In this same article, CEDC’s attorneys (no name) claim that the city broke the state’s affordable housing law in turning down Plaza Amistad. This implied we could get sued by the state. This is wrong, because the City Council and the Planning Department declined the project for valid reasons of noncompliance.Santa Paula gave our tax dollars to developers Cabrillo with the HOPE that they would use it in the way we intended them to do - no strings attached, unlike the state. Who do you think was more prudent? Oversights do happen, trust is sometimes misplaced, proofreading is below the mark.A number of voting citizens in Santa Paula are concerned about the apparent lack of control and accountability with our taxpayer money; we would like to request that an audit be conducted on CEDC’s books, to see where city and state money went for a noncompliant project that is currently in litigation, awaiting a judge’s decision, which may never come (judges have absolute discretion in such matters to withhold a decision indefinitely or until the litigants settle it amongst themselves). This project may never be built, and we feel we have the right to know where the money went that has been allocated to this not-for-profit company.Let’s just get to the bottom of this. Our Council can do this and I believe they will; they have shown great intelligence and diligence over the past two years.David KaiserSanta PaulaEditors Note: CEDC did receive a grant as indicated in the story. Grants given to organizations by the State of California are not paid until projects, etc. are approved. The story did not imply they had physically received the money, only that they were the recipient of a grant.RE: Letter regarding SCAGTo the Editor:I am responding to a recent letter regarding SCAG, or Southern California Association of Governments and its relationship to the State-mandated Housing Element. My response is fairly technical, but the earlier, undocumented letter to the editor left many false impressions that led to the incorrect conclusion that ignoring SCAG or “no longer being a member of SCAG” means that SCAG’s actions have no impact. I have found that when working with SCAG, the best approach is to do your research, and find other cities and counties sympathetic to you issues. Building coalitions among SCAG communities around issues, root causes and methodologies has worked better for Santa Paula than stamping our feet and fighting the State or the Feds, or worse yet, ignoring the proceedings. Our closest allies are not necessarily in Ventura County, which is made up primarily of wealthy communities, but in the rural, blue collar and emerging white collar areas of the SCAG Region, where our issues resonate with other elected officials.SCAG is a “Council of Governments”, organized under California law as a “Joint Powers Authority” according to California Government Code section 6500, and is therefore by statute a public agency which must be registered with the California Secretary of State (in direct contradiction of the earlier letter). SCAG is also a “Metropolitan Planning Organization” (MPO) under Federal law. Establishment or changes to a Metropolitan Planning Organization require that certain minimum federal requirements be met as to population of the remaining/new MPOs, (as published in the Federal Register) and then an agreement must be forged between that state’s Governor and the local officials representing 75% of the affected population (central cities must be in agreement), preferably by legislation (per federal law published at 23 CFR 450.306). SCAG’s governing body meets the requirements for a JPA under state law, and an MPO under federal law, and consists of councilmembers and county supervisors from the counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Imperial counties, along with the leaders of several tribal governments. These elected delegates hire an executive director, and he/she hires a staff to carry out SCAG’s delegated responsibilities.The writer is correct that SCAG is a voluntary organization, to the extent that a city or county originally became a member by choice and may choose whether to pay dues, but once formed, and when authority to perform certain functions is delegated to SCAG by the California Legislature or by the U.S. Congress, other assumptions about the concept of “voluntary” go out the window. SCAG has not only been delegated authority by the State in the Housing Element process, it has been delegated authority by the U.S. Congress to do transportation and air quality planning which serve as the basis for the distribution of funds and the creation of new laws. (There are other planning activities which have also been delegated, but the above are perhaps the most significant ones.) It does not matter whether a city or county pays dues to SCAG - the authority delegated to SCAG still applies to that city or county: the non-member city or county just loses its ability to influence the exercise of that authority.I will limit the content of this letter to the California Legislature’s decision to delegate authority to SCAG for preparation of the housing needs plan (or “RHNA”) for the cities and counties in the SCAG Region. If you know where to look, it is easy to find the California statutes related to SCAG’s role in the Housing Element process. (Google California Housing Element Law, and near the bottom of the page is a link called California Housing Element Law; click on it.) The California Legislature has passed laws that require the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to work with councils of governments when preparing the Housing Needs Plan, which serves as the backbone of the required housing element. If you go to section 65584 (2) (b), you can read that HCD consults with the COG to determine each region’s existing and projected housing need. HCD then adopts a final regional housing needs plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city and county.Section 65584.03 allows cities and or counties to form subregions within COGs for purposes of allocating housing need to each city and county within the subregion. However, the subregion must allocate all of the housing that the COG (SCAG) has determined is the required share of that subregion. This process was, in fact, used in Ventura County in the current Housing Element cycle; SCAG prepared the share of housing needs for Ventura County, and Ventura Council of Governments, an approved subregion for the current cycle, made the allocations to the cities and the county unincorporated area.If you go to section 65584.08 you can see the special legislation pertaining to SCAG that was passed in 2005. SCAG’s elected delegates and staff worked with HCD and several state legislators to develop this pilot program, which