Appendix B: Program 14: For the Program 14: “Monitoring Emergency Shelter Overlay” discussion, the City identified three (3) achievements, two (2) of which were already shown to be unsubstantiated as discussed above (i.e., (1) the City’s purported interest in locating a shelter in the ES Overlay in 2019, which was admittedly unsuccessful because “it was found to be cost prohibitive,” and (2) the supposed availability of an established transportation program for the unhoused residents of the City, which appears to not exist).
On page HE-B8-B9 of the Appendix, the City discussed a third alleged accomplishment, with the City designating a campsite area for the homeless to provide for the needs of the unsheltered. The City concluded that, due to the significant reduced homeless population in the City, the campsite program was ended after seven months (May to December 2019).
Contrary to the City’s allegations, however, as set forth in an article dated January 24, 2020, by Alex Prieto, the campsite was deemed to be an inhumane and substandard “tent city” that forced the homeless residents to camp immediately adjacent to the City’s waste treatment plant. This ill-stated venture eventually was shutdown. (See the January 24, 2020 article attached hereto as Exhibit 4.)
Moreover, an Orange County Register article dated August 30, 2019, described an incident when 70 people were deceptively removed from the makeshift homeless campground for an alleged clean-up of the site, but then the City only allowed 23 of them to return. After removing everyone from the campsite, the City suddenly imposed a requirement that all campers were required to provide proof that (1) they were residents of the City, or (2) had firm ties to the City, either by showing a valid driver’s license or other identification (such as a utility bill indicating prior residence). This new requirement was imposed three months after the campsite ordinance was adopted. (See the August 30, 2019 article attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the City has not identified any plausible additional sites where Emergency Shelters can be accommodated by right, and it is necessary to do so, including the ESC’s 10 acres as discussed below.
C. ESC’s Recommendations for the Housing Element Will Make a Notable Difference for the Homeless and Underprivileged Residents of San Clemente. Recommendation No. 1:
For Recommendation No. 1, ESC respectfully requests that HCD require the SB 2 ES Overlay to be amended and expanded to include all land within the RSC Business Park Specific Plan, and especially including ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02.
The Housing Element stated: “[o]n October 18, 2016, the City Council adopted the Emergency Shelter (ES) Overlay within a portion of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (see Figure 3-1).” ESC recommends that the ES Overlay should cover the entirety of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan.
In addition, Figure 4-1 below of the Housing Element is entitled “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory.” (HE-87.) It shows blocks of red that represent the areas the City is considering for rezoning purposes for the development of various residential sites. These sites, however, are already fully developed and unsuitable for such purposes. 314
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
By way of example, the site of the Orange County Mattress store is depicted as a very small box on the far left, the Pico Plaza Shopping Mall is shown as a larger box on the far left, the Target / Tesla Supercharger site is depicted as an oblong-shaped box at the top of the diagram, and the Plaza Pacifico site is displayed as the largest red box located in the middle of Figure 4.1.
The Plaza Pacifico site has been developed with large commercial retail stores (e.g., Walmart, Lowes, Albertsons, Michaels, Office Depot, among others) along Avenida Pico in San Clemente:
Significantly, the Plaza Pacifico area with the large box stores along Avenida Pico in San Clemente is immediately adjacent to the SB 2 ES Overlay, as is ESC’s property. (See the Figure on the following page, which shows ESC’s parcels in yellow.) For obvious reasons, ESC’s property would be far less expensive for the development of an emergency shelter and affordable housing than the purchase and relocation of large retail stores. ESC’s site would also be fully compatible and complementary to any affordable housing located within this area of the City.
In light of the foregoing, ESC submits that the SB 2 ES Overlay should include all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688- 011-02, to best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City. (See the attached Exhibit “A” also set forth below.) 315
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
(1) The City’s “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory” in red; (2) The current SB 2 Overlay at the Business Park in purple with a red border; and (3) ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (that are part of the Business Park under the Specific Plan) in yellow:
316
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
Recommendation No. 2:
ESC recommends that the Housing Element be revised to include implementation programs for the amendment of the ES Overlay Ordinance that removes regulatory barriers to the development of an emergency shelter. The specific regulatory barriers to be removed include:
Remove the “Separation” standard and any requirement that emergency shelters cannot be located within 300 feet of each other (HE-46); and Remove the “Maximum Number of Beds” standard with the 35-bed maximum limit for an emergency shelter (HE-47).
The Housing Element should further clarify that these limits to do not apply to Low Barrier Navigation Centers or supportive housing.
a. The Separation standard: The SB 2 ES Overlay is a small area of San Clemente, and it would be impossibly difficult to develop and locate no less than three (3) 35-bed emergency shelters within the Business Park that are spaced 300 feet apart for the last count of 96 unhoused residents in the City. No other protected class of housing has a separation requirement in the zoning code.
