Laserfiche WebLink
BUILDING INDUSTPYOF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. <br />ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER <br />November 16, 2021 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE <br />Mayor Vicente Sarmiento <br />City of Santa Ana <br />22 Civic Center Plaza <br />Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br />Dear Mayor and Council, <br />The Building Industry Association of Orange County stands in strong opposition to all proposed <br />amendments to the Santa Ana Housing Opportunity Ordinance (HOO). Specifically, both <br />proposals in the staff report fail to acknowledge a fundamental understanding of local housing <br />and labor realities resulting in language that will disincentivize nearly everything the Ordinance <br />purports to achieve. At a minimum, an open study session on the draft language's market <br />impacts is required. Such a request is supported by City Staff regarding proposals from the <br />Planning Commission, but it is similarly needed when considering the misguided attempts at <br />creating inducements for "Skilled and Trained" labor. The current approach detrimentally <br />misses the mark. <br />While the policy is flawed, so too is the process. It has come to our attention that a letter was <br />recently submitted establishing a clear conflict of interest that invalidates the Planning <br />Commission hearing on the HOO. The law clearly states invalidation of the hearing is <br />established where "an unacceptable probability of actual bias" by the municipal decisionmaker <br />is established and in this case, the letter clearly establishes this bias. A rehearing allowing for <br />a valid Planning Commission review of the Ordinance is required as called for in Government <br />Code Sections 65853 and 65854. <br />Further, there is questionable nexus in the fee as proposed. The HOO is to fund the creation of <br />affordable housing. The city is instead proposing to use this funding for "code enforcement," <br />"quality of life" and "general health and safety activities" per Section 41-1909. Where are these <br />terms defined and how exactly are they related to the creation of new affordable housing? This <br />is tantamount to converting the HOO into a General Fund account, wholly lacking in <br />accountability and relation to the purpose for which the fee was collected. This can create <br />significant legal exposure for the city under Prop 218. <br />The list of concerns continues but if the aforementioned do not warrant an immediate pause, no <br />further facts will benefit. If the HOO is to be amended, it must be done in the daylight and with <br />a full understanding of the economic impacts it will inflict on Santa Ana. Do not advance a <br />politically attractive proposal to the detriment of your residents. <br />Sincerely, <br />Adam Wood <br />Vice President <br />BIA/SC — Orange County Chapter <br />PRESIDENT <br />SUNTI KUMJIM <br />MBK RENTAL LIVING <br />1'TVICE PRESIDENT <br />EPIC NELSON <br />TRUMARK HOMES <br />TREASURER <br />BROOKE DOI <br />SHEA HOMES <br />SECRETARY <br />NICOLE MURRAY <br />TAYLOR MORRISON <br />TRADE CONTRACTOR VP <br />ALAN BOUDREAU <br />BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION <br />ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP <br />MARK HIMMELSTEIN <br />NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP <br />MEMBER ATLARGE <br />PETER VANEK <br />INTREGAL COMMUNITIES <br />MEMBER AT LARGE <br />SEAN MATSLER <br />COX, CASTLE, & NICHOLSON LLP <br />IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT <br />RICK WOOD <br />VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER <br />ADAM WOOD <br />BIASC <br />M92 MU RPHY AVE #14445, I RVI N E, CA 92623 <br />949-553-9500 I BIAOC_COM <br />