Laserfiche WebLink
Staff Response: Rudy Rosas has provided the following additional detail below for the <br />history of the program. ARPA funding was appropriated for the underpass <br />improvements which would stabilize the existing dirt slopes. No street improvements <br />were originally part of the plan and the design included protecting the sidewalk in <br />place. Once construction started and the bottom slope wall was being constructed, it <br />was determined that the existing sidewalk would need to be partially cut and replaced in <br />the process. At that point, staff recommended that the entire sidewalk be widened <br />taking advantage of advantageous pricing from the contractor. Approval of the <br />recommended action allows staff to process existing change orders and retain <br />contingency for additional issues that may arise. <br /> <br />Agenda Item # 25 - Vacation of a portion of Bristol to facilitate Better Buzz Coffee to open on <br />Bristol across from Santa Ana College. <br />Staff Response: PBA Staff has provided the elevations of the future Better Buzz Coffee and <br />they are attached to this email. <br /> <br />Agenda Item # 27 - Amend the Agreement for rehab of Garden Court Apartments located at <br />300 E. Santa Ana Blvd. including hosting of a TEFRA HEARING <br /> There were two questions about this Agenda Item, one was regarding the applicability of the <br />CWA and the second question was regarding a comment on Page 2 of the staff report. <br /> <br />Question 1 regarding the CWA. A Councilmember requested additional information about the <br />applicability of the CWA (Community Workforce Agreement) to this project. There was also a <br />question about some words in the staff report. We address this concern below. <br /> <br />Staff Response: Housing Manager Judson Brown has stated that the Garden Court <br />Apartments project is not subject to the CWA because pursuant to 2.2.4 of the CWA <br />there are no City funds being contributed to this project. <br /> <br /> <br />Question 2 is regarding a comment in the staff report, The statement, on page “The amended <br />agreement allows a change in the affordability covenants, but it does not contain an obligation <br />to commence or complete the rehabilitation” <br /> <br />Staff Response: The intent is that the amendment would assist OHDC and C&C to <br />obtain financing for the rehabilitation.” The second part of this sentence is the most <br />important in that the amendment would assist OHDC and C&C to obtain financing for <br />the rehabilitation. If OHDC and C&C are unsuccessful in obtaining this tax credit <br />financing they cannot accomplish this rehabilitation, and will submit again in the future <br />for tax credit financing. The desire by OHDC to rehabilitate is also reflected in the <br />following: <br /> <br />thth <br /> The 4 and 5 recital of the amended agreement states: <br />o WHEREAS, OHDC desires to refinance and rehabilitate the Project. In <br />connection with the refinance and rehabilitation of the Project, the City and <br />OHDC desire to amend and restate the Original Regulatory Agreement in its <br />entirety with this Agreement. <br /> <br />o WHEREAS, the City agrees to this Amended and Restated Agreement <br />Containing Affordable Housing Covenants to allow for the OHDC to complete <br />3 <br /> <br />