Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - NB-1 - Additional Documents - 5/3/2016Introduction Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure "good governance" are undertaken. This article tries to explain, as simply as possible, what "governance" and "good governance" means. Governance The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put "governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not Implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local governance. Since governance is the process of decision- making and the process by which .decisions are implemented, an analysis of governance focuses on the formal and informal actors involved in decision-making and implementing the decisions made and the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the decision. Government is one of the actors in governance. Other actors involved in governance vary depending on the level of government that is under discussion. In rural areas, for example, other actors may include influential land lords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives. NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions political parties, the military etc. The situation in urban areas is much more complex. Figure 1 provides the interconnections between actors involved in urban governance. At the national level, in addition to the above actors, media, lobbyists, international donors, multi -national corporations, etc. may play a role in decision- making or in influencing the decision-making process. All actors other than government and the military are grouped together as part of the "civil society." In some countries in addition to the civil society, organized crime syndicates also influence decision-making, particularly in urban areas and at the national level. Similarly formal government structures are one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. At the national level, informal decision-making structures, such as "kitchen cabinets" or informal advisors may exist. In urban areas, organized crime syndicates such as the 'land Mafia" may influence decision-making. In some rural areas locally powerful families may make or influence decision-making. Such, informal decision-making is often the result of corrupt practices or leads to corrupt practices. Good Governance Good governance has 8 major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It' is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. Figure 2: Characteristics of good governance Consensus oriented There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only 'result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community. Equity and inclusiveness A society's well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have' opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. Effectiveness and efficiency Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. Accountability Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending or whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization of institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. Conclusion From the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in Its totality. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality. Consensus Accourdable orl"o Patlicipalury Transpolerd GOOD GOVERNANCE Follows His Responsive rule of low Effective olid Equitable and MCI inclusive Figure 2: Characteristics of good governance Consensus oriented There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only 'result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community. Equity and inclusiveness A society's well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have' opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. Effectiveness and efficiency Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. Accountability Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending or whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization of institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. Conclusion From the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in Its totality. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality. »■ � t 4 � \ 2 / a u ca © ® k \ 03 ) )k \ o3 in, \ ; ® § $ /\ bDcz k� /ƒ/ .7 »■ 4 \ k \ 2§ ) )k \ \ ; ® § $ /\ /ƒ/ CC -1 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WARRANT INFORMATION Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0196017 04/15/16 Athletic Field Specialists 0000023215 $450.00 What did we use? Did we inform users? Application of liquid fertilizer and organic root stimulants on 2/17/16 at Bark Par Renovation Area (Phase 1) and on the field at the TeWinkle Athletic Complex. No fiel users were notified of the applications. None required by label and no toxicity involved with the products applied. The were watered in following application. 0196189 04/22/16 Carol C. Proctor (JPEBA) 0000010825 $599.00 What is this for? JPBEA is a Joint Power Benefit Employe Authority created in 1988 along with the Cities of Newport Beach & Garden Grove. The purpose was to pre -fund retiree medica insurance premiums. The voluntary basic Ian allowed employee to use either their own money and/or excess sick leave to fun the account. Upon retirement, retirees are able to withdraw a designated amount on a quarterly basis or annual basis until the account is exhausted. However, JPBEA was terminated in 2004. There are approximately 15 retiree accounts remaining in this plan. All remaining funds will be disbursed i January 2018. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -1 To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: RE: Housing & Land Use Legislative UPDATE (May 3) Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 9:34 AM To: Tony Cardenas <tcardenas@cacities.org> Subject: Housing & Land Use Legislative UPDATE (May 3) ll LEAGUE41h.—I OF ° CITIES IS LIMITING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND LOCAL LAND USE DISCRETION THE SOLUTION TO EXPEDITE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? With the first round of legislative policy hearings nearing completion, one area of legislative focus is readily apparent: reducing public engagement and local land use discretion to expedite the construction of new housing. The question we need to ask is whether reducing or even removing public input and local discretion over land use matters is the right medicine for the housing shortage. Alternatively, are there better ways to increase housing supplies without removing the public from these important land use decisions that permanently define a community's character? In past periods of economic boom, California produced around 200,000 housing units per year, with about 70 percent of those units single-family. Given some of the market limitations affecting single-family housing, this year's production is expected to be around 100,000 units with about one-half higher density -multifamily. Policy makers in Sacramento, facing concerns about escalating housing costs and viewing reports stating that the State needs up to 1.5 million more units to satisfy demand, are