AGENDA – JULY 10, 2024 PAGE 1 of 10
CITY OF SAN MARINO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Mayor
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Vice Mayor
Tony Chou, Council Member
Calvin Lo, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member
Philippe Eskandar, City Manager
www.SanMarinoCA.gov
(626) 300-0700 Phone
City Hall Council Chamber
2200 Huntington Drive
San Marino, CA 91108
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SAN MARINO CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2024 AT 4:45 PM
CITY HALL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC)
2200 HUNTINGTON DRIVE
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
The City of San Marino appreciates your attendance. Citizens’ interest provides the Council with valuable information regarding issues of the community.
Regular meetings are held on the 2nd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Typically, adjourned meetings are held on the last Friday of every month at 8:30 a.m.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person with a disability who requires a reasonable modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should contact the City Clerk via email at [email protected] or by phone at (626) 300-0705 prior to the meeting for assistance.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Council Member Chou, Council Member Lo, Council Member Talt, Vice Mayor Shepherd Romey, and Mayor Huang
POSTING OF AGENDA
The special meeting agenda is posted 24 hours prior to each special meeting at the following locations: City Hall, 2200 Huntington Drive, the Crowell Public Library, 1890 Huntington Drive, and the Stoneman Building, 1560 Pasqualito Drive. The special meeting agenda is also posted on the City’s website: http://www.SanMarinoCA.gov.
AGENDA – JULY 10, 2024 PAGE 2 of 10
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council will recess to closed session to discuss:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9 (D)(1)
The City Council is meeting with respect to one (1) matter of existing litigation against the City.
Dwayne Carlton
Workers’ Compensation Claim No’s.: 23-173907
Workers’ Compensation Claim No.: 23-171637
Workers’ Compensation Claim No.: 23-170538
Workers’ Compensation Claim No. : 22-165716
Workers’ Compensation Claim No. : 18-138483
Workers’ Compensation Claim No.: 17-133609
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9 (D)(2)
The City Council is meeting with respect to one (1) matter of significant exposure to litigation against the City related to CalHDF (see attached).
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Posted: 7/5/2024 ALISON WALKER
CITY CLERK
From: James Lloyd
To: City Manager"s Office; Steven Huang, D.D.S.; Gretchen Shepherd Romey; Tony Chou; Calvin Lo; Steve Talt Cc: City Clerk"s Office; Isidro Figueroa; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CalHDF notice to San Marino pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65009 Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 4:36:34 PM
Attachments: CalHDF notice to San Marino - Gov. Code section 65009(d).pdf Dear San Marino City Council, City Manager, Community Development Department, and City Attorney,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) writes to inform the City that the Housing Element to its General Plan, adopted on February 9, 2022, fails to comply with state law on numerous points. These failures are detailed in the attached letter. Unless the City immediately and fully corrects the issues detailed in the letter, CalHDF intends to sue the City. This letter serves as the notice required by Gov. Code § 65009.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
PAGE 3 of 10
June 20, 2024
California Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Accountability Unit
651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Re: Revised San Marino Housing Element, May 2024
By email: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Housing Accountability Unit,
On April 12, 2024, the California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) wrote to inform the City of San Marino (“the City”) that the Housing Element to its General Plan, adopted on February 9, 2022, failed to comply with state law on numerous points, as detailed in the letter. The letter served as the notice required by Government Code section 65009, enabling CalHDF to bring suit against the City after 60 days.1
Since that time the City has submitted a revised Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). While an improvement over the previous version of the plan, the Housing Element still fails to substantially comply with state law in several key areas: overly optimistic projections of ADU development; inadequate low-income sites; a failure to commit to by-right development for housing development projects on low-income sites with 20% affordable housing; and a failure to affirmatively further fair housing.
1 “A cause of action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall not be maintained until 60 days have expired following notice to the city or clerk of the board of supervisors by the party bringing the cause of action, or his or her representative, specifying the deficiencies of the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or other action described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). A cause of action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall accrue 60 days after notice is filed or the legislative body takes a final action in response to the notice, whichever occurs first.” Gov. Code § 65009, subd. (d)(3)(A).
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
PAGE 4 of 10
I. The City’s ADU Projections Are Not Grounded in Past Performance The City projects that it will achieve construction of 424 ADUs during the planning period (page 73 of the Housing Element). Of these, the City projects that 64 will be for extremely low income households, 36 for very low income households, 189 for low-income households, 9 for moderate income households, and 126 for above moderate income households (Table 15, page 124). The total low-income ADUs, including extremely and very low income, is projected to be 289 units out of a total low, very low, and extremely low income capacity of 362 units.
The projection of 58 permits per year is based on the fact that in 2023, the City issued 58 ADU permits, as indicated by Table 14 (page 123). However, in 2022 the City only issued 25 permits, in 2021 only 14 permits, and in 2020 only 12 permits. And the City only developed 47 ADUs during the entire 5th Cycle (page 36).
