The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 5 HOUSING ELEMENTS 02-17-81DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 9, 1981 CONSENT CALENDAR No. 5 2,-x17~81 Inter-Corn Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development, Director Roos Bill #2853, Housing Elements The letters from Mr. Ackerman and Mayor Bornhoft of Fullerton do reflect an appropriate response to the continuing effort of the State Legislature to solve problems by shuffling the responsibility to local government agencies. Housing is a national, state and local problem. The mandatory nature of the Roos Bill is especially distasteful as it attempts to force each community into a mold wrought by State and regional agencies. A similar, however, more brief draft letter for our council is attached. Tustin is not subject to all the provisions which Fullerton faces as our 1980 Housing Element comples with Roos Bill 2853; however, we will have to amend and update it by July 1, 1984 (an appropriate date) in conformance to such mandatory provisions. // Michael Brotemarkle Community Development Director MB/hn At tachment CITY COUNCIL Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Pro-tern Ursula E. Kennedy James B. Sharp Ronald B. Hoesterey D~ar Please help us secure an ~mendment to the provisions of the recent Roos Bill (AB 2853) regarding the Housing Element of City General Plans. The Roos Bill makes the previously advisory housing guidelines mandatory, and requires cities to achieve certain progress and use certain programs to achieve low ar~ n~derate income housing. The concept that individual cities can solve problems which national, state or regional agencies have failed to resolve, is unrealistic and doomed to failure. The net effect will be lawsuits filed by interest groups against cities for failing to live up to their legal responsibilities, which are near impossible due to local circumstances (land cost, available land, construction costs, topography, infrastructure costs, etc. ) or to a lack of legal or financial authority. Housing is one of the mDst critical problems facing the State and its · residents. Solutions are desperately ncc~ed. However, the enacted provisions of AB 2853 (l~Dos) are counter-productive and unrealistic. We strongly urge your support of remedial legislation to remove these onerous provisions and substitute an approach of assistance, support and incentives to local level with the funding and authority necessary to attack the housing problems. Some cities have been too parochial or exclusionary in their zoning, but the biggest causes of the present housing problem, in our opinion, are inflation, high interest rates, restrictions on development by fbastal Co~mission, delays caused by excessive California Environmental Quality Act requirements, local government funding restrictions, no-growth interest groups and other obstacles. If w~ are to solve the important problems of California, the Cities and State must work together as a team. Please let us know how we can help. Sincerely yours, DONAFD J. SALTARELLI, Mayor City Center Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-8890 OFFICE OF TtIE CITY COUNCll! 0;~.. :-.~,.~: ~' 303 WHST (,~ MMON~ EALTH AV~NU: · FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA Telephone: (714) 738-6311 January 12, 1981 Mayor Don Saltarelli Tustin City Hall Centennial at Main Tustin, CA 92680 Re: Roos Bill #2853 Dear Mayor and City Council: I am writing to urge your support of amendment to the Roos Bill relating to requirements of the Housing Element of cities' General Plan. The Roos Bill which is now in effect has application to cities who are currently revising their general plan and also to cities who have completed their revision. Our city believes that portions of this bill unreasonably interfere with local control and also force cities to do or attempt to do housing projects which range from the unreasonable to the impossible. I urge your review of this bill and am enclosing copies of letters which we are sending to our State Senator and Assemblymen for their action. This matter is pressing as the deadline for approvals of revised plans is October 1, 1981. Should you request and further information about our city's thoughts, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Richard C. Ackerman RCA/2A19 Enclosures Ol I ICI~. OF TIlE ('ITY (!()UN('ll, 30;~ ~,~, ES [' COMMON\~, t;ALllt AVENUE f; ULI,I',R FON. CALIFORNIA (32632 'l'elephon(,: (714} 7:~8-6311 January 12, 1981 Assemblyman Ross Johnson 1501 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92635 Dear Ross: I am writing you on behalf of the City of Fullerton regarding a matter of considerable urgency. That matter is the Roos Bill (AB 2853). The involved section of that Bill relates to requirements by the State to the City's Housing Element of the General Plan which must be approved bv the State on or before October 1, 1981. It appears that t~is Bill, or at least portions of it, "slipped" their way through the State Legislature as only one Orange County legislator voted against this Bill. We feel that the full impact of this Bill has not been realized by many people, thus explaining this relatively smooth passage t~rough the State Legislature. The major objections we have to the Bill are as follows: 1. Guidelines and goals. 