HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 50A2D11 N0VCdWM1741AJ @1 ?ED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CITY SANTA �,Q,NA November 14, 2014
TO: Mayor Miguel Pulido, Mayor Pro Temp Sal Tinajero, Council Members Vincent Sarmiento, Michele
Martinez, Angelica Amezcua, David 8enavides, Roman A. Reyna
RE: OC Board of Supervisor's Meeting, November 18, 2014
Dear Mayor Miguel Pulido, Mayor Pro Temp Sal TinaJero, Council Members Vincent Sarmiento, Michele Martinez,
Angellca Amezcua, David 8enavides, Roman Reyna:
The Santa Ana City Council at the October 21, 2014 demonstrated your tremendous support and unity with the
community to seek a different location for the proposed 200 Bed Emergency Shelter at 1217 E. Normandy Place.
The proximity to the schools is a major concern and the lack of community engagement in the decision making
process, and a poor choice for a 200 Bed Emergency shelter to help our homeless population move their dally
needs to a safer and appropriate living environment.
We believe that the Normandy location is not the solution. We are very willing, and have Informed the county that
the community wants to work in partnership with them for better solutions, specifically location /s and exemplary
housing and service models to move our homeless population from poverty to permanent housing.
At the Supervisor's meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2014, they will vote on the purchase of the 1217 E.
Normandy Place building.
It will be fantastic if you are available to attend, and if one of you can speak on behalf of the City Council this will
demonstrate that you are united with the community for better solutions. Coucilmembers Michele Martinez and
Angelica Amezcua have informed us that they will be in Washington, D.C. on this day.
You can access the Supervisor's agenda on line at OC Board of Supervisors web site, and the staff report dated
November 18, 2014. The Normandy Place building purchase is item # 8.
The meeting is at 9:3Oam. Location: Hall of Administration at 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. ( on the corner of Broadway
and Santa Ana Blvd. In downtown civic center - Santa Ana). Parking structure is on Ross Street. Coming down Santa
Ana Blvd from Broadway, make a right on Ross Street and then a right into the parking lot. Meeting is In the Board
Room, first floor. No validated parking.
For your Information attached is the most recent correspondence sent to the Board of Supervisors from our
attorney, Alvarado Smith, dated November 13, 2014.
We hope you can join the community at this Supervisor's meeting where the decision/ vote that is made impacts
our children, schools, businesses, homeless population, and all of the community. Thank you for your
consideration of this request.
Kindest Regards,
Susana C. Sandoval — Resident, Robyn Dague — Business Owner, Community United for Environmen al Justice
Copy: David Cavazos, City Manager
CM 11/18/2014
50A
JF*W���
I MacArthur Plata A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Sulte 20D INCLUDING PROFEMONAL CORPORATIONS
Santa Ana, CalIfomia 92707
Phone; 714;852.6000
Fax; 714.852.6899
x .AWmedolm&oan
Keith E. McCullough
(714) 852.6800
kmccullough@AlvaMdoSmhh.com
November 13, 2014
VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
County of Orange Board of Supervisors
Hon. Shawn Nelson, Chair
Hon, Patricia C. Bates, Vice Chair
Hon. Janet Nguyen, First District
Hon John M.W. Moorlach, Second District
Hon, Todd Spitzer, Third District
Attn: Clerk of the Board
333 W. Santa Ana Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92701 .
Los Angeles
213.229,2400
San Francisco
416.624.8666
Raymond 0. Alvarado,
1936 -2014
Re: 1300 NORMANDY PROPERTIES, LLC V. COUNTY OF ORANGE: CEQA
Petition Addressing Proposed Homeless Shelter at 1217 Normandy Place, Santa
Ana, CA
Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors:
The acquisition of 1217 E. Normandy Place, Santa Ana is again on the Agenda as No. 8
for your November 18, 2014 meeting. This time the subject on the Agenda Staff Report reads:
"Approve Grant Deed for the 1217 E, Normandy Place, Santa Ana Project ". This moniker masks
the true purpose of the item. When this item was last before the Board on July 15, 2014, the
Agenda Staff Report subject line read: "Acquisition of Year-Round Emergency Shelter and
Multi- Service Center Site ". The change in label will not change the true subject matter of the
proposal action this Board is requested to undertake on November 18. While Staff has changed
the description, nothing about the underlying Purchase and Sale Agreement ( "PSA ") tlhe County
has executed with the owner of the property and the structures at 1217 Normandy Place, Santa
Ana, CA and its purpose has changed.
