###

The Blue Lake City Council this week rejected recommendations from its own staff and planning commission, and potentially invited enforcement actions from the state, when, with a 3-2 vote, it chose not to adopt its own housing element update for its general plan.

Like all local governments in California, Blue Lake is required to accommodate population growth by planning for its share of housing development, known as its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA).

For the city’s current planning cycle, which covers the period from 2019 through 2027, Blue Lake was allocated a RHNA of 23 dwelling units across various income levels. The city also has a carryover of 11 units from the prior planning cycle because the housing element update from the previous planning period (2014-2019) was never certified. 

So, in order to comply with new laws and requirements from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), Blue Lake needs to submit an updated housing element showing it can accommodate at least 34 new dwelling units.

Development plans in Blue Lake have largely been focused on a mixed-use affordable housing project in the Powers Creek District, proposed by Danco. This controversial project was a primary focus in Blue Lake’s recent contentious election and has featured prominently in recent combustible public meetings. When the race for the third and final available spot on the city council ended in an exact tie, the balance of power on the council came down to a name pulled blindly from an envelope, with challenger Kat Napier emerging victorious to unseat incumbent Mayor Adelene Jones.

As with much of the nation in this political moment, Blue Lake is home to an ascendant political contingent that suspects its government of nefarious intent and its entrenched functionaries of wanting to subvert public participation to achieve their own goals.

On Tuesday night, assigned City Planner Garry Rees (on loan from SHN) informed the council that while their main decision was whether or not to approve a mitigated negative declaration (a legal document stating that the city’s housing element update will not have any significant environmental impacts), they also had the option of adopting that updated draft that very evening. And doing so would please HCD officials.

“They keep prompting us, asking when we’re going to adopt the housing element update,” Rees said.

Part of the urgency, he explained, is that Blue Lake completed its work on that update with funds from a state-funded Local Early Action Development (LEAD) grant.

“That’s the only way the city could afford it,” Rees said. “And I believe, in order to close out the grants, they’re waiting for adoption to occur.”

However, three of the newest members of the council, including Napier, Mayor John Sawatzky and Mayor Pro Tem Elise Scafani, remain skeptical of the city’s development plans generally and the Danco project in particular. Sawatzky and Scafani questioned whether the city’s wastewater treatment plant can accommodate the planned population growth. Both Rees and City Manager Mandy Mager assured them that it can.

Mager also told the council that they can’t block the city’s planned developments by refusing to adopt the housing element update.

“The housing element is not preventing or hindering development in the Powers Creek District … ,” she said. “The high-density development can happen there already, based upon our zoning. … Not adopting this [update] is not a tool to prevent development.”

“Yeah,” Rees chimed in, “if you were not to adopt this [housing element update], you’d basically be in violation of state housing law, and those projects could happen anyway.”

Napier said she took offense at that, saying, “My issues with this housing update are more relevant to overall growth, not a particular project.”

But Rees sought to reinforce his point. He said he’s heard community members insist that if the new housing element isn’t approved, it will inhibit Danco’s ability to get the funding necessary for its development. Such statements have been made at Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings, and the state is aware, he added.

“If you’re attempting to use your housing element update to prevent affordable housing projects, they actually have laws on the books now that will go after cities for that type of action,” he said. 

The California Attorney General can sue jurisdictions that don’t meet their obligations under state housing laws, and such lawsuits may result in court orders, hefty fines and/or loss of local land use authority. Cities can also lose eligibility for state grants and funding for housing, transportation and infrastructure projects.

During the public comment period, local resident Julie Christie suggested that the city stick with its old housing element, saying that document is “core to realistic ethics for this community.” She also said it was “inappropriate” to shove this item into the night’s crowded agenda and voiced skepticism about the process leading to this point. Has anyone even read the 140-page document? Has anyone seen the supposed letters to the city from HCD? Why hasn’t the public been shown the changes made from one draft to another?

Scafani echoed these doubts and asked why the city council hasn’t been provided copies of earlier drafts.

Rees said any implications of a cover-up are “just untrue.” He said city staff and the planning commission have followed the same iterative process used by any other jurisdiction in the state and that copies of the drafts are on file at city hall, have been presented to the council and made available to the public throughout the update process. 

Scafani then wondered aloud whether public feedback during this process has been an exercise in futility. 

However, her council colleague, Michelle Lewis-Lusso, was prepared to enact the planning commission’s recommendation. She made a motion to adopt the resolution to update and implement the housing element for the 2019-2027 planning cycle. Fellow council member Christopher G. Firor quickly seconded them motion. But they proved to be the only “yes” votes.

“Unbelievable,” remarked a demonstrably annoyed Firor. He asked for the vote to be taken again so there’d be a record of who voted “no” and who abstained. Again the vote failed, with Sawatzky, Napier and Scafani voting against the resolution.

Rees offered to bring back any supporting documentation the council may want to see and suggested scheduling a joint meeting with the planning commission. Did the council wish to provide any direction to staff?

“We’ll get back to you on that,” Sawatzky said.

Napier added that the council has a lot of work on its plate right now.

The Outpost emailed each council member on Thursday seeking comment and requesting an interview. None had responded by the time this post was published.

Mager, the city manager, responded to an email with one of her own, saying there’s not much she can add regarding the events of the meeting.

“I think we’re all aware of the State’s position on certification and there’s plenty of available information on HCD’s website explaining the enforcement mechanisms available,” she said. “I don’t believe that Blue Lake is immune to any of the actions/tools available to the State to enforce compliance.”

The relevant deliberations from Tuesday’s meeting can be watched via the YouTube video below.