Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 4, 1982 (48)t A 4 City Clerk Reimche presented the following letters of information: ITEMS OF a) Letter from Assembly, California Legislature signed INFORMATION by Jim Costa, Richard Lehman, Pa trick Johnston regarding displeasure with Adrian Giantul_::'s actions in her refusal to begin work on major transportation projects previously approved by Transportation Com ission as part of the 1982 S.T.I.P. h b) Letter from State Senator John Garamendi concerning fiscal decisions made in 1982-83 state budget and funding loca; governmental services. c) Release f i-cmi Mayor, City of Norco requesting opposition to SB 53 which was passed permitting the transfer of property from one city into another without providing an effective method for the de-annexating city to protest. 9 it 11 . ""fA— T, For Your Infornuitinn Coln PI i ments of ASSEMBLYMAN PATRICK JOHN." -ON Nth District California Legislature Sacramento Addieu Room 2111 Sute Capitol 95814 Telephone. (916) 445-7558 DistAct Offke l l I I Fulton Mall. Suite 914 .---. C.Wornia 93721 Telephone: (209) 264.3078 Rt-C.FIVC'0 A I6. t COMMITTEES -3 Clu it man: Housln A Commu-tit —,lv RECEIVED AssemWi,, M � 41 Talifornia ifle'��k�ft !"t ODI JIM COSTA ASSENIBLYMAN.IHIRTIFTH LASIRICT Mr. Michael Evanhoe executive Director California Transportation Corranission I 1120 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Evanhoe, I ) , rr Member: Aviculture Govcrnmcntri OIFstiration Human Services Select Committee on Agri-ultural Fumigants and their A!:cinati,es Select Committet on Enetsy Alternatives in Apinilture Subcommittee on the Mcdfly Etadicauon Ptoject July 16, 1982 We are writing to express our extreme displeasure with the recent actions of Adriana Gianturco in her refusal to begin work on major transportation projects that were previously approved by the Transportaticn Commission as part of the 1982 S.T.I.P. These highway projects are vital to providing safe roadways for all Californians. While we do not demean the need to encourage mass transit, the previously approved highway improvement projects should proceed unobstructed by Gianturco's philosophical opposition to freeway construction. Any delay in commencing construction on these highway projects means that thousands of lives continue to be needlessly endangered. We are confident that the Commission recognizes the dire need to make California's highways as safe as possible and will vote tc retain funding for these freeway construction projects in the 1982 S.T.I.P. We look forward to working with you and the Commission toward this end Thank you for your con3ideration and swift action in this regard. S ' ncerAy, M STA RICHARD iiMAN AkTON ember of the Assembly Member of the Assembly Member of the Assembly . 0th District 31st District 26th District cc: Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Adriana Giantui co Members, California Transportation Commission Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr. President Pro Tempore David Roberti Senate Transportation Committee Chairman, John Foran Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman, Bruce Young 11 bi OPn�ator Oo4y rRECEIMVIP, OnjoritKrahrr ALICE W REQ Calif ornia 0 nate July 13, 1982 The Honorable Fred Reed Mayor, City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mayor Reed: By now you are probably informed about the fiscal decisions,which were made in the 1982-83 state budget. As in past years, funding local governmental services was one of the more difficult decisions. No two cities, counties, or special districts are alike, and thus no single formula suits each well. The allocation problem was compounded this year by the small size of the revenue pot. Negotiating the budget in the Conference Committee was a grueling experience. Massive savings amounting to $400 million in Medi -Cal plus reductions in other programs made it poesible to hold local program cuts to a minimum. You will be receiving from the Department of Finance infor-aa- tion on the amount of state support coming to the City of Lodi but you may also be interested in the enclosed printout. These figures compare the losses from state bailout computed according to the various formulas involved. The figure in column 4 approxi- mates the total reduction of state support for Lodi. Many of you contacted me throughout the spring and summer when budget items were discussed. Your information was helpful and I appreciated receiving your phone calls and letters. JG:mci Enclosure Sinr_erely, State Capitol. Sacramento. Cahtorn+a 95814 G s COMPARISON OF FISCAL MUF IE10C110M ALTERNATIVES Lpislrtt#t Aa41yst - bat 25, 1912 111 121 131 141 As 1 PER CA1114 No 1AILOUI LDUEI OF CIjt/[•ratr ry-PAMA FOSA .A AnxT (1).