This is a highly optimistic projection based on only a single year of good production.
This City is doing this because of local opposition to multifamily development. On page 122:
“ADUs also work well in a city with strong community opposition to development that conflicts with its existing single-family neighborhoods. Since ADUs can be carved out of existing space and do not always involve new construction, they can be accommodated in existing neighborhoods without impacting architectural and historic character, which are two qualities that the San Marino community feels strongly about. As such, the City anticipates less community opposition to the development of ADUs when compared to development of higher density housing.” According to HCD’s sites inventory manual, cities should use the following factors when projecting ADU development:
● The number of ADUs or JADUs developed in the prior planning period ● The availability of ADUs and JADUs for occupancy, rather than used as offices or guest houses
● Use the trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production.
This is a conservative option to only account for the effect of the new laws without local promotional efforts or incentives (safe harbor option). ● Where no other data is available, assume an average increase of five times the previous planning period construction trends prior to 2018. This option is a conservative estimate based upon statewide data on ADU development since the implementation of the new laws (safe harbor option).
● Use trends from regional production of ADUs.
2 of 7 PAGE 5 of 10
The City’s methodology does not comport with this HCD guidance. By using the single most productive year on record to project forward, the City is exaggerating its potential for ADU development.
If the City based its projection on the average production over the past three years, it would only be planning on 32 ADUs per year, a more conservative projection. If this figure were used instead, the City would achieve 150 fewer ADUs that it is planning, or only 274 units. Of those, 122 could be assumed to be low income and 64 to be very/extremely low income.
This would leave the City with a surplus of only 59 low income units, and a 11 unit deficit in its very low-income and extremely low-income category, rather than a 24 unit surplus.
Additionally, the City does not account for occupancy rates of ADUs. A recent survey of ADUs in Los Altos Hills found that less than half of ADUs in the city were used as dwelling units - the majority were used as guest houses, as office spaces, or as other extra space for the primary dwelling unit. LIke Los Altos Hills, San Marino is entirely in a high resource area, with high median home values and household incomes. In such areas, ADU occupancy will quite likely be lower than in other communities as households have less need for the extra income. The City should account for this in its programs. If the City used the Los Altos Hills survey results, then it should plan for only 47% of ADUs being occupied and should therefore increase the availability of other sites for housing.
If the City took these survey results into consideration, in addition to using a more realistic projection of 27 ADUs per year, it would only yield 137 occupied ADUs, of which 32 could be assumed to be very/extremely low income, and 61 could be assumed to be low income. This would leave the City with a 2 unit low income deficit and a 30 unit very/extremely low income deficit.
Finally, San Marino has one of the most non-compliant ADU ordinances in the state based on the many, many ADU ordinances that CalHDF has reviewed. Please see attached a letter from CalHDF to the City detailing how the ordinance does not comply with state law.
Although Program 1.1 in the Housing Element promises to update the ADU ordinance to comply with state law, the City has failed to do so. This is another reason why it is not appropriate for the City to be planning for ADUs to meet the vast majority of its RHNA allocation.
II. Inadequate Low, Very Low, and Extremely Low-Income Sites Given that the City’s ADU projections are overly aggressive, there is a need for additional sites to accommodate the City’s low, very low, and extremely low-income RHNA. Given the City’s faulty ADU projections and the potentially quite low occupancy rate for ADUs, the City 3 of 7
PAGE 6 of 10
must at minimum plan for sites to accommodate two more low income units and 30 more very/extremely low income units, plus an appropriate buffer.
HCD’s site inventory guidebook recommends “a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.” This buffer is meant to help cities avoid problems with the no-net-loss provisions of the Housing Element Law if a site produces fewer units than anticipated by the housing element.
A 30% buffer would require 44 units beyond the very/extremely low income RHNA, plus making up for the deficit of 30 units, or sites adequate to accommodate 74 more very/extremely low income units. Such a 30% buffer would require 27 units beyond the low income RHNA, plus making up for the two unit deficit, or sites adequate to accommodate 29 low income units.
III. The City Does Not Commit to By-Right Development on Low-Income Sites State law requires that rezonings to make up for RHNA shortfall for low-income households must allow by-right development if at least 20% of the units of the proposed development will be affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) However, at no point does the Housing Element commit to this. In fact, the Housing Element is entirely silent on the issue. This is troubling. To be substantially compliant with state law, the City must commit to rezonings that allow by-right development on low/very/extremely low income sites provided 20% of the units are affordable.
However, by exaggerating its ADU projections, the City has managed to limit low income RHNA sites to just the Huntington Site, for which a development application has already been submitted, and the City-owned Stoneman site, where by-right development is impossible because this City will have to dispose of the land legislatively.
Given the aforementioned need to add sites for low, very low, and extremely low income units, the City should amend its Housing Element to commit to by-right development on such sites, provided 20% of the units are affordable.
