The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCORRESONDENCE - 60A (COMMENTS)City Council Meeting Correspondence 8/20/2019 APPROVE A DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT TO ALLOW A 552 UNIT AFFORDABLE RENTAL PROJECT AT 2110, 2114, AND 2020 EAST FIRST STREET Date of Name Correspondence 1 8/20/2019 Ugochi L. Anaebere- Nicholson 2 8/20/2019 Claudio Gallegos on behalf of J. Luis Correa Representative of Public Law Center Member of Congress In Favor In Opposition of RA'. of RA." Yes Yes Sub -total: I 2 1 T24/2019 Mindy Rex The Pacific Companies Yes 2 8/20/2019 Dylan Casey California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education *RA - Recommended Action Wednesday, August 21, 2019 Yes Sub -total: TOTAL: 4 Comment Page 1 of 1 Orozco, Norma From: Ugochi Nicholson < Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:42 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 60A: Approve a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project At 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street (Strategic Plan Nos. 3, 2, 5, 3) Attachments: Letter of Support 8.20.19.pdf Good afternoon, With reference to the enclosed letter regarding item 60A. Sincerely, Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson Ugochi L. Anaebere-Nicholson I Directing Attorney (pronouns: She/her/hers) Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit Public Law Center Confidentiality Notice: E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material, and are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received this e-mail in error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments, including any copies thereof, and inform the sender immediately at 714-541-1010, ext. 280, that you have deleted the e-mail, all attachments, and any copies thereof. Thank you. • • PUBLIC LAWCENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS August 20, 2019 Mayor Miguel Pulido and Members of the City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Item 60A: Approve a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project At 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street (Strategic Plan Nos. 3, 2, 5, 3)—LETTER OF SUPPORT Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the City Council: We again submit this letter of support for a much -needed affordable housing project —the 552 Unit ("Unit") being proposed for 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street. As a preliminary matter, we join in the comments provided by the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund in their letters to the City Council advising the Council of its duty to follow state affordable housing laws when considering the proposal of the proponents of the Unit. As will be set forth below, the Unit, as a one -hundred percent affordable housing proposal, qualifies for the Density Bonus it seeks by right, and a decision to deny this project for arbitrary reasons not only violates the spirit of the Density Bonus Law, it constitutes illegal housing discrimination against low-income people under federal and state law. The Planning Commission and City Council Staff have made an intentional decision to assist in the affordable housing crisis that has crippled State of California. The Council should affirm the Planning Commission's decision and accept the numerous recommendations from City Council staff to approve this project. The Public Law Center is a non-profit pro bono law firm in Orange County that provides access to justice for low-income and vulnerable residents. Our practice includes providing representation to low-income families in housing -related matters, preventing homelessness, and advocating for affordable and inclusionary housing PLC is a non-profit pro bono law firm that provides access to justice for low-income and vulnerable residents in Orange County, California. We also collaborate with community organizations, statewide advocates, and law firms to push Orange County jurisdictions to create and maintain effective housing policies for lower -income working families. This proposed project comes at an especially critical time in California, which as you know, is experiencing a severe affordable housing crisis. Recently, the National Low Income Housing 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 -Fax (714) 541-5157 Letter of Support re Item 60A Request for Approval of a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street August 20, 2019 p. 2 Coalition released its Out of Reach Report.' The report highlights Orange County's rising housing crisis and exorbitant housing costs continue to challenge and affect Orange County's lower income working families. According to the report, workers need to earn $39.17 an hour to afford the rent for a typical two -bedroom apartment in Orange County. The typical fair market rent (FMR) for a two -bedroom unit here is $2,037 per month, ranking Orange County among the nation's top 10 most expensive metropolitan areas in the nation. The annual income needed to afford a two -bedroom FMR is $81,480 and a minimum wage worker needs to work at least 131 hours per week-33 jobs to afford a 2-bedroom FMR apartment. The report underscores the crisis facing Orange County Residents, and the housing crisis facing Santa Ana residents is especially acute. Many of the families that we assist are in desperate need of decent, affordable housing, such as the project that the developers propose with this Unit. In the City —a majority renter city, significant need exists to address and provide housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Families in the City use the majority of their incomes (over 50%) to pay for housing costs. This is unsustainable and it has led to actual and economic homelessness. As residents struggle to find available and affordable housing in the City, rents have continually increased. We have heard stories of landlords demanding that tenants pay rents that are in excess of 50-80% of their