Ordinarily, a separation of shelters might be allowed under SB 2, provided that it does not discourage the development of shelters. Given that the City has restricted the SB 2 ES Overlay to only a portion of the overall Business Park, and the smaller buildings are located in one area of the Business Park, the 300-foot radius limit will undoubtedly prevent development of more than one emergency shelter, particularly when coupled with a 35-bed limit. Unless the 35-bed limit is increased and more areas are added to the SB 2 ES Overlay, both the SB 2 ES Overlay and the Draft Housing Element will need to be revised to eliminate the 300-foot separation requirement. b. The Maximum Number of Beds standard: The 35-bed limit is unreasonably low. The bed limit should be increased to allow for a more reasonable number of beds in order to encourage and facilitate the development of a year-round shelter that could adequately serve the needs of the entire homeless population of San Clemente.
As noted, the Business Park consists of industrial buildings typically ranging from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. in size and with prices between $188 to $264 or more per square foot. Smaller spaces are typically in multi-tenant buildings, making it unlikely that a landlord would rent to an emergency shelter if other business offices are located and being operated in the same building. Simply stated, the 35-bed limit in the ES Overlay and the Housing Draft Element is an obvious hindrance to the development of an emergency shelter in the RSC Business Park or elsewhere in San Clemente, and should either be removed or increased substantially. Recommendation No. 3:
ESC further requests that the City’s Housing Element be revised to include an implementation program for the amendment of the zoning code to allow, by right, (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing and (e) transitional housing, all within the SB 2 ES Overlay. 317
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
In support, ESC notes that the City has already included one parcel from the SB 2 ES Overlay located on Avenida La Pata in its Figure 4-1 entitled: “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory.” (See Figure 4-1 diagram above, and the little red square slightly to the right of the big red block in the middle of the diagram, at HE-87.) Indeed, if this one parcel is acceptable for affordable housing and all related protected residential uses, it follows that the rest of the SB 2 ES Overlay should also be acceptable for all protected residential uses. Recommendation No. 4:
ESC further recommends that its 10 acres of land purchased from the RSC Business Park should be included as part of the Figure 4-1 above, entitled “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory,” as a candidate for rezoning, and included in the Affordable Housing Overlay to allow for the development thereon of (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing, and (e) transitional housing. Recommendation No. 5:
Although Low Barrier Navigation Centers and supportive housing are discussed in the Housing Element, and it stated that these uses are permitted in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses, the Housing Element did not specifically identify where each of these zones exist within the City. The Housing Element should include a map showing the location of each of these areas that have been zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Emergency shelters should also be allowed byright within these zones identified for Low Barrier Navigation Centers and supportive housing. Recommendation No. 6:
For Recommendation No. 6, ESC requests a revision of Program 15 entitled “Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay” to require implementation actions by designated deadlines, and performance criteria for a failure to do so. This would include three (3) implementation actions:
1. Assess and update the City’s ES Overlay Ordinance to eliminate (a) the 300-foot separation and (b) the maximum number of beds, by no later than April 1, 2022;
2. Implement a monitoring study every six (6) months to assess if the housing needs and corresponding services for all of the unhoused residents of the City have been met, with the first monitoring study to be commenced no later than April 1, 2022;
3. For every six-month monitoring period for which there is no approved and operational homeless shelter in the City, and/or for which not all of the unhoused residents of the City have been provided shelter or appropriate housing and services, the City will be required to take all necessary action to implement specific programs with zoning ordinance amendments. These shall include, but not be limited to, expanding the SB 2 ES Overlay to include any area zoned for “multiuse” or “commercial,” along with paying for hotel rooms for the unhoused, until such time as an emergency shelter is approved and operational in the City, so that the housing needs of all unhoused and homeless residents have been met. 318
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
With these important revisions to the Housing Element, the City can satisfy its objectives, as well as meet the needs of the homeless and underprivileged residents of the City.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Very truly yours,
Laura Lee Blake
General Counsel, ESC
cc: Ms. Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Senior Planner
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente Community Development Director ESC Board of Directors
319
Exhibit 1
320
Updates (/news/category/Updates), News (/news/category/News), Video (/news/category/Video) Homeless Shelter Ballot Update: “…
inaccurate.” “…it isn’t correct.” “…error in
judgment…”
October 14, 2019
SAN CLEMENTE
HOMELESS
SHELTER VOTE
UPDATE:
"...ERROR IN
JUDGMENT..."