IV. The City’s Plan Fails to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing As CalHDF stated in our letter on April 12, the City has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”) in preparing its Housing Element. (See Gov. Code § 8899.50 and § 65583 (c)(5).) The Housing Element itself, moreover, must assess fair housing within the City. (Gov.
Code § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The current Housing Element falls short. While the Housing Element accurately shows that San Marino is an unusually privileged community, it denies that it has a problem with segregation, stating on page 16, ‘It is a well-integrated community.” Meanwhile, Table 26 indicates that the community is only 1.9% Black and only 4 of 7
PAGE 7 of 10
6.3% Latino, though Los Angeles County is 8.1% Black and 48.6% Latino. There is a 48.5 percentage point difference in the combined Black and Latino populations of San Marino and LA County. In other words, San Marino is a highly privileged, White and Asian enclave in the middle of a county that is eight times more Black and Latino than San Marino itself.
While Goal 3 is “Ensure the accessibility to housing for all segments of society,” Policy 3.1 states which society the Housing Element is concerned with - existing City residents, not outsiders (emphasis added):
“Policy 3.1: Promote equal housing opportunity for all economic, racial, and social groups currently residing in the City”
In spite of the May 2024 amendments, the Housing Element still does not aim to increase access to housing in the City for marginalized groups outside the City.
The City’s programs fail to affirmatively further fair housing due to three programmatic aspects of the plan: an overreliance on ADUs, a lack of multifamily sites with by-right development, and the choice to dedicate the Stoneman site to senior housing.
Over-reliance on ADUs
The federal Fair Housing Act does not apply to ADUs, and state fair housing law is unclear on the issue. Additionally, the aforementioned survey in Los Altos Hills showed that 44% of the occupied ADUs were inhabited by family members. Both of these factors mean that historically excluded groups, such as Black or Latino-headed households, will have much greater challenges living in a San Marino ADU.
Furthermore, ADUs are significantly smaller than other types of housing. While this makes them naturally more affordable, it also reduces housing opportunities for families with children.
State law obligates the City’s Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing, with protected categories including familial status, as mandated by Gov. Code 65583, subd. (c)(5) (emphasis added):
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
San Marino’s overreliance on ADUs fails to promote housing throughout the community for families with children, which is a familial status. This failure is compounded by the fact that 5 of 7
PAGE 8 of 10
the city’s non-ADU low income inventory is senior housing (see below) or graduate student housing. his aspect of the Housing Element will ensure the continued segregation of the San Marino school district, where only 5% of students are Latino or Black. A housing plan that proposes no lower-income housing growth that is available for families with children cannot be said to affirmatively further fair housing.
To affirmatively further fair housing, the City should amend its Housing Element to allow for a greater degree of other types of housing that could be of appropriate size for families and are actually subject to the federal Fair Housing Act, such as multifamily rental housing.
Lack of multifamily sites with by-right development
Unlike ADUs, multifamily housing is bound by the Fair Housing Act. Additionally, unlike ADUs, developers are not generally seeking to fill their buildings with their relatives.
Housing developers, including affordable housing developers, seek housing sites that allow for by-right development. This is because by-right development establishes predictability and makes spending large amounts of predevelopment funds a safer commercial venture. If the City were to allow by-right development, it would enhance the likelihood of multifamily development, including mixed-income and/or 100% affordable development, thereby increasing housing opportunity for historically excluded racial and ethnic groups.
By refusing to commit to by-right development on low-income sites where 20% of units are affordable, the City not only violates subdivision (h) of Government Code § 65583.2, it also fails to affirmatively further fair housing.
Senior Housing on the City-Owned Stonemane Site
One of the primary benefits to residents of high resource communities is the caliber of the local schools. By choosing to use the City-owned Stoneman Site as affordable senior housing (pages 96-97), the City will maintain the segregated nature of its school district. At present only 4% of the district’s students are Latino and only 1% are Black, according to the district’s own website. Given the extremely high caliber of these schools, the fact that they were never ordered to integrate during the 1970s, and the demographics of Los Angeles County, it is extremely troubling that the City would choose to exclude school-aged children from what is by far the best affordable housing development site in the City.
By choosing to dedicate the one City-owned site to senior housing, the City is excluding school-aged children from historically excluded groups and is therefore failing to affirmatively further fair housing.
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
6 of 7 PAGE 9 of 10
While the City’s latest draft Housing Element is a significant improvement over the previous iteration, the City should commit to doing more. By over-relying on ADUs, not committing to by-right development, and dedicating the only City-owned site to senior housing, the City is acting to continue to exclude marginalized racial and ethnic groups from the community.
The City’s history of building almost exclusively large, expensive single-family homes (and the extremely lack of Black or Latino residents) compounds these concerns.
San Marino can and should do more to allow and encourage a variety of housing options – multi-family housing developments on a by-right basis should be a major focus – and its actions should affirmatively further fair housing.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
7 of 7
PAGE 10 of 10