income, or face eviction and almost certain homelessness or relocation out of the City, while this Council has remained silent to requests for a moratorium on rent increases or just cause eviction ordinance protections. As of April 2019, the average rent for a one -bedroom apartment in the City is $1,938 per month, while the average rent for a two -bedroom apartment is $2,582 per month .2 This Unit proposes to help ameliorate the crisis by adding 552 units to the housing stock in the City. Accordingly, the City Council should embrace this Unit and not try to find ways to crush it, as it will bring much needed affordable multi -family housing to the residents of the City. Pacific Companies and Jamboree Housing Corporation Are Eligible for a Density Bonus Exce tp ion The Density Bonus is a state mandate. An applicant who meets the requirements of the state law is entitled to receive the density bonus and other benefits as a matter of right. (See Gov. Code §65195, et seq.) A jurisdiction is required to grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the jurisdiction makes a written finding based on substantial evidence of a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, or on historic resources. (Gov. Code §65195(d)(1)(B).) The Staff Report for the June 4, 2018 Planning Commission hearing declared that there are no historic resources in the immediate vicinity that this project would affect and the project's designs and operations, will not be detrimental to the public health or safety. Moreover, none of the councilmembers during the City Council meetings of May 7, 2019, May 21, 2019, or June 4, 2019, expressed concern with the project's impact on public health, public safety, or nearby historic resources. Because the Unit is a 100% affordable development and the City Council has failed to produce the required written findings based on substantial evidence of a specific, 'See 30th Anniversary Out of Reach Report, National Low Income Housing Coalition, https:Hroports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2019.pdf (last visited on August 19, 2019) 2 See www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-santa-ana-rent-trends/ (Last visited on August 19, 2019). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Letter of Support re Item 60,4 Request for Approval of a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street August 20, 2019 p. 3 adverse impact of the Unit on public health, public safety, or historic resources, the City Council should grant the parking concession requested by the developers as a matter of right. Denying This Proiect Would Constitute Intentional Housing Discrimination A. Denial of the 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project Constitutes Intentional Land Use Discrimination against low-income people under Government Code section 65008 If the City denies the Unit, it would constitute intentional land use discrimination against low- income persons under Government Code section 65008. Section 65008 renders null and void any action that denies employment of residence, landownership, tenancy or other interest in land to individuals based on protected classes, including intended occupancy of any residential development by persons of very low, low, moderate, or middle income. This prohibition applies to any power exercised under the authority of Title 7. §§ 65008(a)(1) and (2). Additionally, Section 65008 prohibits local government agencies, including cities and counties from taking actions, including in the administration of ordinances, or approval of developments, which prohibit or discriminate against any residential development or shelter because the development is intended for occupancy by "person[s] or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income." (Gov. Code §65008(b)(1) (Q.) B. Denial of the 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project Would Violate Santa Ana's Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Additionally, should the City Council deny the developers' request for a permit to construct the Unit, it would constitute fair housing discrimination, as it violates the City of Santa Ana's duty to affirmatively further fair housing under federal and state law.' Affirmatively furthering fair housing requires the City to take meaningful action that, taken together, addresses significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits practices that "actually or predictably result[] in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns.i' Further, California Fair Employment and Housing Act makes it "unlawful ... to discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations `that have the effect, regardless of intent, of unlawfully discriminating on the basis of [a] protected class."' 5 Accordingly, denying the developers the opportunity to build this needed Unit will continue to reduce the amount of housing that would otherwise be available for lower -income households in the City, and therefore could be construed as having disparate negative impact on certain racial and ethnic groups. s 42 U.S.C. 3608 and Executive Order 12892 'Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Regs, Implementation of the Fair Housing Aet's Discriminatory Effects Standard, 24 C.F.R. § 100.500(a), 78 Fed. Reg. 11482 (Feb. 15, 2013). s Gov. Code §12955.8, subd. (b). 