HOME (/)
PROPERTIES (/PROPERTIES)
NEWS (/NEWS)
SEARCH (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM/SEARCH)
CONTACT (/CONTACT)
ABOUT
ABOUT (/ABOUT)
321
Site Location along Avenida Pico - Image by Jim Wynne’s Team at Kidder Mathews SAN CLEMENTE, CA: AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC FORUM BROUGHT SAN CLEMENTE, CA: AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC FORUM BROUGHT
TO LIGHT TRUTH, CONFUSION, AND MISINFORMATION ON THE TO LIGHT TRUTH, CONFUSION, AND MISINFORMATION ON THE PENDING RANCHO SAN CLEMENTE HOMELESS SHELTER. PENDING RANCHO SAN CLEMENTE HOMELESS SHELTER. (Two parcels, totaling 10 acres of land along Avenida Pico, are currently in escrow to be purchased by a homeless shelter operator. Read our previous article here. (https://www.wynnecre.com/news/newhomeless-shelter-in-escrow-on-pico-land)) By Arrow Santos
(Note: Jim Wynne and Kidder Mathews are NOT NOT involved with either party in this transaction.)
THE BACKGROUND & SETUP THE BACKGROUND & SETUP
After our original story (https://www.wynnecre.com/news/new-homeless-shelter-in-escrow-on-picoland) was posted just over a week ago, we received an overwhelming response from the community.
Many individuals were surprised or frustrated that an escrow had been opened with a homeless shelter operator without a public announcement. Others we spoke with were not aware their vote was needed before escrow can close. Multiple business park members even stated they had thrown their ballots away without realizing what was going on.
“IF THERE WAS NOT AN ERROR IN LAW, THERE WAS AN
ERROR IN JUDGMENT HERE ON THE PART OF THE ERROR IN JUDGMENT HERE ON THE PART OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS…,” JON PARRY OF BEMUS BOARD OF DIRECTORS…,” JON PARRY OF BEMUS
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
WynneCRE at Kidder Mathews rapidly organized an emergency question and answer forum with San Clemente City Manager James Makshanoff and Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association Attorney Tom Mauriello. The RSCB Association are the Sellers of the two parcels in escrow. The City of San Clemente does not own the land and is not involved in the potential transfer.
The Outlets at San Clemente and the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce served as sponsors for the event, a special thanks to both for their community support. 322
Members of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park find their seats prior to the start of the Q&A Forum. Image by Jim Wynne’s Team at Kidder Mathews.
THE WHO & WHAT THE WHO & WHAT
Dozens of Rancho San Clemente business owners attended the event on Wednesday, October 9.
Below is a full video of the forum. We have also included text highlights with timestamps to jump to that section of the video. Click on the provided timestamps below to watch that specific video clip.
Please note, text highlights include sentences taken from longer answers, and the corresponding responses may have included additional language after or before chosen quotes. Thank you to all the business members who attended on such short notice.
Jim Wynne moderated the event, asking Makshanoff and Mauriello prepared questions for the first half of the session. The remaining time was open to audience members asking their questions and receiving direct responses on behalf of the City of San Clemente and the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association.
During this live conversational investigation, various inaccuracies were discovered in the letter and ballot mailed out by the RSCB Association.
THE VIDEO
Q&A Forum On Pending Rancho San Clemente Homeless Shelter Vote -…
THE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
323
QUESTION 1: QUESTION 1:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) THE
LETTER WITH THE BALLOT FROM THE LETTER WITH THE BALLOT FROM THE
ASSOCIATION STATES THE TWO PARCELS IN
ESCROW ARE WITHIN THE CITY’S SB2 ESCROW ARE WITHIN THE CITY’S SB2 HOMELESS SHELTER ZONING OVERLAY. IS HOMELESS SHELTER ZONING OVERLAY. IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT ACCURATE? 4:24
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=264) “No, it’s not. The properties are on the north side of …Avenida Pico and those are not in the SB2 zone,” said James Makshanoff.
After Makshanoff answered, Tom Mauriello replied, “Our understanding was the 10 acres are in the SB2 zone. The Buyer’s understanding is that they are in the SB2 zone.” “It doesn’t show the property,” Makshanoff flatly stated upon examining the zoning map provided to the attendees.
QUESTION 2: QUESTION 2:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) THE
LETTER STATES IT IS UNKNOWN HOW THE LETTER STATES IT IS UNKNOWN HOW THE
BUYER COULD CIRCUMVENT THE OPEN SPACE BUYER COULD CIRCUMVENT THE OPEN SPACE
RESTRICTIONS, HOW COULD THEY OVERCOME RESTRICTIONS, HOW COULD THEY OVERCOME THE RESTRICTIONS? THE RESTRICTIONS? 6:57
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) 324
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=417) “…Measure V, which requires any open space in the City, any property designated as open space, if you’re going to develop that space and it’s greater than 1 acre in size then it has to go a vote of the people. And you need the majority of the City of San Clemente residents to develop that property,” explained Makshanoff in part.
