HomeMy WebLinkAbout3_Additional Materials Received at Meeting_TannerDavid Tanner Page 1 of 1 September 2, 2020
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee
Chairman Tucker, members of the Committee
Under normal circumstances a Housing Element update would be a routine process costing the
City $50,000 or less requiring a minimal CEQA document. However, this Housing Element update has
been made problematic by numerous mandates placed on the City by the State. Many of these mandates
have been identified by the General Plan Diagnostic Memo prepared for the City earlier this year.
It appears one of the three directions being taken by the City is to prepare an updated Housing
Element in compliance with State law. To accomplish this Staff is proceeding in a direction opposite
from the Vision Statement in the General Plan. Preparation of a State compliant Housing ‘Element
update will cost the City over $2 million dollars and will likely be denied by the voters.
I have the following questions for the City Council, City Attorney and/or Staff:
1.What is the City strategy in updating the Housing Element?
2.Why is the City going to spend 2+ million dollars on a Housing Element Update the voters are
likely to deny?
At the last Housing Element Update Advisory Committee meeting a preliminary timeline/schedule
was presented. At that time, I asked why the timeline did not include a vote of the public. A vote
triggered by the Greenlight initiative seems inevitable. I asked for the vote of the public to be
included in the timeline. An additional timeline is presented in the documentation for this meeting
tonight. It does not include a vote of the public. This raises the following questions:
3.Will the Housing Element update be subject to a vote of the public?
4.Is there any circumstance under which the Housing Element update will not be subject to a vote
of the public? If yes, please explain.
5.AB 1063
a.What is the City’s involvement in AB 1063?
b.Does the City support this Bill?
c.Why is the City better off dealing with an agent of the Court (which could be the State
Dept. of Housing and Community Development) rather than the Attorney General?
Specifically, the draft Bill states: “…the agent of the court may take all governmental
actions necessary to bring the jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance
in order to remedy identified deficiencies. “
d.Since the scope of this bill has the potential to override the intent of Measure S, why did
the City not consult the voters?
There is an alternative strategy. One which reframes the discussion; one which achieves the City’s
objectives; one which provides a clear path to the voters and does not divide the community; one which
uses the same consulting team, does not require a vote of the public and saves the voters well over $1
million dollars.
I will be happy to provide an overview of this strategy, but I will need more time to do so. I will also be
happy to volunteer my time to meet with Council members and Staff in a virtual workshop setting to
explain the strategy in detail.
Housing Element Update Advisory Committee - September 2, 2020
Non-Agenda Items
Additional Materials Received at Meeting