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Letter of Support re Item 60A Request for Approval of a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street August 20, 2019 p. 4 Further, the denial of the Unit violates recently enacted state legislation that codifies the directive imposed by the Fair Housing Act on jurisdictions to affirmatively further fair housing. (Gov. Code §65583 (c) (5).) The City's current Housing Element underscores the need of the City to ensure its legal compliance with the requirement to further fair housing opportunity. In the housing element, the city notes that 58% of its renters pay more than 30% of their income on rent.6 These conditions ...lead to a number of hardships for the households and their families, including insufficient income to afford other necessities, undue burden on families, and accelerated use and wear on housing.' As such, the city has identified a deft in housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households that the law requires it to address. C. Santa Ana must ensure that it fully implements the programs identified in its Housing Element Under Housing Element law, the City has a duty to ensure that it is implementing each of its programs during the housing element period. (Gov. Code §§ 65881(b); 65583(c) & (h); 65587, 65888.) The failure to implement the programs identified in its Housing Element subjects the City to liability under Housing Element law. Program 28, the Density Bonus Ordinance Update, incorporates state density bonus law and provides that applicants of multiple -family residential and mixed -use projects of five or more units will be entitled to a density bonus of at least 5% are very low income units or at least 10% are lower income units (Santa Ana Housing Element 2013-2021, p. 60, 61.) The density bonus ranges from 20 to 35% according to how much affordable housing is provided above the minimum percentage in state law (Id.). The program also authorizes those eligible projects, such as the proposal of the Unit, may also receive one to three concessions or other development incentives, depending on the proportion of affordable units and level of income that is targeted (Id.). As described in this letter, the City will also violate its duty under state housing element law to fully implement its programs, if it delays this project. Conclusion There is a scarcity of quality affordable housing units in the City. The City's recent Housing Element noted there is a scarcity of affordable housing units in the City: "[H]ousing affordability is a critical issue for many households. The lack of affordable housing can create undesirable situations, including overpayment and overcrowding."8 Five hundred and fifty-two units of affordable housing could lessen the issues of overpayment and overcrowding by increasing the supply of affordable housing for a community in desperate need of it. Further, as set forth in the many staff reports associated with analysis of the Unit, approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet General Plan Goal Nos. 3; and 5, and Objective No. 3. The City's residents desperately need help with affordable housing and addition to the aged multifamily housing stock in the City, and they need it now. The Council should approve this Unit now. 6 Santa Ana Housing Element (2014-2021), p. 20. Ibid. B Id. at p. 19. 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Pax (714) 541-5157 Letter of Support re Item 60A Request for Approval of a Density Bonus Agreement to Allow a 552 Unit Affordable Rental Project at 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street August 20, 2019 P. 5 Sincerely, /s/ Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson Directing Attorney, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit cc: Paul McDougall, Housing and Community Development 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 5415157 Mitre -Ramirez, Norma From: Houston, Nicole Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 11:09 AM To: eComment Subject: FW: Letter to Santa Ana regarding First Point I and II Attachments: Letter for Santa Ana dated 7 19 19.pdf Kind Regards, Nicole Houston I Executive Assistant City Manager's Offices nhoustonPsanta-ana.ore 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 2020 SANTA ANA COUNTS This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Mindy Rex [ Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:19 PM To: Ridge, Kristine <kridge@santa-ana.org>; Carvalho, Sonia R. <SCarvalho@santa-ana.org>; Pulido, Miguel <MPulido@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa- ana.org>; Solorio, Jose <Joolorio@santa-ana.org>; Villegas, Juan <1Villegas@santa-ana.org>; Iglesias, Cecilia <Clglesias@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Steven <SMendoza@santa-ana.org>; Brown, Judson <JBrown@santa-ana.org>; Thai, Minh <mthai@santa-ana.org> Subject: Letter to Santa Ana regarding First Point I and II Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Staff, We appreciate all efforts that are being made to expedite resolution of the Density Bonus Agreement for First Point I and 11. As you're aware, it was recently halted by Council action. Please review the attached time sensitive letter. Thank you, Mindy Rex C00 I The Pacific Companies 430 E. State Street, Suite 100, Eagle, ID 83616 1 208.577.2195 3�PACIFIC COMPANIES July 19, 2019 Dear City of Santa Ana Councilmembers and Staff, As the First Point development team and owners, we are very disturbed by the events of this week's Council meeting. In the spirit of trying to work through this disruption expeditiously and without costly and time consuming efforts on both of our parts, we are writing to share a few observations that we hope will help to advance our project toward approval of our Density Bonus Agreement. If the City has any reply or suggestions in response to this email, we request to receive it by noon PT on Monday so that we can all move forward with next steps, hopefully in a positive direction for the benefit of the low income families of Santa Ana that we committed to serve. Our writing below is accurate and true to the best of our knowledge. If you have a different understanding of how the City works or how state Density Bonus Law works, we sincerely urge you to share that with us so that we can all coalesce around solutions for our project in the first day or two of next week, before we are forced to de -mobilize on site and start to incur significant, unnecessary losses. From our earliest work on this project, we have consulted with the Council as partners in producing an optimal, high -quality project for Santa