingthecontributingfactorstopolicyandmeaningful actions—theimplementationprogramswithmeetingtheneedsaddressingthecontributing factorstofairhousingissues.

WerecommendsubstantialrevisionstotheAFHiftheCitywishesHCDto find
itsHousing
Elementcompliantwithstatelaw.HCDwillnotacceptanAFHifit finds thattheAFHoraportion
oftheAFHisinconsistentwithfairhousingorcivilrightsrequirementsorissubstantially incomplete.Forexample,anAFHwillbefoundinconsistentwithfairhousingandcivilrights requirementsifitdoesnotidentifypoliciesorpracticesasfairhousingcontributingfactors, 43even thoughtheyresultintheexclusionofaprotectedclassfromareasofopportunity.Compliancewith HousingElementlawislistingcontributingfactors withrobustanalysissojurisdictionscancreate programswithmeaningfulactions.HCDAFFHGuidanceat51.

Thus,theNovemberDraft’snoncompliancewiththeabove-mentionedcomponentsoftheAFH resultsintheCitybeinginviolationoftheHousingElementLaw,Gov’tCode§65583etseq.,the DutytoAFFHstatute,Gov’tCode§8899.50,California’snondiscriminationstatute,Gov’tCode§ 11135,theFairEmploymentandHousingAct,Gov’tCode§12940etseq.,theFederalHousingAct, 42U.S.C.§3601etseq.,andTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,42U.S.C.§2000(d)etseq.

Therefore,werecommendtheCityproperlyanalyzeallfairhousingissues,identifyandprioritize contributingfactorstothosefairhousingissues,andjustifytheprogramsasaddressingthe contributingfactorsandadequatelyovercomingpatternsandpracticesofsegregationandcreating areasofopportunityforR/ECAPs.
43Contributingfactorsarenotlimitedtopublicactions. Id.at51.Privateactionscanalsocontributetopatternsof segregation,raciallyorethnicallyconcentratedareasofpoverty,disparitiesinaccesstoopportunity,and disproportionatehousingneeds. Id.at51.Whilepublicagenciesdonotdirectlycontrolprivateactionsorcontributing factorsbeyondalocality’sboundaries,theactionsofpublicagenciescanin fluenceprivateactionandhaveimpacts
beyondlocalboundaries. Id.at51.Asaresult,regardlessofwhethercontributingfactorsarepublicorprivateorlocal, region,stateorfederal,thehousingelementmustrecognizeabroadersocialandlegalobligationtoa rmativelyfurther fairhousingandstillidentifyandprioritizethosecontributingfactorstocommittocommensurategoalsandactions. Id. at51.
42Seee.g., HCDAFFHGuidanceat68–70(listingContributingFactorsexamples).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

C. TheHousingElement’sAnalysisofPastAccomplishmentsandProgramsIs Inadequate.

TheHousingElementrequiresareviewoftheprevioushousingelementforprogressin implementation,eectiveness
ofprogramsinmeetinggoals,andappropriatenessofmodifying
programsforthecurrentplanningperiod.Localitiesshouldmakeaspeci fic eort
togatherinput
fromallsegmentsofthecommunityonthee ectiveness
oftheseprogramsandhowtomake
adjustmentsmovingforward.HCDAFFHGuidanceat22; see80Fed.Reg.at42356.

TheCityfailstoproperlylookatitspastactionsandprogramsbothintheHousingElementPast Accomplishmentssectionasawholeaswellasspeci
fic
analysesintheAFHthatrequireaddressing
pastprograms;thosespeci fic
analysesincludefailingtoaddress“publicparticipation,pastpolicies, practices,[and]investments”asrequiredinitsR/ECAPsandRCAAsAFHanalysis.HCDAFFH Guidanceat33; seeAttachmentCat14.Italsofailstoinspectthe“e ectiveness
ofpastprogramsin
achievingthegoalsofthehousingelement”asafactorin fluencing theimpactsoftheidenti fication
of
sitestoaccommodatetheRHNAonsocioeconomicpatternsandsegregation.HCDAFFH Guidanceat33; seeAttachmentCat14.WerecommendtheCityadequatelyanalyzewhyitspast programshavecontinuedsegregationandnotadequatelyfacilitatedintegration,healthy communities,andaccesstoopportunity.

IV. TheCityFailstoDemonstrateSiteCapacitytoAccommodateItsRHNAandShowIts SitesInventoryisConsistentWiththeDutytoAFFH.

WhiletheAFHisrobustandthereviseddraftaddsalotofgoodinformation,data,andanalysis,it appliesverylittleofittoactions.Programsfailtoaddresstheneed,sitesareinadequate,and constraintsaren’tproperlyremoved.

