HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 65B
Orozco, Norma
From:Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:59 AM
To:Sarmiento, Vicente; Pulido, Miguel; Solorio, Jose; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil;
Villegas, Juan; Mendoza, Nelida; eComment
Subject:Item 65B- Public Comment
As the city council contemplates item 65B as it relates to the operating agreement with Illumination Foundation (IF) of a
homeless shelter on Carnegie, I would like to offer my support for such item. Our city needs to replace The Link which
this facility appears to do. I will refer to the new shelter as Carnegie. The location of Carnegie is quite possibly the best
location for those concerned about proximity to Santa Ana residents and schools. Obviously, more and more
development is going on in that area but that development is happening, or already happened, after homeless shelters
have been placed in the area giving residents notice of the possible impacts.
I offer my support because it is the right thing to do for those who are experiencing the struggle with housing and living
on the streets. A shelter, although not true housing, provides respite. I pray that the city and IF provides the housing
and services that those experiencing homelessness will need to continue on a journey to more secure housing.
Now, we should strive to make this project better than the Link though. As such, I encourage you to work with IF to
provide:
Separate rooms and bathroom facilities for those in recuperative care instead of dorm style living…for those
needing recuperative care this is ultimately very important.
Separate rooms for those who are making progress in their recovery plans
Compliance with all CDC and other health guidance as it relates to social distancing and other measures to
protect participants from COVID19 and other similar viruses. This likely would include greater than currently
planned spacing between living areas, physical barriers between beds, increased overall space in common areas,
and more. Please utilize what we are learning about C19 right now to help Carnegie operate better. Yes, this
means that more space is needed per person and likely the dorm style beds with no barriers in one common
room that we have become accustomed to seeing would no longer be acceptable.
Overnight parking for those who are living out their cars or RVs.
I would also encourage the council to consider the next level of housing after shelter. The goal should not be for
individuals to spend significant time in the shelter but instead to rest, recover, recuperate, and come up with a plan for
the next level. This means that our city needs to continue to expand Permanent Supportive Housing and other
appropriate options for those who may be staying at Carnegie. Carnegie should not be a landing spot but instead a
temporary stay. Our shelters should operate like an Emergency Room at the hospitals…a place to be triaged and then
moved along to a more appropriate level of care. Please strive to start looking at shelters as the ER for those
experiencing homelessness. It is not only economically more viable, but also the right thing to due for our fellow human
beings.
Further, please provide assurance in public forum that the recuperative beds are to be prioritized for Santa Ana
residents and not for county wide use even though they will be funded by the County’s health insurance agency,
CalOptima. There is concern that since Cal Optima is involved that there may be some inability to prioritize the
recuperative beds for our local residents in need instead of those directed to Carnegie by Cal Optima.
Please also work with the county on improving the Yale facility which will be located here in Santa Ana despite it being
for all of the Central SPA. Other cities in the Central SPA including Garden Grove, Westminster, and other neighbors
need to step up and help instead of pushing their homeless to our city.
1
I also encourage the city to review its city ordinance on homeless shelters to eliminate the possibility that other cities,
such as those in South County, can rent or buy a piece of property in Santa Ana and operate a homeless shelter for their
own city. I previously spoke about this previously, but South County cities have posed this scenario in a legal amicus
brief and I do not believe our city ordinances would prevent this from happening right now, so please direct legal staff to
investigate and provide changes to our code to prevent this from happening or at a minimum requiring city council
approval.
Thank you for serving our city.
Tim Johnson , CPA
Partner
(949) 860-9892
(714) 743-1065
tjohnson@jlkrllp.com
2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614
Find the latest COVID-19 business news and resources here
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. JLK Rosenberger is a California Limited Liability Partnership
and a member firm of PKF International Limited, a family of legally independent member firms and does not accept any responsibility
or liability for the actions or inactions on the part of any other individual member or correspondent firm or firms.
2
Salas, Diana
From:Allison Vo <allisonpvo@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:36 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Public Comment 6-16-2020: Support for Agenda Items 85A, 75A, 65B
Dear Mayor Pulido and Santana councilmembers,
My name is Allison and I am a resident in Orange County.
I am submitting a public comment for today's city council meeting on 6-16-2020 in support of agenda items 85A, 75A, and 65B.
It is time our city works to uphold the values our communities have been calling for and demanded for years now.
As the protests across the US and our local cities make urgently clear: Black lives matter, and the issue of police violence and accountability are no
longer up for debate.
I am calling to support:
(1) Agenda Item 85A - Establish a strong Civilian Police Oversight Commission with subpoena, investigatory, and disciplinary powers
(2) Agenda Item 75A - Defund the Santa Ana Police Department so that no more money goes to the PD. Instead, reinvest this money into our
communities. It is unacceptable for the city to even consider increasing public safety spending by $13.5 million during COVID-19 and an economic
crisis.
(3) Agenda Item 65B - Renew the Deportation Defense Fund at its current level of $200,000 to continue providing protection to Santa Ana residents
facing detention and deportation.
Please act swiftly.
