My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75B
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2020
>
08/18/2020
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2020 1:13:53 PM
Creation date
8/17/2020 8:14:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
8/18/2020
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
308
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
75B:Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO) <br />oppose 75B, the logic behind this item is not built on the lived experiences of <br />need affordable housing. By decreasing the fee that would incentives the const <br />affordable housing, OPPOSES THE VERY REASON WHY WE NEED THE FEE. This r <br />people to get their building permit, but will not impose pressure to build afford <br />fiscal impacts show that be reducing the in -lieu fee by two thirds $6.6 million v <br />by applying the $15 fee for the Inclusionary Housing fund. Section 1 A states th <br />a deficit in needed housing, yet there is difficulty in supplying these housing re <br />lies in the lack of urgency we experience within the local, state, and federal goo <br />the need of housing for people of color and low income people. We know mass <br />affordable housing is capable, one just needs learn about the dejure segregatia <br />occurring in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century , to see hov <br />especially the Black community, have been pushed into dense populations, wit <br />resources, criminalized, forced to partake in drugs and violence, and with high <br />of which were sanctioned by local, state, and federal government. Another inc <br />be voting on taking out is the density bonus. I have been doing some research <br />bonus is a state mandate, if developers meet the requirements their entitled tc <br />bonus. Therefore, I do not see why we would be taking it out. To take a way ar <br />would entice developers to create more affordable housing contradict the miss <br />committee. In regards to the use of inclusionary Housing FUND to pay for one <br />especially with ambiguous wording like quality of life and safety issues, I find cc <br />measure X, we had the same wording, public safety and majority of those fund: <br />the council wants to use the fund for these programs, there needs to be in wor <br />the programs will have any affiliation with law enforcement. Lastly, when convi <br />nonresidential property into multifamily rental units this I assume includes indL <br />want to make sure when the construction of these housing are taking place the <br />neighborhoods, overly populated neighborhoods because this will exacerbate t <br />people already residing in those areas more. That affordable housing be include <br />are near markets, transits, jobs, and schools. That we include affordable housi <br />the urban neighborhoods such as Triada at the Station . We need to make surf <br />housing are in thriving communities, not in industrialized areas, not where ther <br />concentration of pollutants. We need to incentives more tenants to accept sec <br />Like I emailed all of you, the opportunity gap is widening in Santa Ana because <br />centering the people's needs enough. Irvine has the most affordable housing in <br />most open space. Like Ibram Kendi said Individual behavior shapes the success <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.