My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - #37
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
07/19/2022 Special and Regular & Special HA
>
CORRESPONDENCE - #37
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2024 10:53:37 AM
Creation date
7/18/2022 5:12:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
7/19/2022
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
285
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Dale Helvig <br />Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706 <br />Page C-5: <br />S. I think the result of the table below speaks volumes. Using the current Pipeline Housing Projects <br />numbers, the City will exceed the RHNA numbers by 3404 units or, 208%. For the previous RHNA <br />cycle the City exceeded RHNA numbers by over 2300%, receiving an A+grade in all levels. At <br />some point in time, as in now, we need to just meet the goals or we will run out of land. <br />Keeping at the current pace could subject the City to a $600,000/month fine. See <br />https://www.santa-ana.org/general-plan/housing-element-update-2021, Housing for All - Part 1, <br />presented by the orange County Council of Governments [time 1:401. <br />Table C-2 Pipeline Housing Projects <br />Affordabirdy Level <br />Very Low <br />Low <br />Moderate <br />Income <br />Above <br />Total <br />RHNA Allocation by Affordability <br />Category <br />606 <br />362 <br />545 <br />1624 <br />3137 <br />Balance of RHNA to Accommodate <br />102 <br />-482 <br />232 <br />-3,253 <br />-3,401 <br />For Comparison 2014-2021 RHNA objectives <br />Units <br />1 407 <br />1,084 <br />1 28 <br />3,184 <br />4,703 <br />% Exceeding RHNA Allocation <br />904% <br />3,388% <br />76% <br />3,538% <br />2,305% <br />City Response 12-14: Comment is a statement that the City's current pipeline projects <br />number will exceed the RHNA numbers and that the City should just meet its RHNA numbers <br />and not exceed such number. <br />Counterstatement: Rephrasing the comment is not an answer. Would saying the City will <br />address this issue hurt? <br />Public Review Draft July 2022 — New Comments <br />9. General Comment: The first time any acronym is used it should be preceded by full description. <br />Case in Point: TCAC is used 12 times before a reader sees on page E-31(page 265 of the <br />document) that it stands for California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. Further, I don't know <br />why its not CTCAC. Check all acronyms. <br />10. Page 14: Special Needs includes the description of 'people experiencing homelessness". Is this <br />true? <br />11. Page 25: Section 14. Transit Zoning Code. Grammar in last sentence (and several other locations) <br />is poor: <br />"The City will continue its ongoing direct outreach to developers, which includes emails to list <br />serves and participation in industry conferences, to market development opportunities within <br />the plan area." <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />2022-07-18 Letter to City Council - Housing Element <br />Comment <br />No. 8 <br />Comment <br />No. 9 <br />Comment <br />h0 M 0 111= <br />Comment <br />No. 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.