Sincerely,
Allison Vo
1
Salas, Diana
From:Cynthia Gomez <gomez0290@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 4:39 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Agenda item 65B
Santa Ana city council,
I am submitting a public comment on agenda item 65B in support of the renewal of the Deportation Defense
Fund at its current level of $200,000 to continue providing protection to Santa Ana residents facing detention
and deportation.
Thank you,
Cynthia Gomez
1
Salas, Diana
From:Tiscareno, Vera <VTiscareno@tustinca.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:43 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Santa Ana City Council, June 16, 2020
Attachments:City of Santa Ana Homeless Shelter Project June 16 2020.pdf
Importance:High
Please read the attached letter from the City of Tustin with regards to the proposed homeless shelter project in Santa
Ana.
VERA TISCARENO
E XECUTIVE A SSISTANT
Community Development
714-573-3106
1
Community Development Department
June 16, 2020
Ms. Daisy Gomez
Clerk of the Council
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92702
SUBJECT: Santa Ana Permanent 200/250 Bed Homeless Shelter Site Carnegie Avenue
Dear Ms. Gomez:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the above referenced matter. Please be advised that
we were not afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. We request that the
item be continued to allow the City of Tustin sufficient opportunity to review and provide input to the City of
Santa Ana staff. Notwithstanding, the City of Tustin was not afforded the opportunity to review and comment
on this proposal, we do provide the following comments:
on an exemption must be supported by substantial evidence. (Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco
th
(2012) 208 Cal.App.4 950, 963; Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist.
th
(2006) 141 Cal.App.4 677, 693-694.) Here, the staff report does not cite any evidence, substantial or
proposed CEQA exemptions. Without doing so, neither the City of Tustin
nor the public can evaluate the proposed CEQA exemptions. Based on what little information is provided in
the staff report, the City of Tustin has the following concerns regarding San
proposed project.
to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or
minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expansion of the existing
or former use. (CEQA Guidelines § 15301.) Here, the staff report concedes that the building is currently
vacant. Thus, the proposed project cannot be characterized as a negligible expansion of the existing use.
Further, the staff report states, without further explanation, that the prior use was industrial. In
other words, the proposed project calls for a change in use. It is unclear how the proposed project could be
considered a negligible or no expansion of the former industrial use.
It should be further noted that while the Class 1 exemption could apply to certain building additions up to
10,000-square-feet, the staff report appears to describe a 16,000-square-foot second-floor addition. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15301(e)(2).) If this is the case, such an addition would not qualify for a Class 1 exemption.
The Class 3 exemption
structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing
small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the
the construction or conversion, in urbanized areas,
300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 www.tustinca.org -573-3012
Ms. Daisy Gomez
June 16, 2020
Page 2
of up to 3 single family residences or apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than
six dwelling units. (CEQA Guidelines § 15303(a), (b).).
household size is 4.4 persons per household. The proposed project calls for the at least partial construction
and operation of 200-250 beds. This well-exceeds the equivalent of six dwelling units.
Further examples of the Class 3 exemption include a store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure
not exceeding 2,500-square-n urbanized areas, this example includes up to four such
commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000-square-feet in certain circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines §
15303(c).) The Office of Planning and Research has interpreted this to mean a maximum total of 10,000-
square-feet, not 40,000-square-feet. (See, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,
p. 12, fn. 19 (December 2018) \[CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including
additions of up to 10,000-square-feet.\].) Here, assuming Santa Ana intends to rely on the Class 3 exemption
for the conversion of uses, the structure is described as 29,503-square-feet or nearly 3 times the size
permitted in the Class 3 example. And the staff report appears to describe a 16,000-square-foot second-floor
addition. This also exceeds the 10,000-square-foot maximum construction or addition described in the
exemption.
The Class 4 exempti
vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural
: grading; landscaping; minor temporary uses of
land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, such as sales of Christmas trees; minor
trenching and backfilling; and the creation of bicycle lanes, among others. While this exemption may apply
to a part of the proposed project, the staff report does not evaluate which part of the project this is intended
to cover. In order to determine the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA, Santa Ana must analyze
the project as a whole and identify a combination of exemptions that cover the project as a whole. (See, e.g.,
th
Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4 629,
640.) As explained herein, Santa Ana has failed to do so.
The Class 32 infill exemption applies to infill development projects that meet the following conditions:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The staff report makes no attempt to explain how the proposed project qualifies for this exemption, nor does
The staff report provides
a single conclusory sentence asserting that the project qualifies.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed project. The City of Tustin
would appreciate a continuance by the Santa Ana City Council so that City staff can meet and discuss our
concerns and they can be addressed prior to a decision by the Santa Ana City Council.
Ms. Daisy Gomez
June 16, 2020
Page 3
concerns, I can be reached at (714) 573-3031 or
ebinsack@tustinca.org.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
cc: City of Santa Ana Council
Mayor of Santa Ana
City Manager of Santa Ana
Matthew S. West, City Manager
Nicole Bernard, Assistant City Manager
David Kendig, City Attorney
Douglas S. Stack, Public Works Director
Chad Clanton, Parks and Recreation Director
Ken Nishikawa, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering
Chris Koster, Deputy Director of Economic Development
Justina Willkom, Assistant Director Planning
Krys Saldivar, Public Works Manager
Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner