HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 24 Becerra, Alexis
From: James Lloyd <james@calhdf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 6:03 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Carvalho, Sonia R.; !City Clerk; Planning; Nunez, Alvaro
Subject: public comment re item 24 for 4/15/25 Council meeting
Attachments: Santa Ana - 2020 East First Street - HAA Letter.pdf
-Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CaIHDF") submits the attached public comment for the 4/15/25 Council meeting
regarding agenda item 24,the proposed 86-unit housing development project at 2020 East First Street, which includes
five very low-income units.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CaIHDF is grant&donation funded
Donate today- https://calhdf.org/donate/
i
i
DF
Apr 14, 2025
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 2020 East First Street
By email: eCommentrasanta-ana.ora
CC: scarvalhopsanto-ana.org; cityclerk(asanta-ana.org; Planningcasanta-ana.orq;
ANunezesanta-ana.org
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund("Ca1HDF")submits this letter to remind the Council of
its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed
86-unit housing development project at 2020 East First Street,which includes five very
low-income units.These laws include the Housing Accountability Act("HAA"),the Density
Bonus Law("DBL"),and California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA')guidelines.
The HAA provides the project legal protections.It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding
specific,objective,written health and safety hazards.(Gov.Code, § 65589.5,subd.(j).)The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
reduce the project's density unless,again, such written findings are made.(Ibid).) As a
development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses,the project falls
within the HAAs ambit,and it complies with local zoning code and the City's general plan.
The City must therefore approve the project unless it makes written findings regarding
health and safety as mentioned above-which it cannot do since the preponderance of the
evidence in the record does not support such findings.(Ibid.)Increased density,concessions,
and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL(Gov. Code, § 65915)do not render the
project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan,for purposes of the HAA.(Gov.
Code, § 65589.5,subd. (j)(3).)
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain
protections.The City must respect these protections.In addition to granting the increase in
residential units allowed by the DBL,the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
360 Grand Ave#323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
and concessions with respect to open space,unless it makes written findings as required by
Government Code,section 65915,subdivision(e)(1)that the waivers would have a specific,
adverse impact upon health or safety,and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact,or as required by Government
Code,section 65915,subdivision(d)(1)that the concessions would not result in identifiable
and actual cost reductions,that the concessions would have a specific,adverse impact on
public health or safety,or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law.The City,if
it makes any such findings,bears the burden of proof.(Gov.Code, § 65915,subd.(d)(4).) Of
note,the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to
the allowable waivers and concessions.(Id. at subd.(p).)Additionally,the California Court of
Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or
concessions pursuant to the DBL,the City"may not apply any development standard that
would physically preclude construction of that project as designed,even if the building
includes'amenities'beyond the bare minimum of building components"(Bankers Hill 150 v
City of San Diego(2022)74 Cal.App.Sth 755,775.)
Finally,the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to Section 15168
(Program EIR).And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local
governments err,and may be sued,when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA
exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group,Inc. v County of
San Diego(2024)99 Cal.App.Sth 890,911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage.New housing such as this is a public benefit:it will provide badly needed affordable
housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses;it will expand the city's tax base;
and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing
housing.CalHDF therefore strongly urges the City to approve the project as proposed,
consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3)non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels,including low-income
households.You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.or2.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
2of3
PV-t,-V
V�q,_
James M.Lloyd
Ca1HDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3of3