(21. DR (3) i wstcl 0219,715 •345,164 4147,919 •10,919 11C KAR EKE #1 •175,491 ♦1 41 COdNO +619,237 •llb,70 #553,1542 -SSM 542 COLI'w #349,567 4545,444 43SI,M -319,567 5* TAM #366,9#4 0818,196 •:23,:13 -386,944 CkW TERIACE 41 +161,:12 -0,721 $1 1 LCCA LIMA •97,341 +22b,13 •71,034 -71,654 WNICLAIR 081,151 0458,594 #365,414 -365,414 IKE415 #79,174 W, 44 •61,929 -61,929 OM(t�IC #1,393,711 #1,792,531 61,722,121 -1,399,711 t. X40 CU;A DILA #2!1,111 41,113,246 +282,111 -282,198 IEDLAN S •/11,171 9177,977 +1,141,130 -817,977 11:.10 0412,477 1795,953 #442,110 -412,677 f SAX KilwilMo 01,389,132 .2,375,610 0,191,114 •!,411,114 ltvu.6 .131,661 •152,171 �r9/,15/ -939,661 i V1iiL1�;11E +1 +:92,073 -34,544 934,544 1.11 N ### 1 SAX WM MOTT 41,371,152 94,123,145 #6,171,573 -1,371,152 CA-SW11,121,119 •692,-41 +1,122,257 -691,893 C".LA VISTA 0,155,772 91,&42,7S5 #834,247 -134,247 C§. ".A: 0 •616,282 •375,171 9597,179 -373,171 KL Pu 1111,612 090,461 #111,195 -90,461 El WC4 -411,551 +1,454,771 6453,138 -69,131 [MaMm #715,695 4l'M,175 •651,281 -659,283 iOUNIL IUCM •2111,171 #446,141 4217,111 -217,911 LA ISA 4574,104 471,"4 #435,,41t -435,4" Lf1t:Y CIM #141,01 #414,371 #11,216 -89,231 114U.11+1: E1T1 -413,657 #1,127,603 +213,724 -233,724 NEAPSIIE 41,444,141 •1,521,313 •1,713,671 -1,444,841 1liiT •i tm,on H to S49 1IECO +12,116;264 417,275,576 •11,612,571 -11,691,571 so AAPM •113,412 #347,111 #It9,584 -113,02 SMEE #1 41,163,455 #1 +1 VISTA #439,399 +721,791 #473,471 -439,399 I##got of" SAM iiAKISCO COUNTY 4,2/1,397 •1,721,179 - #154,516,116 -1,721,079 S##m#### #✓JOACUU CDUIR't' 431,1116 #913,451 #0,753,207 -131,016 ESCLDM #44,616 +62,467 #37,291 -37,231 • L0DI 0471,277 #692,271 +521,677 •521,677 CITY of NORCO C: rY NALL 3954 OLD HAMNER TELEPHONE (714) 735.3900 P.O. BOX 428. NOReC760, r49 July 22, 1982 82 DCD 241 Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO SB 53 Gentlemen: Recently the Norco City Manager wrote to your City Manager requesting opposition to SB 53. Many cities responded, but unfortunately 'the bill passed the Assembly Committee and is now ready for Assembly vote in early August, 1982. Therefore, we would appreciate your quick response. This bill will permit the transfer of property''from one city into another without providing an effective method for the deannexati.ng city to protest. The bill is sponsored by development interest and has great support from construction and labor arganiza tions. They are using this bill as a precedent to bring the State into local land use decisions regard- ing residential development. Attached are copies of a•:ticles that give further insight into this matter. Would you please review this matter with your Co11ncil and submit your opposition to the Assemblymen and Senator representing your area. Sincerely, ,,•gip,... t,J ING TcLON WILDP Mayor, City of Norco RSP: pke Attachments CITY COUNCIL RON WILDFONG F. R. "PEAL" JONES NAOMI R. FEAGAN LORI GREGG STEVE M NATHAN N.ayor Mayor Pro To— COUM610rMhn Counestwo m" cewKiiNWn WESTERN CITY Editor --Itat Stemmlce Adrertisinx—Toioctte O°Rtica Advtr. Consultant — Tcd McKey $wines Manater -- Clark Goeckea official Powicatwa of the LL'ACUF:OF CALIFORNIA CITIFS IQ The Business Cycle And Investments In The Future We have all been raised to accept the traditional "business cycle" as a fact of 1 ife in a free economy, and one so predictable that it can almost be planned upon. Directly related to this business cycle is a "legislative cycle" that has also become predictable, but anathema to good government. Put bluntly: when business is bad, legislators are easy. Government does not wish to appear at fault when the private