GovernmentCodesection65583(a)(3)requiresanassessmentoftheavailablelandthatissuitable andavailabletoaccommodatetheRHNA.AdditionalinformationisrequiredfortheCity’sRevised DraftElementtocomplywiththestatute.Inbrief,thefollowingisstillrequired:
● Analysisdemonstratingtheviabilityofnon-vacantsites.
● EvidenceofapprovalduringtheprojectionperiodcreditedagainsttheRHNA. ● Theviabilityoflargesites,especiallyinlightoftheconcentrationofthesesitesinonearea oftheCity.
● Theimpactofenvironmentalconstraintsoninventorysites(andproximitytoincompatible uses)ontheoverallavailabilityofinventorysites.

Severaloftheseissueswereraisedinourcommentletterregardingthepubliclyavailabledraft circulatedinJuly2023andtheNovemberDraftfailstoprovidetheadditionalnecessaryanalysis highlightedinourcommentletter.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

Forinstance,theCity’sprojectionperiodbeganonJune30,2023,butnumerousprojectsthatwe highlightedonpage10ofourAugust2023thathavenotreceivedapprovalssincethebeginningof theprojectperiodandyetarestill includedinTable1E–2.3. Seee.g.,SanJoaquinHotel—submitted entitlementreviewinDecember2022,reviewnotcompleted;LosPueblosApartments—project submissiondeemedincompletein2022,waitingforresubmittal; seealso AttachmentCat10.None oftheprojectswehighlightedwereremovedfromTable1E–2.3despitethefactthattheyhavenot receivedapprovalsduringtheprojectionperiod. SeeHCD’sHousingElementSitesInventory Guidebook,availableathttps://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/ housing-element-memos/docs/sites_inventory_memo_
final06102020.pdf.

Because
manyofthezoningdesignationsdonothaveaminimumdensitytheCityprovidesan alternatemethodtoestimatecapacityonsitesbylookingatprojectsduringaverylimitedtime frame—2018to2020. Analternatecalculationispermittedbutitshouldevaluate theaverage capacityforeachzonebasedonamoreexpansivetimeperiodto makesurethecalculation accuratelyre
flects
thedevelopmentpatternsthatatwo-yeartimeframecannotdo. SeeAttachment Cat10.

AlsonotedinourAugust2023letterremainstheCity’sincompleteanalysisofnon-vacantsites, whichreliesprimarilyondescribingtheexistinguseanddoesnotconsidertheotherrequired factorsincludedinGovernmentCodesection65583.2(g). SeeAttachmentCat11.

TheCityalsoreliesonseverallargesitesthatareincloseproximitytoeachothertoaccommodate itsRHNAforlowerincomehouseholds.Notonlyarethereobstacletoobtainingthehighly competitivefundingfora
ordable
housingtobuildprojectsofmorethantwohundredunits,asa
largesitewouldnecessitate,butincludingsomanylargesitesincloseproximitytriggersanother constrainttoreceivingfundingandcertainlycreatesanimpedimenttofurtherfairhousingifso manyunitsintendedtoaccommodatethelowerincomehousingneedareinoneconcentratedarea.

SeeAttachmentCat12.

AlthoughtheCitydidreviseitsoriginaldraftelementtoincludeoneexampleofdevelopmentona largesiteFancherCreekTownCenter.Butthisdoesnotaddressthecommentwepreviouslyraised regardingtheconcentrationoflargesitesinoneareaoftheCityandtheresultingconcentrationof sitestoaccommodatethelowerincomeRHNAinonesectionoftheCityandtheinconsistency withtheCity’sdutytoa
rmatively
furtherfairhousing.

TheNovemberDraftdescribesonehalfofonelargeparcelasbeingoccupiedbytwoexistingretail establishments,yettheDraftthengoesontodeterminethat60percentofthesiteisavailablefor in
fill
housingeventhoughexistingusesoccupy50percentofthesite.NovemberDraftat1E-2-21.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

TheNovemberDraftincludesinformationaboutsitesincloseproximitytotheairportsandthe accompanyingrestrictions onresidentialdensityinthesezones.TheDraftindicatessiteswillneed toberemovedfromtheinventoryofavailablesitesbasedontheAirportLandUseCompatibility Plan(ALUCP)butdoesnotindicatehowmanysitesandthecapacityofthosesitesandwhetherit willresultinashortfallforanyincomecategory.Thisinformationisnecessarybeforea final
determination
abouttheadequacyofthesiteinventorycanbemade.

