Loading...
AHA2006/06/20 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 The Anaheim Housing Authority met in regular session. PRESENT: Chairman Curt Pringle, Authority Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, Deputy City Clerk Cathy Godoy. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority was posted on June 16, 2006 at the City Hall outside bulletin board. Chairman Pringle called the regular meeting to order at 5:51 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: The following public comments were made during a joint session with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the Anaheim Housing Authority and the Anaheim City Council: Shaboua Berke, mental health worker, supported the Jamboree Housing Corporation project to house the homeless and/or people with mental challenges. Kathryn Acker, spoke against the Jamboree Housing project, stating the property should be used as a park for children who needed a safe place in which to play. Paul Kott, opposed the Jamboree Housing project, stating the density was too great for the neighborhood. Ryan Christianson, continuing with Paul Kott's letter of opposition to Item 2, indicated the project was 90 percent comprised of studio and one-bedroom units and did not meet the Council direction for establishing family housing and would also negatively impact visitors' first impressions of the City. Stan Polowski, resident, objected to the lack of notice given to adjacent residents of the proposed Jamboree Housing project and to the density of the project which would impact surrounding property values. Eileen McCarthy, representing clients of the Public Law Center, supported both the return of a National Football League (NFL) team to Anaheim and the Jamboree Housing project which would fill a strong need. Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission, spoke in support of a national football team locating to Anaheim and of the economic benefits the community would receive. He also supported the Jamboree project, stating Jamboree was a quality developer and pointing out other successful facilities already in place. May 20, 2006 Page 2 Paul Flanagan, co-chairman of Committee for Living Wage, supported the Jamboree Housing project which addressed needs of those who ordinarily had no voice in the political process. Eric Altman, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, asked to be part of the dialogue in encouraging an NFL team to return to Anaheim and also strongly supported affordable housing for very low income and special needs individuals. Bob Morris, resident, opposed Item #2 as the community had not been informed of the project in advance. He also expressed concern over the density of the project. Joyce Morris, resident, spoke in opposition to Item #2, citing there had been no advance notification of the project, it was too dense for the neighborhood and she had concerns with housing individuals with mental illness in close proximity to schools. Barbara Selleck, resident, opposed Item #2, stating the proposal was not compatible with current usage in the surrounding area. Bill Taormina, resident, also opposed the development, stating the Jamboree Housing project would negatively impact the adjacent neighborhoods due to its density. He recommended partnering with neighboring cities to provide a regional solution on a broader scale. Robert Cueva opposed the Jamboree Housing project believing it would cause a disruption in the community. Mayor Pringle pointed out that under state law, any private individual or organization could purchase residential property anywhere in the city and have up to six residents who could be parolees, people of special needs, individuals transitioning from halfway houses or shelters or people with mental challenges and cities would have no control over their locations. Molly Stansberry, a Junior high school student speaking in opposition to Item #2, expressed fear at living close to a Jamboree project. Pierre Tranh, resident, spoke in support of the Jamboree project and against discriminating against those who were disabled due to mental illness. Dane Lybarton, resident, supported Item #2, pointing to other similar successful projects such as Jackson Aisle in Midway City, and emphasized the need for this type of housing for a stigmatized and underserved population. Teresa Boyd, former resident, indicated Section 8 housing assistance enabled her to live in a safe, secure environment and hoped the Diamond Aisle project would give others a chance as well. Joanna Gullick, Director of Housing for the developer, stated Jamboree Housing Corporation was sensitive to developing in existing neighborhoods and designed their projects to be compatible with adjacent residential homes. She pointed out the allowable density for the Diamond Street site was 48 units, yet Jamboree had proposed 33 units which would keep the density lower and provide for ample parking in the neighborhood. She added the development would be low-rise, garden apartments with a substantial landscape buffer and parking would be segregated to one area so that it could be landscaped and screened. She indicated the company would be glad to hold a design workshop in the neighborhood in conjunction with the May 20, 2006 Page 3 City for interested citizens. She