sector suffers its low cycle, and legislators arc willing to do quite a bit to avoid creating such an impression. This principle has been prominently demonstrated in the housing area, where well-financed developers have used the virtual depression in housing in California to their political advantage, hoping some legislative gains over local control of land use will make the next boom a more profitable one. Thus, development interests have found an ear for their proposal to limit local rules requiring developers to dedicate land for local parks. Instead of the typical five acres per thousand planned population, the Legislature would allow no more than two and a half. Developers say fewer parks mean more houses for less money. Planners say the money saved would be a tiny percentage of a house's total price, and the cost in standard of living would be serious, if not measurable. Ordinarily, such a bill would be referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, where the city interest would be weighed. With a housing depression on, it has been referred instead to the Housing and Community Development Committee and it appears unstoppable, short of a gubernatorial veto. Another example: a plan to transfer 900 acres from one city to another — over their objections --- because the owner claims more housing units will result. And let's not forget last year's "new cities" bill to allow developments completely outside local land use planning, all in the name of the housing crisis. The state budget itself— a reflection of the seriousness of our current recession --- shows how a cyclical business downturn can permanently alter the structure of government, as the state usurps traditional local revenue sources for its own immediate use. Sacrificing the livability of tomorrow's communities to shore tip today's corporate balance sheet or state general fund .stay be a predictable effect of the business cycle on the legislative process — but it is not good government, and it's a poor investment in our future. Montoya Says Ike Wants More Housing, dot Colit.,7-t al✓ ions By ROBERT FAIRBANKS, Timcs Staff Writtr XRA`:ENTO—The author of a cL �.r�rsial bill that would over- ride 1 -zoning laws and benefit an Orange County land development firm said Tuesday that his only goal is to sumiilatc housing construction. Scn. Jcscph Montoya (D-Whit- t;cr) said his measure is aimed at rernovir.g "elitist" obst.,cics to housing construction in Norco in western liivcrside County. The bila. which could change the Norco city boundaries wit :out the c::y's consent, is opposed by Norco, the League of California C,ties and tl c ic3a1awrs who represcrt the Norco area. it is supported by con- rtruct:on trade urton groups and pub:;c interest law firms, which contend that the proposed develop- ment would help case housing s ages for the poor. know that I've gotten. a pen:.. .in campaign contributions) from +'rose guys (the developers)." Moo' aya declared. would assume they would be p.ateful and they could cortr,bute. out I'm going down the line because of housing. That's 4,200 units," he added. Montoya's bill }:as stirred in- CiCa51Ilg pUbllCity lately, ma;tly ne- gauve. Not only :s the !cg:slat:on cor,troversial because of :Ls Clea.- special learspecial interest. but the land devel- opers who would benefit have an unusual prominence. The two. Richard Owen and Robert Grant, were contra! to the 10^9 bribery conv:ctior. of former Orange County supervisor Ralph A. Diedrich. According :o testimony. Diedrich asked for money from Grant's development firm :n return for helping to change an Orange County zoning restriction. The r cqucs:s were made to Owen —a top emp!oyce of Grant—who arran bc.i t.: rouf;ily $100.000 pay- off. Nc::her Grant nor Owen was charged :n :he Dicd. ich case. Montoya said that he knew noth- ing of Gwen and Grant's back- ground when he ,;.reed to carry the leg slrticn that •culd help them. "they got acceas to my door throc;h (lobby:,;,) John Witzel." :•:o^toy:. said. Lobbyist f:nanc.al roports show 0 -at fit'::ze:, who also represents the c::y of San D:egc. received 55.000 from Owen and Crar.t last year a. abet : , time Montoya took up the pard tit':tzel ancthcr S5.GwOC early In 1932. :.canwhi!e. Owen and Grant also arc paying, S5.000 a month to Geyer Associates. a lobbying firm. The firm. which specs::!:zc.c in housing development leg:rlat:on. is .handling Please sec BILL, rage "- E0£ Antlele„sttlle:s Wednesday, June 16, 1982 2 Part it/NVednesday, June 16, 1982 * Mr,Lao Hr ou.s1n.g Continued from First ragw, the bill on a day-to-day basis. The bill would a:low Owen and Grant to bead 4.000 homes on a SGS -acre parcel r:.r; ^ntly within the city of Norco, with 25% of the d,ve1L'n;;s priced for low- to moderate -income buyers. In effect. the measure would change No.