CORRESPONDENCE- 75B_Received by Planning Commission

Home Browse Search

zip code, the city's most affordable zip code, must earn $35.68 an hour to afford two -bedroom housing. (National Low Income Housing Coalition's "Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing in 2020 " Report). The proposed amendments only incentivize housing units with market rate rents and will not be affordable to the majority of the City's residents. The proposed amendments do not address the city's needs and create further inequity for the city's residents with the greatest housing need. Furthermore, these amendments will compromise the City's ability to reach its Housing Element goals and requirements in the upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element. We urge the Planning Commission to vote against these proposed amendments. Should the Planning Commission move forward in considering the proposed amendments, we would request consideration to the following comments: 1. The proposed amendment would reduce the in -lieu fee from $15 to $5. The city must retain a $15 in -lieu fee and secure this funding source for much needed affordable housing. The city risks losing state and federal housing matching funds by lowering the in -lieu fee, at a time we face economic uncertainty as a result of the pandemic. Should the Commission consider an in lieu fee change, it should be supported by financial analysis and data. 2. The City should remove the priority on acquisition and rehabilitation and prioritize construction of new affordable housing units. If the City wants to jointly prioritize acquisition/rehabilitation and construction of new units to address the City's housing crisis, it should set goals and percentages in each program to identity how it will help them meet its housing goals and Housing Element requirements. 3. Clarify that where a rehabilitation project results in displacement of tenants, the City will pay relocation costs in line with the requirements of the California Relocation Assistance Act. 4. Ensure that the City and the developer will provide the density bonus affordable housing units in exchange for the development incentives and concessions received. 5. The proposed amendment allows for the use of inclusionary housing for `one- time programs for code enforcement, and quality of life, and general health and safety activities' The creation of new affordable housing for Santa Ana residents needs to continue to be a priority to address the critical housing shortage for lower income working families. Affordable housing monies should not be diverted to fund code enforcement and health and public safety programs that are funded from the City's budget. The City should not deplete the Inclusionary Housing Fund's limited funds for these programs. Such an amendment goes against the purpose of the HOO. Since its inception the HOO has been clear in its language and purpose in that it states "Monies deposited into the inclusionary housing fund must be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income housings in the city... " (Sec. 41-1909. (a)(1)). We urge you to vote against the proposed amendments to the Housing Opportunity Ordinance. C'w Cnaarrdlaa Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director