2. Fair share housing determination. 3. Housing subsidies. 4. Economic realities. 5. Local control. 1. Guidelines and Goals. The Bill in its introduction Section 65580 states that ~t is a goal in California to provide the highest priority t~ obtaining decent housing and suitable living environments for every California family. While this is a laudable goal, the Bill th~n assumes that it is possible and orders every city and local agency to do it. Guidelines con- tained in the housing element which formerly were advisory, have now for the most part become mandatory. This attempt by the State to conform every city regardless of size and individual condition, to State requirements is an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of local government and ignores the individual char- acteristics of various cities. Assemblyman Ross Johnson January 12, 1981 Page Two 2. Fair Share Housing. The State has adopted a theory of fair share housing whereby applying a formula to each area they will tell an individual city what its share of low and moderate income households should be. This concept again smacks of "big brotherism" as there would eventually be no need for local government as the State would control not only housing, but fire departments, police departments, parks, and every aspect of our life which now and has been in the past best handled by the local governmental agency. The Bill also requires cities to adopt an implementation plan telling how and within what time period this impossible to attain fair share housing requirement will be met. 3. Housing Subsidies. The rental and housing subsidies of the state and federal government have long borne with them substantial restrictions and restraints on the use of said monies. This program becomes another aspect of our welfare programs subject to many of its misgivings and shortfalls. One tremendous additional burden pointed out by many economists re- garding the Section 8 program is the gigantic liability which the federal government is accruing under this program which our government does not have the money to finance. The Roos Bill in essence says that you must use the state and federal subsidies when available, thereby putting additional restrictions on the local agencies and also spending money that the federal govern- ment and soon the state government will not have. 4. Economic Realities. This Bill and the concepts of fair share housing and housing subsidies, ignore the current economic realities of not only Orange County but the nation at large. History has shown many times over that where government attempts to regulate our economic life, things generally get worse instead of better. The success of our country has been as a result of. the private sector and normal economic growth. Population and business centers grow and prosper but hardly ever stay the same. The housing subsidy has been another example of the federal government spending billioos of dollars in attempting to solve a problem, and succeeding in-only not solving the problem but causing larger deficits for our i~-~eral government and resultant large inflations. 5. Local Control. This Bill starts out in its introduction stating that it is a "State.mandated local program." It further states that there is no appropriation available for this program. The state and the federal government of late have been successfully Assemblyman Ross Johnson January 12, 1981 Page Three expanding their jurisdiction and power to take away traditionally locally controlled matters such as housing from the local agencies. People in California have traditionally exercised their freedom of choice in living in one area and working in another. ~ile this concept m~ eventually change, we do not feel it is a government responsib~!ity or role to .legislate the abolition of this concept. This Bill completely ignores the individual characteristics of communities and facts that some'cities may be entirely industrial- ized and employer oriented while other cities may be bedroom com- munities with very little industry. Our recommendation is to make the housing element guidelines contained in Article 10.6 advisory as they were in the past and not mandatory. In conclusion, we believe the portions of this Bill discussed hit at the very heart of one of our major problems today, that is a state and federal government attempting to solve all problems and to take away the authority originally vested in local govern- ments to govern themselves. We strongly urge that you consider our City,s position in this and pursue some remedial legislation to correct this Bill. We are also pursuing this position through the Orange County League of Cities, other Orange County cities, and the State League of Cities. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. S' .cerely, Wayne Mayor bw