-co's boundaries, placing the parcel in the neighboring city of Corona. (The action would require Corona's approval. Owen _ and Grant have presented their pian to Corona officials. but the officials have not said yet whether they want the developnient.) U: dcr current taw. Norco—whose le.ws would pre- vent the devclop:ncnt—could veto such a "deanneta- tion" proceeding. But the bill would abolish the city's veto power. Bud Plerder. Norco director of co.m;nunity develop- ment, said Owen and Grant. who were not immediately available for comment, own about 700 acres cf the par - rcl. Mender said he be:ieves the development, which would include commercial properties, would have an overall value of between SSG? million and S400 millfon. If Owen and Grant took a "conservative" profit of I'tyo. he said, they stand to make from S30 nul:!on to S40 mil- lion. A spokesman for the developers said they paid $3.000 per acre and have spent $750.000 on studies. About SO acre: A the Norco land is owned by the Church of Jesus Chr.st of Latter-day Saints. Elliott Christensen, an investmert manager at church head- quarters in Salt Lake City, said churcl: officials estirnat- ed that the church lard, when developed, would have a value of S'i0.000 an acre. Norco officials contend that their city, population 20.- 000. is unique beeaasc of its rural life style and because it encourages the raising of animals. Much of the city is _hr racterized by half -acre lots on which others raise swi:m. sheep, goats, cows, ra�bits and horses. Although the arca is "rural." they said, it is not heli- osis" New !calf -acre lot homes fall well below the mar. ket ar- ket prices in Orange and Los Angeles counties. e The Sacramento Bee ��j�: byMcClATCHYNEW$PAPERS(-1', 1 - )AMESMtC1A1CHY.,Aouuwa-o1&b~d locally o—ntd and operofed for 121 yrw► \\ C. K. NC1A1CHY, rdfa, Pr►ed..+ ' JAMES MtCtATfHY, rr1'n 18571887 ` ERANK McCUttOCH. r.rcvAro+ .r rd C. K. McCtATCHY, ed.for, prn-dmf. ;883 19J6 `— MKHAEI G. KIDUER, monop-p ed4or WAITER P. )014[ S. rdlo+, !P)bl P71 PETER $012AG, rdfo.:ol popt rd:ror ELEANOR MtCtATCHY, preµ 1PJb1P7d ROfSEAT MARXSON, /awn rd�or Vol. 245 --No. 41.3D1 RONR1 AVRLY, p.n..ol�oncp« Fr1dsy, May 21, ID82 Editorials r S monit%ayu UN40 Acres Here's another slippery one. Sen. Joseph Montoya of Whittier is sponsoring legisla- tion, apparently for the benefit of one group of developers. which would allow the transfer of roughly 900 acres from one city In Riverside County to another without the approval of the city in which it Is now located. •rhe arected pnrret, now within the city of Norco. is owned by Orange County developers Richard Owen nnd*Robert Grant, who want to have It annexed to the adjacent city of Corona where. It appears, they expect to get better terms for a proposed high-density housing development. Under existing law, the gpproval of both cities Is required when a parcel of land is transferred from one to be annexed to anoth- er. Under Montoya's bill, SB 53, which is scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Devel- opment next week, the city in which the land Is now located would have no choice over the transfer if the majority of the landowners in the affected area ask for the transfer and if certain other conditions are satisfied. Owen and Grant are the only landowners in the af- fected arca. The backers of SII 53 argue that It's justified house transfer of the Ower. -Grant land to the city of Corona will provide more low- and nioderate-income housing In the development than the Norco City Council will permit. "I don't think," Owen told a