The Purchase of 1217 Normandy Is For A Homeless Shelter
Indeed, the County's proposed project and use of the property subject to the PSA is
expressly designated as a "multi- service center and shelter" (See PSA Sections 4(a)(iv) and
5(a)(ii)), yet in the Agenda Staff Report for November 18, 2014 Staff identifies the following
background: "The County Executive Office, Real Estate was tasked with finding a warehouse
location in the city of Santa. Ana ... with the potential to be used for storage, equipment repair,
trade shop purposes, and other miscellaneous uses by different County agencies or departments,
including as a possible year -round emergency shelter." At the end of page 2 of the Agenda Staff
Report the statement of prior action reads: "On July 15, 2014, your honorable Board approved
4091186.1 — NISOO,I
ALvARADOSMITH
November 13, 2014
Page 2
the [PSA] for the purchase of property at 1217 E, Normandy Place, Santa Ana, Staff is returning
to the Board at this time to discuss the due diligence process and for acceptance of the Grant
Deed transferring fee title to the County of Orange."
There can be no doubt that the PSA before the Board on November 18, 2014 is the same
PSA that was before the Board on July 15, 2014. Nevertheless, in contrast to what is being
represented to the Board in the current Agenda Staff Report, the July 15, 2014 Agenda Staff
Report read, in pertinent part: "Approval of the [PSA] will facilitate the acquisition of a site for a
year-round emergency shelter and multi - service center for homeless families and individuals in
Orange Comity." To be certain, mere words in an Agenda Staff Report cannot functionally cloak
the true act and purpose of the PSA that is stated in that very doemuout.
Required Compliance With CEQA
Most importantly, there is no reference in the PSA to the County's required compliance
with CEQA serving as a prerequisite to closing the PSA transaction. Nor is there any
requirement in the PSA that the County first perform a complete CEQA review prior to
acquisition of the property and implementation of the project. We all have sufficient experience
with CEQA to realize that the County cannot engage in a project to establish a 200+ bed, 24 hour
a day emergency homeless shelter, with its attendant meal and medical care services, generated
delivery, transportation and pedestrian traffic, demand on community services, impacts to the
neighboring community, and the like without first engaging in thorough environmental review
consistent with CEQA. Project alternatives must be discussed and mitigation measures
considered.
Nevertheless, Staff erroneously states at page 3 of the Agenda Staff` Report:
"Compliance with CEQA; The proposed real estate purchase was previously determined to be
exempt from [CEQA] pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, oil July 15,
2014 by this Board. This exemption is commonly called the common sense exemption. The
activity is covered by the general rude that CEQA applies only to projects which have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, There is no possibility that this
activity, which is, the proposed approval of the purchase of certain real property in Santa Ana,
will have a significant effect on the environment. AM j or action related to this property
which may constitute a nroiect will be reviewed for compliance with CE OA,"
This is not an accurate statement of clear law on this point. Indeed, it goes without
saying that the County cannot simply buy property with public funds without a public purpose
for that expenditure. This property purchase is for the purpose stated in the PSA: [A] "multi-
service center and shelter" .. , . To now state that the action is a mere purchase of property
without including the purpose of that purchase, a homeless shelter, is a thinly -veiled attempt to
skirt the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, the last statement by Staff, as highlighted above,
is a misnomer -- there is currently no requirement to conduct CEQA review of the homeless
40911FAA - N1500.1
November 13, 2014
Page 3
shelter project contained in the PSA or in any of the approvals at the July 15 meeting or proposed
for the November 18 meeting.
Also, the action to acquire this property for use as a homeless shelter is, consistent with
common sense application, not exempt from CEQA. There is no doubt that this project may
cause a significant impact on the environment. The CEQA categorical exemption cited by Staff,
by its own terms, applies only "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment ...." (See CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) This proposed action, the acquisition of property for a 200+
bed homeless shelter, does not pass muster under that standard.
The California Supreme Court spoke to this situation when, in Save Tara v, City of West
Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4" 116,138, it said: [W]e apply the general principle that before
conducting CEQA review, agencies must not take any action' that significantly furthers a project
'in a manner that forecloses alternatives or mitigation measures that would ordinarily be part of
CEQA review of that public project. "' (cite omitted). The Court further elaborated that future
reviewing courts would be considering "whether, as a practical matter, the agency has committed
itself to the project as a whole or to any particular features, so as to effectively preclude any
alternatives or mitigation measures that CEQA would otherwise require to be considered,
including the alternative of not going forward with the project." Id at 139.
In Save Tara, the contract at issue, terminable at the will of the city manager, provided
for city CEQA compliance before the property could be transferred to the developer. The fact
that the contract did not contain an irrevocable prerequisite that CEQA review first be conducted
before the transaction could be completed led to the Court's ruling. The Court held that such a
contract constituted a project approval that had avoided environmental review under CEQA, hi
the current instance, the County's agreement with the owner for the purchase of 1217 Nomuandy
Place for the implementation of a homeless shelter does not even feign to first be conditioned
upon required. CEQA review.