added residents of the project would have on-site management, professional property management and a case manager to meet with weekly. Helen Cameron, stated HOMES, Inc. would be the partner providing service and support for clients in the Diamond Street project. She pointed to a home operating for special needs persons located on Clementine Street for 15 years which had never had a complaint from a neighbor. She pointed out her organization was the developer of the Jackson Aisle facility in Midway City with a two-year operating track record very much like the proposed project on Diamond Street. She emphasized the goal of her organization was to help the mentally ill experience success in their new homes and she would do everything it took to make them comfortable and continue to be good neighbors in each community. Lucy Brimbrella, care provider, reported she had owned and operated a 49-bed facility for those with mental illness at 289 North Wilshire Avenue and her clients had enjoyed activities at Pearson Park and taking morning walks through the neighborhood with no problems arising. She felt education and outreach efforts were needed to understand how these homes operate. Laura Archuletta, President of Jamboree Housing Corporation, stated Jamboree had 4,700 units throughout the state of California, all affordable housing with an average household income of $19,000 a year. She indicated Jamboree focused on very low, extremely low and lower income household seniors and had approximately 15,000 residents living in their communities and assured the public the projects were designed for residents to have a better quality of life. She emphasized the units would not be substandard and the development would bring quality to the neighborhood. She recognized the concerns raised but pointed out statistics had shown affordable housing did not bring down home values and offered tours of existing facilities to help ease concerns raised. Mayor Pringle asked why the decision was made to transition from family affordable units to units serving special needs; Ms. Archuletta stated it was changed for two reasons: the size of the site and funding. Jamboree felt a home for special needs was a more appropriate fit for the site. If two and three-bedroom units were built, there would be increased parking and increased traffic as a result. In addition, State mental health funds had become available. She added it was not totally a finance-driven decision as Jamboree had five sites under contract which could have been utilized for a special needs complex. She agreed that providing homes for the mentally hill was a regional issue but felt a 30-40 unit development was more appropriate than a 200-unit facility. Mayor Pringle asked for clarification of the management and oversight process; Ms. Archuletta indicated a thorough screening of all residents was done, including criminal background checks and for this project, Jamboree would not accept parolees or sex offenders or any individuals with a criminal violence history. She added the property would be retained by Jamboree House in perpetuity and the affordability of those units would remain in perpetuity. She noted the resident services program would provide case management but also computer learning, budgeting, and banking. William Kott, resident, opposed the Jamboree project, stating the site was not appropriate for the development and urged members of the Housing Authority to deny the project. . Scott Darrell, volunteer member of Board of Directors of Jamboree Housing, spoke in support of the Jamboree project. On a personal basis, he spoke of his mother's struggles with mental illness and trying to work and provide a home for him without the resources that were now available. He recommended more outreach and education on this issue be provided to the community at large. . May 20, 2006 Page 4 Cynthia Ward, resident, pointed out neighbors had just learned of the Jamboree project on this date and felt they needed more information before action was taken to approve the project. At 7:34 P.M., the Anaheim Housing Authority was recessed to consider the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency agenda and subsequently reconvened at 7:40 P.M for the Authority consent calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Pringle removed Item No.2 from the consent calendar for further discussion. Housing Authority Member Chavez moved to approve the balance of the consent calendar, seconded by Housing Authority Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Housing Authority Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried. 3. Approve the regular meeting minutes dated May 9, 2006 and May 16, 2006. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 2. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute an Affordable Housing Agreement by and between the Anaheim Housing Authority and Jamboree Housing Corporation (Diamond Street Apartments) substantially in the form attached hereto. Elisa Stipkovich, Community Services Director, reported Item No.2 was to approve an agreement that would make a commitment for a ground lease with Jamboree Housing and if approved, would allow the developer to submit an application to a variety of funding sources, one of which must be submitted by June 30th. She indicated the Diamond Street apartment project would be considered by the community and the Housing Authority at a future date. She informed a hearing had been held at the Planning Commission level to rezone the property to residential and the project would be below the allowable density for the site and also exceeded parking requirements. She noted this specific site was one of three in which the Housing Authority committed to an exclusive negotiation agreement with Jamboree Corporation for the purposes of developing affordable housing projects. Ms. Stipkovich indicated within the last 30 days, Jamboree had recommended the Diamond Street project site be developed as special needs units for the homeless. She emphasized the Housing Authority would not only own the land but would have long-term interests and covenants related to occupancy levels and to the type and adequacy of management and maintenance. Chairman Pringle articulated his dismay over public comments offered on the proposed project, and recognized the need to find suitable sites for special needs categories. He remarked the focus of the Anaheim Affordable Housing Strategic Plan had been for family units and when the City moved forward with an Request for Proposal (RFP) on the three sites purchased from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the entire focus during that time was to maximize public resources to provide as many affordable housing units for families as possible. He pointed out the Diamond Street project contained 33 units, of which only four were two- bedrooms and the remaining 29 units were divided between one-bedroom and studio apartments and for this reason, he would not support the project. Authority Member Galloway concurred with Chairman Pringle's statements while also expressing her sadness at hearing comments related to the homeless and mentally challenged. She hoped a residential site for special needs could be found but supported pursuing housing May 20, 2006 Page 5 for low income families as Council had originally directed for this property. Authority Member Chavez also expressed his disappointment at comments made but concurred with Chairman Pringle and Authority Member Galloway that the initial intent for the site was for low income family housing. He added he would do everything he could to find another location for special needs homes. Authority Member Sidhu concurred with Council's comments, and felt a compromise could be reached. Authority Member Hernandez asked for the average size of the proposed units; Ms. Stipkovich indicated the units would meet code consistent with market rate housing in terms of size for studios, one bedroom or two bedroom units. Authority Member Hernandez pointed out comments earlier indicated the units would be cubicles or cells which was not the case as the units would reflect the size of other similar apartments in the City. He asked what the consequences were for Jamboree Housing if the terms of the contract for management of the site were not met and Ms. Stipkovich stated the City would have the right to remove management. Authority Member Hernandez questioned Jamboree's management experience; Ms. Stipkovich indicated Jamboree had over 2,000 units in Orange County alone and over 5,000 in the state. Laura Archuletta, Jamboree Corporation, added those numbers reflected about 24 developments statewide with all developments having on-site property management. In response to additional questions posed by Authority Member Hernandez, Ms. Archuletta stated she had been working with Jamboree for 16 years and had a wide variety of clients. For family housing properties, she noted, the sites typically consisted of two and three-bedroom units. She added a majority of residents in each development worked in the communities in which they resided. She emphasized that the proposed facility was not a mental institution and it would house individuals with slight mental challenges who were not able to manage their finances and wound up on the street. Authority Member Hernandez stated he would not support requiring a builder to provide low income housing but would look to developers such as Jamboree Housing, Mercy or Habitat for Humanity to meet the needs of this demographic, recognizing such projects would be subsidized by tax credits through the federal government. He pointed out there were few sites that were surplus and could meet the economic needs of affordable housing projects and the Diamond Street site was one of them. Authority Member Galloway reiterated she had a commitment to low income families and would not support the project as proposed as it did not address affordable housing for families. With the consent of the Housing Authority Members, Chairman Pringle recommended no action be taken on this item and requested staff and the developer to come up with an affordable housing development for families on this site. He also directed staff to discuss a special needs residential site at a future date and to work with the community to make sure the project was noticed in advance. Ms. Stipkovich concurred in withdrawing the item and working on an alternative Adjournment: There being no further business, Chairman Pringle adjourned the Anaheim Housing Authority Meeting at 8:13 P.M. ~u11y sub (ji~, Ass~~~cretary,