Riverside County newspaper. "they should force their horse co-,nmunity on us: They're afraid they will get forced out of their horse comin.lnity if they develop." The League of California Cities. which strongly opposes the bili, argues, on the other hand, that the measure Interferes with local Land -use decl3lon_making and, n1though it affects only one situation, sets a bad prec- edent for others. The league, of course. Is correct. It the Leg- islature wants to encourage low- and moderate -income housing deveiupment, there are .far better ways to do It. This kind of spe- cial Interest le islatton can only encouragf other developers with political muscle to try to coerce municipalities into more favorable planning and. zoning decislons with the threat that, it their demands are not met. they, too, will run to the Legislature for a special deal. • A year alto, the governor wisely vetoed another odious piece of legislation drafted to benefit a single Influential developer. One hopes that this time the Legislature will save him tha trouble. AB 53 Is the worst kind of special Interest bill. It should be defeated. i M.: .. 't m �' fir. .;s .d Ilhz;•► acA t rc; t ost of us are . ught from earliest • childhood to p: v the game by the rules, winning or losing as the case night hr. It Is unfair. we are told. to change Ilse ales In the middle of the game so as to gain r -me advantage over one's opponent. '!'hove homilies otwithstanding, t toc.of the apitol's more frequent rgislative situations „_• evolves just that sort of j rlid-game rule changing. ' Someone loses Practising. usually money. )i xmome sort of local Iralitical or economic duel Wolters ;land then hies himself to Sacramento. cash In i,and. to hire a lobbyist. spread around some acre and gain some advantage over the i. sumphant toe. One of my favorite examples occurred a sar or to ago when a bunch of junk dealers they prefer the name "auto dismantlers") dot tired of losing out on bids for wrecked }•:,rs to lierse,nlwhr► wanted to restore the t achlnn. They prevailed upoa an isw'rtshlymaa h, carry IrKlsirstitin flint. In Sited. probibitt•el the r"Istrens from bidding ;n the wrecks. The bill was dropped aftrr it .tile publicity. l.lkewtse. some garbage collection 'olnpanks who held contracts from cilles M41 mattes and didn't want to jrt�paridre them through competitive bie:ding persuaded the politicians to eliminate the bidding requirement In the law. •ilia! one made it through the proccss.regardlrxs of pultlielty. The most active Icgl lativc rude changers have been land developers who have run up against a growing reluctance of local governments to approve their achemev. The most celebrated case. which surfaced Last year, Involved South^rn California developer Nathan Shapell. who used his position as chairman of a stale housing commission to promote legislation that bypassed local government to authorise creation of up to five "new cities." Not so coincidentally. Shapell had one such project that had run afoul of local opposition In Ventura County. The new cities bill became the most controversial piece of legislation In the 191ti session and was only kltled by a veto from Gov. Brown, who originally had agreed to sign It but knuckled under to press pressure. That experience has not. of course. soured the appetite of developers and others with ftnAnrinl interests to cnhntrr aur r,ale- changing campr.tgns In Socramenta. Tfska. for In%lmtrr. a lithe bill itriig shuffled through the procc%% by %ear. Joscpi: Montoya. who represents a district in the east side of Los Angeles. The Montoyn bill. SItS.'t, would ,flaw the itobvrt 11. Grant Co. of Newhart Reach to deitich neurly I.tNto acres (rens Norco. a er Monday, June 14, 1 small tianitrrnardlin, t•uunh• city. awl reattach Ow properly to an attl:ereut city, Corona. Norco has cefused to approve Grant's plans for a 400-hou<e subdivision on the property. It says that Is too dense and w -aid put too match of a strain on Its utilities. Grant hired two velrran lobbyist-, Johs. theca and t,e.yer A'smi lairs. Ir% "work** the bili. which Is currently residing its five Assembly's ilowing and Community mvcinpment Committee. Nhrsl the nse e. -un- cams before