The County's PSA, that contracts for the purchase of current industrial property for a
"multi - service center and shelter ", if consummated, would be an irrevocable, $3.6 Million
commitment to the homeless shelter project without first requiring environmental analysis
consistent with CEQA. hideed a consummated transaction for the purchase of 1217 Normandy
Place would effectively preclude the consideration of alteratives acid mitigation measures,
including consideration of the no project alternative. The commitment of $3.6 Million of public
funds is perhaps the most certain of actions demonstrating the irrevocable Intent to locate a
homeless shelter at 1217 Normandy Place that could occur.
Nevertheless, additional actions affecting the proposed transaction have recently
occurred. As you likely know, the City of Santa Ana considered the propriety of the County's
4091186,1 -N1500A
.r_
November 13, 2014
Page 4
proposed homeless shelter at 1217 Normandy Place at its October 21, 2014 council meeting.
Several members of the public, Supervisor John Moorlach, and State Senator Lou Correia all
spoke to the issues associated with the City's September 2013 adoption of a zoning provision that
would allow a homeless shelter to be located within a 995 acre area of the City, the County's
intended purchase of 1217 Normandy Place for use as such a homeless shelter within that area,
and the apparent lack of notice, outreach and involvement of the community in the selection of a
homeless shelter site at 1217 Normandy Place. Supervisor Moorlach's comments were against
the city council's proposed adoption of a moratorium on the implementation of the zoning
ordinance permitting a homeless shelter, and rather were an indication that he, and perhaps other_
members of the Board of Supervisors, intended to proceed with the purchase of 1217 Normandy
Place :for a homeless shelter. After further discussion the Santa Ana city council unanimously
adopted a 45 day moratorium halting the implementation of the zoning ordinance that would
permit a homeless shelter within the 995 acre area, including at 1217 Normandy Place.
The adoption of this moratorium seemingly prevents the County from meeting its
Conditions Precedent, as Purchaser, under the PSA to consummate the transaction in that with
the moratorium in place, the County will not be in "receipt of all necessary governmental
permits, licenses, conditional use permits and approvals for the use of the Property as a tnaiti-
service center and shelter." (See PSA Section 5(a)(ii)) The County should immediately provide
written notice to the Seller under the PSA that it rejects the purchase because 1) the agreement is
contrary to law in that the PSA is not conditioned on prior environmental review consistent with
CEQA, and 2) the City's moratorium blocks the County's intended use at the site. If the County
remains silent for the remainder of the Feasibility .Period under the PSA, the County will be
deemed to have accepted the condition of the property and that condition precedent to the sale
will be deemed to have been satisfied. (See PSA Section 4(c)) The amendment to the PSA
indicates, among other things, that the PSA .Feasibility Period expires on November 20, 2014.
Action to be Taken
What the County must do in this instance is disavow the contract and. reject the purchase
of the property. It must do so by providing written notice to the seller disapproving of the
property prior to the expiration of the "Feasibility Period" so as not to be deemed to have
approved of the property. If the County falls to disavow the contract and closes the transaction
with the seller, it will have squandered nearly $4 Whou in public funds on the purchase of
property that cannot be used for the stated purpose because statutory prerequisites will have been
flaunted. If the County cannot purchase property except for a public use, which it cannot, and
the use here cannot be engaged due to the failure to first comply with CEQA, to what end is the
County committing public funds?
To be certain, our clients, and the community at large, have been engaged and will
continue to be engaged in assisting in identifying and evaluating a suitable site closer to existing
services focused on the homeless. We all understand there is a serious and timely need to serve
4091186.1 •-N1500.1
November 13, 2014
Page 5
the homeless in our community. A full service emergency shelter needs to be established, but
the project needs to be undertaken consistent with existing law and proper, community -based
relations,
This letter is meant to provide the County with the opportunity to correct the current
statutory wrong. If the County proceeds with the PSA, then we must proceed with the CEQA
petition to enforce statutory prerequisites and public project environmental review where the
electeds have refused to do so. This could mean unwinding the sale transaction and suffering, at
the public's peril, significant damages that the seller may seek, If the petition must proceed as
referenced here, then the administrative record should include not only this letter but also the
record of the City's adoption of the moratorium including Supervisor Moorlach% comments.
Your prompt attention and written affirmation of the County's disavowal of the PSA
would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
ALVARADOSMITH
koj,sA�r4Corporfe poration
�rfn i t W-
Messionation
KEMlhk
cc: 1300 Normandy Properties, LLC
Deputy County Counsel, Nicole Walsh
31PJ1186J • -NISOM