HCDadvisesthattheimpactfromawidevarietyofenvironmentalfactorsbeconsidered when evaluatingthesuitabilityofsitesinthelandinventory.TheNovemberDraftconsiderssitesinthe floodplain,
nearairports,andinfrastructureavailabilitybutHCD’sSitesInventoryGuidebook requiresmore:“Othercharacteristicstoconsiderwhenevaluatingtheappropriatenessofsites includephysicalfeatures(e.g.,sizeandshapeofthesite,improvementscurrentlyonthesite,slope, instabilityorerosion,orenvironmentalandpollutionconsiderations),location....”HCD’s HousingElementSitesInventoryGuidebookat3.AccordingtoFigure1E–2.2SitesInventory, Fresno2023,therearemanyhigherdensityandmobilehomesitesthatareproximatetoexisting heavyindustrialusesinSouthFresno.TocomplywiththeCity'sdutytoa rmatively
furtherfair
housing sitesforlowerincomehouseholdsshouldnotbeidenti fied closetoknownpollution
sourcessincelowerincomefamiliesandindividualsinSouthFresnoalreadyfacehigherexposures toairpollution. 44
V. TheCityFailstoIncludePrograms—WithDe
finitiv
eTimelines—ThatRemove
Identified
ConstraintsonA ordable
HousingProduction.

Existingfederallawrequiresdepartmentsandagenciestoadministerprogramsrelatingtohousing inawaythata
rmatively
furthersfairhousing. 45Theseobligationsextendtostateandlocal governmentsthatreceivefundsorcontractwiththefederalgovernment.A.B.686extendsthe obligationtoa
rmatively
furtherfairhousingtoallpublicagenciesintheStateofCalifornia.This armative
dutyisnotlimitedtothoseagencieswithrelationshipswiththefederalgovernmentand istobebroadlyappliedthroughoutagenciesatthestateandlocallevel.Gov’tCode§8899.50(a)(2).

Now,allpublicagenciesmustboth(1)administerprogramsandactivitiesrelatingtohousingand communitydevelopmentinamannerthata
rmatively
furthersfairhousing,and(2)takenoaction
inconsistentwiththisobligation.A rmatively
furtheringfairhousingmeans“takingmeaningful
actions,inadditiontocombatingdiscrimination,thatovercomepatternsofsegregationandfoster inclusivecommunities.”Gov’tCode§8899.50(a)(1).Thesenewstatutoryobligationschargeall publicagencieswithbroadlyexaminingtheirexistingandfuturepolicies,plans,programs,rules, practices,andrelatedactivitiesandmakeproactivechangestopromotemoreinclusive communities.Gov’tCode§8899.50(a)(1)–(2),(b),(c),(d); seeHCDAFFHGuidanceat9. 45SeeExecutiveOrder12892–LeadershipandCoordinationofFairHousinginFederalPrograms:A rmatively
FurtheringFairHousing.January17,1994.
44CalEnviroScreen4.0, Cᴀʟ. Oғғ. ᴏғ Eɴᴠ’ᴛ Hᴇᴀʟᴛʜ Hᴀᴢᴀʀᴅ Assᴇssᴍᴇɴᴛ(May1,2023),https://oehha.ca.gov/ calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40.

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

Inaddition,theA.B.686updatedtheHousingElementlawtospeci fically requirethecreationof
programstopromotefairhousing.Speci fically
,GovernmentCodesection65583(c)statesthat:

The[Housing]Elementshallcontain....Aprogramthatsetsforthascheduleof actionsduringtheplanningperiod,eachwithatimelineforimplementation,that mayrecognizethatcertainprogramsareongoing,suchthattherewillbebene ficial
impacts
oftheprogramswithintheplanningperiod,thatthelocalgovernmentis undertakingorintendstoundertaketoimplementthepoliciesandachievethegoals andobjectivesofthehousingelement....