fix- committee incommittee for a hearing recentiy. it was apparent that the lol,ttyists Isad alae their preparatory spadework well. The somewhat naive repri•sentatives of Norco, led by Mayor Tion Wildfoag, were berated and bait:•d by committee members who had beta prepped by the proponents of the bill. "were noised of having an etlllat. _ anti -growth altitude. Osie reporter covering:: the matter for a San hernarrf4no newi4paper: termed ft. In print, ..at legWallva version of gang rape." The Montoya bili would set aside a long- standing provision of state law that requires tha consent of a city before property can be detached from Its boundaries. Under the bill. only the owners of the affected property—to this cngr Grant— wraAd have err derlxlnn- makhvg power. Chu.t;ing the rules of any gasnt• while if's atlti ln•lal; swayed I . of cnurrr, an I" athtn to anarchy. it the gate Is lxltitics and public p:it!.ry. It sinspty means that wh,x-ver has the most money aunt "itw It prevails. Dan Walters b; clifel of 77tr tlnit►n .e Coldlof hurt art. - tAcwwwMrO •DOR[f4 Aak STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO, CA 96814 19161 4A"390 pHrIMCT ADDRESS 8671 5U0WP" BOULEVARD, 1lIT! 1608 N0 Lr1M000. CA 96029 l213I 4841176 REPLY TO; D D1SnacT OSCE D sACMASWNTO OFPtCc 11 STATE SENATOR DAVID ROBERTI RECEIVED PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 1901 JUL 27 AM I 1 Talifornin legislature AUC M. REIMCFI TWENTY-THIRD DISTRICT ;CITY CLEft Los ANGELES COUNTY &TY OF LODI July 26, 1982 Alts. Alice M. Reimche, City Clerk City of Lodi P.O. Box 320 Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Ms. Reimche: CNA111MAN SENATE RLLES SELXCT CM464 TTEE ON SMALL DUOR45SS ENTMMM" S COMMfTTIMS SLOCT10"S AIVD REAPP06'T10MMENT I`V9lMANCE AND !N014MN1T7 1ART Thank you for your concern regarding the proposed reductions in state assistance to local agencies. This year's budget was one of the most difficult problems facing our state. Given our current economic condition, it was not possible to grant any cost -of -living adjustments to state programs or state employees. Additionally, we were forced to reduce post - Proposition 13 assistance to local agencies by $269 million. The Governor's budget proposed a $450 million reduction which would hmte taken nearly all of local agency revenue growth. The final budget will take slightly more than one half of the growth in local discretionary revenue. Late in the budget discussions, o proposal was made in the Assembly to run the "Deflator" mechanism which would have wiped out all of the state subventions to local government. The effect would have bes-n "reverse bailout" -- we would take more revenue than provided in Proposition 13 assistance. Additionally, this would have given the state a surplus of over $1 billion. The Senate Leadership took a strong position Inst allowing the Deflator to operate. Instead, it was our view that a reasonable rc in state subventions was preferred so long as it did not exceed post Proposition 13 assistance. It is important to note that long term Proposition 13 state aid, embodied in the shift of property tax from schools to cities and counties, remains. This is worth 5350 millivp in property taxes to local agencies. The 1982-83 budget did not change this basic policy. For the first tirr►c since World War 11, the state is going to spend less money than it did in the prior fiscal year. Our revenue for next year is expected to grow at less than 1%. We are forced to do what local agencies have been doing the last two years -- reduce progroms and services. Although there was pressure to end the post -Proposition 13 assistance and finance cost -of -living adjustments for other state priorities, it has been our view that the maintenance of the property tax base is for more important to local finance even though. it requires year-to-year reductions in state subventions. July 26, 1982 Page Two For the long term, we must avoid an annual debate about the amount of reduction in state subventions. Instead, we must begin developing long term changes in our public finance system which will provide maximum local flexibility in the delivery of local services. Si rely, / e DAVID ROBERTI Mzhfs