Ana. Originally, we planned for a very high density senior project, but at one Council member's urging, we transitioned to a much lower density family project, because of his concern that families were the primary underserved population. Later in the process, we proposed a concession that would allow us to develop the project under density bonus law with a parking ratio of 1.0 per household, which is typical today for urban affordable projects near transportation and employment. We voluntarily proposed a free shuttle service to area transit connections during peak hours to encourage maximum use of transit and reduce the need for families to own, maintain, fuel, and insure more than one car. This time, in response to direct coordination with another Council member who was expressing a concern that families might still need or want to own a second car, we agreed to that Council member's suggestion that we provide a free valet service for those who would want to maintain that 2nd car so much that they were willing to rent an offsite parking space. We edited our parking plan exactly as he suggested and used that for our entitlement application with the Planning Commission. The two requests discussed above were, by far, the two largest requested changes that we incorporated as we partnered with the Council to produce a project that we felt confident we could all be proud of. If this situation becomes protracted and we're forced to proceed into a process wherein all communications (emails, texts, drafts of agreements, meeting/call dates) will be shared in detail, the record will clearly illustrate exactly how those interactions with Council members influenced and refined our proposal into exactly what it is today. Ph: 208.461.0022 // Fax: 209.461.0033 // 430 E. State Street, Ste. 100 // Eagle, 10 83616 // www.tpchousing.com We hope this email will help bring us into alignment and set our project on a very fast track toward resolution. We are available all afternoon, all weekend, and all morning on Monday to pursue resolution with the Council. Thank you very much for your continued consideration. Best, Melinda Rex C00 I The Pacific Companies 430 E. State Street, Suite 100, Eagle, ID 83616 1208.577.2195 Lopez, Kenia From: Dylan Casey < Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:22 PM To: eComment Cc: Ben Libbey Subject: Comment for City Council Agenda Item 60A Attachments: 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street.pdf Dear City Clerk and City Council, I am resubmitting the attached letter for comment on the tonight's City Council meeting, agenda item 60A, the 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street development. Thanks, Dylan Casey Executive Director, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund 3 California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund 1260 Mission St San Francisco, CA 94103 CaRLA 8/6/2019 Santa Ana City Council 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Miguel Pulido, Mayor, mpulido@santa-ana.org; Vicente Sarmiento, Councilmember, vsarmiento@santa-ana.org; David Penaloza, Councilmember, dpenaloza@santa-ana.org; Jose Solorio, Councilmember, JSolorio@santa-ana.org; Juan Villegas, Mayor Pro Tem, jillegas@santa-ana.org; Cecilia Iglesias, Councilmember, ciglesias@santa-ana.org; citycouncil@santa-ana.org; ecomment@ santa-ana. org; Re: 2110, 2114, and 2020 East First Street Dear Santa Ana City Council Members, The California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) submits this letter to inform you that the Santa Ana City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality's zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. The most relevant section is copied below: (j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. The applicant proposes to construct a 552-unit affordable housing project at 2110, 2114, and 202o East First Street. The Santa Ana General Plan allows for 90 units per acre, which, at 6.89 acres, allows for a base unit count of 620 units. With the State and Local density bonuses the maximum number of units allowed on the site is 1,054. The proposed development also complies with all applicable zoning and development standards in the city. This project would bring much -needed affordable housing to Santa Ana. It is a type of project that the city has planned for and enacted regulations to allow for in this very location. The concerns about the project scale, density, or parking provided are not valid reasons to deny or fail to act on a project, when the project clearly complies with the city's own regulations governing these issues. We are therefore writing to remind the Santa Ana City Council that they are required by the HAA to either approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. We ask that the city council bring the project back for consideration at the next meeting, and approve it as proposed. We will seek to hold Santa Ana accountable for the requirements of the HAA in the event the city council disapproves of the proposed development without making the findings outlined above supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, as required by the HAA. If the city fails to act on the application, such inaction would be considered the equivalent of a disapproval of the project under the HAA, and we will seek to hold the city accountable (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).) California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - hi@carlaef.org 1260 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103 CaRLA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to restore a legal environment in which California builds housing equal to its needs, which we pursue through public impact litigation and providing educational programs to California city officials and their staff. Sincerely, Dylan Casey Executive Director California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund - 126o Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103