Goalsandpoliciesmustbecreatedwiththeintentiontohaveasigni ficant
impact,wellbeyonda
continuationofpastactions,andtoprovidedirectionandguidanceformeaningfulaction.HCD AFFHGuidanceat52.TheHousingElement’simplementationprogrammustAFFHinaccordance withGovernmentCodesection8899.50andincludeadiligente
ort
toachievepublicparticipation
ofalleconomicsegmentsofthecommunityinthedevelopmentoftheHousingElement.Gov’t Code§65583(c)(9),(10)(A).Programsmustaddressvariousstatutorilymandatedareas,suchas identi
fication
ofadequatesites,zoningforavarietyoftypes,assistingdevelopmentforlowerand moderateincomehouseholds,addressinggovernmentalandnon-governmentalconstraints, conservingtheexistinghousingstock,preservingat-riskunits,andpromotinghousing opportunitiesforallpeople.HCDAFFHGuidanceat10.Finally,theHousingElementrequires identi
fication
ofmetricsorquanti fied
objectivesandmilestonesfordeterminingwhatfairhousing
resultswillbeachievedthroughtheseprograms.HCDAFFHGuidanceat13.

Despitepreviouscommentlettersandspeci fic
identification
bythepublicofprioritizedfairhousing
issues,theNovemberDraftremainsnoncompliantregardingitsadequacyofmeaningfulactions andadherencetotherequirementsincreatingtheimplementationprograms.Wehaveseparated ourrecommendationsintotwosubsections:(1)Programsthatneedtobeaddedbasedonrevisionof theAFHandadequateidenti
fication
offairhousingissues, seediscussionsupraSectionIII,identi fied and
prioritizedcontributingfactorstothefairhousingissues,anddirectjusti fication ofprograms
fromtheidenti fied
contributingfactors;and(2)ProgramsincludedintheNovemberDraftthatcan beimproved.

A. TheCityMustAddNeededImplementationProgramstoAdequatelyAddress PrioritizedContributingFactorsInformedbythePublic.

TheHousingElementrequiresanidenti fication
ofprioritiesandgoalsbasedonidenti fied
contributing
factorsthatlimitordenyfairhousingchoiceoraccesstoopportunity,orthat negativelyimpactfairhousingorcivilrightscompliance.HCDAFFHGuidanceat12.The NovemberDraft,liketheJulyDraft,isgrosslyinadequateinful filling
therequirementsunder
December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter

GovernmentCodesections8899.50and65583.Thefollowingincludestheprogramsbestsuitedto addresscontributingfactorsandprioritizedcommunityfairhousingissues:
● MostUp-To-DatePrioritiesIdenti fied
byCityofFresnoResidentsatLCJA’s
December5,2023CommunityMeeting:
○ HolisticTenantProtections
■ Adoptalocalrentstabilizationordinance,includingarentstabilization boardtohearandapproverentalincreasessubmittedbylandlords. ■ Adoptionofjustcauseeviction
■ Arighttocounselguaranteeingaccesstoa
ordable
legalcounselfor
low-incometenantsinhousingmatters.
■ Establishapermanentemergencyrentalassistanceprogram.
■ Know-Your-Rightseducationandenforcementfordiscriminationagainst petownershipinrentalproperties.Currently,Californialawsays:
“Landlordsarenotallowedtooutrightrefusetorenttotenantsbasedsolely ontheirownershipofpets.However,landlordsmayimposereasonable restrictionsandconditionsforpetownership,suchassizeorbreed restrictionsallowingpets,withsomeexceptionsforserviceanimalsor emotionalsupportanimals.” 46
■ Moreenforcementagainstlandlordsandpropertymanagementcompanies whodiscriminateagainstorharasstenants;includingafocusonharassing surveillanceoftenantsandprivacyissues.
■ AddbackinJulyDraft’sProgram30:EmergencyRentalAssistanceProgram. ○ Homelessness
■ Providinghousingtounhousedveterans
■ BuildTinyHomeVillages.
○ HousingStock
■ Increasethesupplyofrentalpropertiesthatallowpets.
■ Considercreatingtaxincentiveprogramsorreward/reliefprogramsfor landlordsandmanagementcompanieswhoallowpets.
■ Buildthehousingstockwiththemajorityagedemographic,25to44years (NovemberDraftat1E-0-1),inmind;buildlesssingle-familyhomesand buildmoreduplexesandtriplexes.
● CommunityPrioritiesasReferencedinPreviousCommentLetters ○ Reducingbarriersforundocumentedimmigrantstorent. SeeAttachmentCat3. ○ PursueanInclusionaryZoningordinance. SeeAttachmentAat8. ○ Extremeheatandweatherizationprogramstoaddressclimatechange. See AttachmentAat8;AttachmentCat24,26,35.
46Seee.g.,HCDAFFHGuidanceat72–74(listingHousingActionExamples).

December 11, 2023 City of Fresno Revised Draft Housing Element Comment Letter