proposing to limit community discretion and input to expedite delivery of more units. While housing production should be expedited where possible, legislators should also pause to consider the value and role played by public input in shaping the quality of life and unique aspects of a neighborhood or location that new residents and developers find attractive. The residents who participate in land use hearings do so because they care about their communities and have a longer -tern commitment to a place than a developer that builds and moves on. While "public engagement" is often described as a desired policy goal, how does it work when public participation on a developer's proposal is dismissed as a mere hindrance? Cutting off public input may have other policy consequences as well, including expanding pressure for more local voter growth control measures. How to Get More Housing, Especially Higher -Density Housing in Job -Rich Coastal Areas? This is the policy question of the hour. In addition, there are many bills that try to be helpful by providing funding for affordable housing, help first time home buyers save for housing and ensure limited funds go further. Some of the bills supported by the League include the following: ➢ AB 2734 (Atkins) Dedicates portion of state savings from RDA elimination for affordable housing; ➢ AB 2817 (Chiu) Increases Low Income Housing Tax Credits from $70 to $300 million per year; ➢ AB 1736 (Steinorth) Allows future homebuyers to save for down payment tax free; and ➢ SB 873 (Beall) Allows low income tax credits to be sold more efficiently, yielding greater value. The Bills Seeking to Reduce Public Engagement and Local Discretion over Housing Depending on a community, the level of concern over these measures will differ, but what they have in common are prescriptive one -size -fits all edicts and other provisions intended to limit local authority and public input. All the following bills are opposed by the League: ➢ AB 2522 (Bloom) Requires housing for households up to 150 percent of median income to be a permitted use by right (and thus not subject to CEQA) or discretionary review, other than design review; ➢ AB 2557 (Santiago) Declares the development of multifamily housing to not be a municipal affair, and prohibits a temporary planning moratorium from being enacted affecting a project of more than 30 percent multifamily units; ➢ AB 2501 (Bloom) Expands the law enabling developers to demand up to 35 percent greater densities and project concessions above existing zoning standards; ➢ AB 2299 (Bloom) and SB 1069 (Wieckowski) Reduce community control of parking and other issues affecting second units in single-family neighborhoods; ➢ AB 2584 (Daly) Empowers outside parties with no direct role or interest in a project to sue and collect attorney fees from local agencies over denials or conditions imposed on housing developments; ➢ AB 1934 (Santiago) Authorizes commercial developers to demand additional floor area and other concessions above existing zoning if residential units are built on same site; and ➢ SB 1318 (Wotk) Limits future annexations if services are not delivered to adjacent disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Next Steps Cities, counties, the residents they represent, and others that value public engagement and local discretion on land use matters need to focus and engage in the housing -related discussion pending in the Legislature. While there are numerous measures aimed at enhancing affordable housing resources, others focus on removing local input and discretion. If your city would like to take a position on any of these bills, please visit the League's Legislative Database for sample letters. Please let me know if you have any questions. TONY CARDENAS Public Affairs Regional Manager Orange County Division League of California Cities (714) 766-9290 Tcar de nas(&cac it ie s. ore LEAGUE` C, I T I F S S TIENG THENiNG C,kJ,I OMNIA CTTIES THR000H ADVOCrWY :LND EDUCATION ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -1 Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition May 3, 2016 Mayor Steve Mensinger and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Proposed $20 Million Bond Measure for Affordable Housing Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members: On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, I urge the City Council to take seriously the affordable housing crisis that is plaguing our community. There is a critical need to build new affordable housing for lower income working families and to preserve whatever affordable housing already exists here. The Council must take bold, effective action to address this pressing need for affordable housing. Unfortunately, our Coalition does not yet know whether the proposed bond measure qualifies as such "bold, effective action." The lack of information about how the bond proceeds would be used makes it impossible to take a position on the bond measure at this point in time. We would like to remind the Council that, aside from putting a bond measure on the ballot, there are many things the City can do to address our community's need for affordable housing. I have attached a Coalition letter to the City, dated September 3, 2013, that lists 14 specific actions the City can take to achieve the actual development of homes affordable to lower income working families. We submitted the attached letter as public comments in connection with the Draft 20142021 Housing Element Update. Sadly, the City chose not to incorporate our 14 recommendations in the Housing Element Update. Nor has the City taken any concrete steps to create affordable housing in the years since it adopted the Housing Element Update. But it is not too late! Given the City Council's new, vocal support for creating affordable housing for lower income households, we encourage Council Members to read the attached letter and revisit our 14 recommendations for effective action. The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition is eager to work with the City on coming up with real solutions to the affordable housing crisis. Sincerely, /[.W 1_cP R%R6i1 Kathy Esfahani, For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition Attachment, September 3, 2013 letter Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT Costa Mesa Affordable Dousing Coalition September 3, 2013 Ms. Hilda Veturis, Management Analyst City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Comments on Draft 2014-2021 Housing Element Update (May 2013) Dear Ms. Veturis: On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), we thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Costa Mesa's 2014-2021 draft Housing Element. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments. As the City moves forward with the draft Housing Element update, the Coalition urges the City to support and create effective policies that incentivize the development of homes affordable to lower income working families. Although for this new planning period the City has a total Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of two dwelling units for very low- and low- income households, it is important to note that the RHNA is the bare minimum and not a maximum ceiling for future development in the City. Significantly, the City's draft Housing Element makes clear that the RHNA does not reflect or address the existing housing needs for lower income working families and special needs residents living in the City. Given the depth of these unmet housing needs, we are understandably disappointed at the City's lack of progress in meeting the corresponding housing production goals set forth in the 2008-2014 Housing Element. Mindful of the need for new, effective policies that will lead to the actual development of homes affordable to lower income working families, the Coalition provides the following recommendations for the City: 1. Meaningfully engage and collaborate with the Coalition and community stakeholders to develop effective housing policies and programs that will increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households. 2. Continue to support the development of affordable homes on the Fairview Developmental Center site by changing the land use designation and rezoning the site from Public/Institutional to High Density Residential. The Fairview Developmental Center project, which proposed 242 affordable apartment homes for families and the developmentally disabled, has been withdrawn by the State; however, the site still presents a great potential to provide affordable home opportunities and address the City's existing housing needs for lower income families. Ms. Hilda Veturis August 30, 3013 Page 2 of 4 3. Support and identify a specific site for the development of an emergency shelter for the City's homeless. 4. Reinstate Program 12: Single -Room Occupancy (SRO), Family Residential Occupancy (FRO) Extended Stay Units as a stand-alone program from the 2008-2014 Housing Element to the current draft 2014-2021 Housing Element. 5. Prioritize and facilitate the development of new rental homes affordable to lower income working families, specifically including two- and three- bedroom units for large families, on city -owned sites (e.g., Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot site). a. Create an Affordable Housing Land Trust and donate city -owned sites to the trust. b. Create Request for Proposals (RFPs) on city -owned sites to affordable home developers who would effectively leverage the land and funding to create deeper affordability levels. 6. Provide attractive by -right incentives and concessions of certain development standards that developers are not otherwise entitled to, in exchange for a dedication of 20% of homes affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income families in the City. Amend the City's overlay zones (e.g., 19 West Urban Plan Area and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) to include effective incentives that will facilitate the development of affordable homes in areas with existing commercial and light -industrial uses. Housing Program 4 in the past planning period (also offered in the current draft Element) promoted density bonus incentives and the deferral of fees for affordable home developments; however, it has not effectively produced rental homes for lower income families in mixed-use designations in the City. To incentivize the development of affordable homes, residential and mixed-use developments in the overlay zones should be allowed by -right if at least 20% of the homes constructed are set-aside as affordable for lower income working families. 8. Commit specific funding or financial resources to facilitate the development of homes affordable for extremely low-income, very low, and low-income working families. Examples include: a. Leveraging housing funds and resources (e.g,. in -lieu fees or impact fees) on potential candidate sites (e.g., Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot) for lower income homes that will help increase the development's competitiveness when applying for Low -Income Housing Tax Credits. Ms. Hilda Veturis August 30, 3013 Page 3 of 4 b. Prioritize and commit potential funding sources (e.g., SERAF repayments and boomerang fiords) to proposed extremely low-income affordable rental developments that leverage additional funding sources (e.g., Low -Income Housing Tax Credits). 9. Identify city -owned sites in the draft Housing Element (e.g., Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot, Civic Center Park etc.) and include these sites to the City's inventory of vacant and under-utilized sites under Program 11: Adequate Sites. 10. Encourage the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households through application processing fee waivers for proposed developments with a minimum of ten percent very low-income homes (e.g., please refer to Huntington Beach's 2014- 2021 Housing Element Program 14). 11. Create an affordable housing strategic plan in which the City commits to constructing a specific number of multi -family rental homes that will be affordable to lower income working families (e.g., please refer to Anaheim's Affordable Housing Strategic Plan). 12. Continue monitoring and negotiating the preservation of affordable homes that are at risk or have affordability covenants that are set to expire during the 2014-2021 planning period. 13. Reduce the parking requirement for Granny units from two to one space to make these units less expensive to construct. 14. Evaluate on an annual basis how successful the identified Planned Development Industrial (PDI) zone will be in facilitating the development of emergency homeless shelters. Given the City's high housing costs and dearth of affordable homes, malty workers and families, especially those on the lower economic rung, overpay for housing and struggle financially to live and work here. The significant impacts of high housing costs and lack of affordable homes not only hurt workers and families but also impact the City's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to major employers. From a major employer's perspective, the lack of affordable homes in the City means workers have to commute from elsewhere, adding to congestion and spending money and time on commuting rather than spending and reinvesting their money in the City. Given the importance of the draft 2014-2021 Housing Element update, the Coalition welcomes the opportunity to continue our dialogue on how we can partner with City staff to ensure that the draft Housing Element includes specific policies that will result in new affordable homes for extremely low-, very low- and low-income working families in the City. Ms. Hilda Veturis August 30, 3013 Page 4 of 4 Please keep us informed of any revisions, updates and meetings regarding the draft 2014-2021 Housing Element and if you have any questions, please free to contact Kathy Esfahani at: (714) 932-1174 or kmesfahani@att.net. Sincerely, /tRL`itrY. f0R"(1 Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition cc: Lisa Bates, California Housing and Community Development Department Christian Abasto, Public Law Center Cesar Covarrubias, The Kennedy Commission