is only in effect for the current housing element cycle, unless renewed by the Legislature. The purpose of this new law is to allow SCAG more flexibility in developing the population forecasts on which the housing allocations are based, and ensuring their consistency with forecasts SCAG prepares for regional transportation planning under federal law. Through the decades, SCAG has observed that its own forecasts for the SCAG Region have been lower and more accurate than the California Department of Finance forecasts; stated another way, using the Department of Finance forecasts in the SCAG Region has resulted in an overstatement of the housing need, and one that the housing market cannot/will not respond to.The recent letter to the editor stated that Santa Paula does not have to accept the housing need prepared for Santa Paula by SCAG. Section 65584.08 says that a city or county that objects to its housing allocation may request from SCAG or its subregion a revision of its share, and may still later file an appeal to SCAG or its subregion; it is at the sole discretion of SCAG or the subregion to decide whether a change is appropriate. The SCAG or subregion decision cannot be appealed to HCD. Per section 65584.05 (h), the housing allocation plan, once adopted by SCAG is final unless HCD determines that SCAG did not fully allocate the housing need; HCD does not amend or consider requests from individual cities or counties to amend how or where the units are allocated.SCAG had to report to the Legislature by March 30, 2007 its progress on the housing needs plan, and had to submit the final plan the HCD by June 30, 2007. By law, Santa Paula had to submit its draft Housing Element for HCD review 90 days prior to adoption, and the adopted version was required to be sent to HCD by June 30, 2008. In “Housing Element Questions and Answers”, Page 16, (on the HCD website) HCD says the COG’s (SCAG’s) housing need plan is the housing need plan for each city or county within its jurisdiction. (My emphasis.) The total need and the need by income levels in Santa Paula’s adopted Housing Element must therefore match what SCAG adopted and forward to HCD in June of 2007.In the interest of space, I invite the reader to stay on the website in the section called “Housing Element Law” and read near the end, sections 65589 to 65589.6 and 65589.8. 65589 indicates that there is nothing in the law that requires a city or county to use local money for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or for land acquisition; obviously the Legislature does not consider the housing set-asides of Redevelopment funds as local money. That being said, the remaining sections outline the limitations on cities and counties to deny affordable housing projects.Mary Ann Krause, AICPSanta Paula
Letters to the Editor
July 11, 2008
Opinion
Light bulb disposal
To the Editor: Today’s building codes require us to use fluorescent lamps in our homes for our lighting but the city does not want us to throw our old lamps in trash barrels. I built my house over 20 years ago and used structure lighting with 48 fluorescent lamps. Santa Paula City used to have a pick-up date for all items that would not normally go into the trash, like old stoves, refrigerators, TVs and the like. But the city stopped picking up old fluorescent lamps to economize. These old lamps could end up in our landfills. Or will you drive your car with gas at $4-5 a gallon to dispose in a proper landfill your old lamps?Today, most people do not know that all fluorescent lamps blink many times every second like our TVs. This is called a stroboscopic effect; some people are affected by this more than others. If lamps are used correctly one never has to see the stroboscopic effect. Your eye doctor can explain this to you. A simple way to witness this effect - turn on your TV and turn off all others lights in the room - walk up to your TV and move your hand across the face and your fingers will appear to jump to your eye. Never watch a TV in a dark room; it could cause eyestrain, headache, and or red eye. There are millions of people and business breaking up their old lamps to get them into their trash. Do not inhale the phosphors from lamps.David KaiserSanta PaulaBalancing the scaleTo the Editor:I support the comments of Mr. David Kaiser concerning how the City of Santa Paula will charge each household to pay for our new sewer plant.The City of Ventura has a very successful pro-rated plan that charges each household for the amount of water usage. In this way, a household of two does not pay the same amount as a household of six or eight.I would encourage the City Council to adopt a similar pay scale here in Santa Paula. My family and I love living in Santa Paula, but we do not want to be taxed or charged out of it. This is a great place to live… let’s keep it that way.W. Earl McPhailSanta PaulaCommendationTo the Editor:A big hooray to Larry Sagely and Steve Smead for the petition idea. You deserve commendation for this work and time to let the Cabrillo (CEDC) nonprofit (?) no tax developers and such know that Santa Paula citizens are fed up to the hilt, that enough is more than enough. This city is overburdened with “many” four-story monster ultra low income so to speak buildings.When CEDC would fill the chamber meetings with low income and farm laborers, many who needed interpreters admitted in public they were not legal citizens even, nor local. Not only are so many are a burden to a city that has needs that cannot be filled because it takes finances it does not have, but this also includes health care and our schools, and it goes on.Local working citizens who pay taxes and have a “real home” financing have been saying “enough already” for quite some time and for way too long. The $400,000 plus interest it has collected that was “given” to nonprofit no-tax CEDC in years past should certainly be returned and put to “good” use to pay real city bills. And to Larry and Steve, well done. And hang in there with the many.Ken ZimmetSanta PaulaAsking for accountabilityTo the Editor:An item in the July 2, 2008 issue of the Santa Paula Times implied that Cabrillo has received a $4.1 million state grant for the Plaza Amistad development from the State of California. Not so. We checked with Sacramento. The facts are, Cabrillo has not received any funds to date from the State, and will not, until they get an approval for the project from the city, building permit, and only then, when paid bills for reimbursement are sent to Sacramento for specific work performed. Tim Stoecklein is the HCD administrator in Sacramento, phone: 916-324-1592. The State apparently keeps much better control on such funds than does Santa Paula, at least in the instance of the city’s $400,000 that has gone “missing”.