Zoning Map Showing Proposed Shelter Location in “Open Space - Private” Zone.
QUESTION 3: QUESTION 3:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583)
COULD THE COUNTY TAKE THE PROPERTY COULD THE COUNTY TAKE THE PROPERTY
THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN TO ALLOW A
HOMELESS SHELTER? HOMELESS SHELTER? 9:43
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=583) “I guess the County could do that, but would the County do that?” Makshanoff asked.
He then went on to read an email from Orange County Fifth District Supervisor Lisa Bartlett’s office. “If the Rancho San Clemente property owners were to approve the sale of the parcels for use as emergency shelter, Supervisor Bartlett would not support any effort to obtain County funding or ongoing shelter operations. Our office has verified that County staff is not in discussions with the Emergency Shelter Coalition and would not commit to using this property for a regional shelter,” Makshanoff read from the email text.
QUESTION 4: QUESTION 4:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) THE
LETTER STATES THAT THE ASSOCIATION
BOARD BELIEVES THAT IF A SHELTER WAS BOARD BELIEVES THAT IF A SHELTER WAS
BUILT ON THE PARCELS, IT WOULD DECREASE BUILT ON THE PARCELS, IT WOULD DECREASE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SHELTER BEING
325
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SHELTER BEING
CONSTRUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PARK. HOW
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT BELIEF? WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT BELIEF? 10:49 (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=649) “I’m not convinced a shelter is inevitable,” Makshanoff shared. 11:39 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0? t=699)
Makshanoff continued, “We filed an amicus brief (/s/6BBAmicusBriefMartinvsCity.pdf)recently to have the Supreme Court take up the case of Martin V Boise that has placed a difficulty on Western cities when it comes to enforcement of different camping ordinances and such. We figure we’ll hear sometime later this month, or early November, if the Supreme Court is going to hear that case.” Mauriello clarified for the audience, “People have been discussing the owner vote as a vote to sell the parcels. It’s not a vote whether to sell the parcels or not. It’s a vote required to terminate the parcels from conveyance and the CC&R’s of the Master Association. It might be a subtle difference, but the Board did not need approval of the owners to vote to sell the parcels." 13:36 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=816)
“They’ve been tough parcels to get people interested in. We’ve talked to various buyers over the years and those efforts were unsuccessful,” said Mauriello.
QUESTION 5: QUESTION 5:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DON’T VOTE TO
REMOVE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE CC&R’S, REMOVE THE PROPERTIES FROM THE CC&R’S, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CC&R’S THAT IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CC&R’S THAT
WOULD PREVENT A HOMELESS SHELTER FROM
BEING BUILT? BEING BUILT? 21:25
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1285) Mauriello answered, “My understanding is that the CC&R’s may preclude the development of a shelter, if the land remains within the CC&R’s, for a variety of reasons.” QUESTION 6: QUESTION 6:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385)
THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION STATES THE LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION STATES
THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE PARCELS FROM
THE CC&R’S IS A CONDITION OF THE CLOSE THE CC&R’S IS A CONDITION OF THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. COULD THE BUYER CHOOSE TO
STILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES IF THE STILL PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES IF THE
PARCELS ARE NOT TERMINATED FROM THE PARCELS ARE NOT TERMINATED FROM THE CC&RS? DOES IT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO
TERMINATE ESCROW OR DOES IT TERMINATE ESCROW OR DOES IT 326
AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE ESCROW IF THE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE ESCROW IF THE VOTE DOESN’T PASS? VOTE DOESN’T PASS? 23:05
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1385) “If that condition is not satisfied, the Buyer would not close. Could they choose to waive that condition and close? Theoretically yes, they could, but they won’t. He told me that,” answered Mauriello. 23:35 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1415)
QUESTION 7: QUESTION 7:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1425) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1425) DO
THEY WANT THE CC&RS WAIVED FOR THE THEY WANT THE CC&RS WAIVED FOR THE ASSOCIATION FEES OR OTHER REASONS? ASSOCIATION FEES OR OTHER REASONS? 23:45 (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0? (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0? T=1425) T=1425)
QUESTION 8: QUESTION 8:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) IF
THE SALE TAKES PLACE AND THE OPEN SPACE THE SALE TAKES PLACE AND THE OPEN SPACE
ZONING IS REMOVED, WOULD THE SHELTER ZONING IS REMOVED, WOULD THE SHELTER BE LIMITED TO 35 BEDS? BE LIMITED TO 35 BEDS? 24:13
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1453) “Seeing as how this property is outside of the SB2 I would think it wouldn’t be subject to that 35-bed requirement…,” replied City Manager Makshanoff.
He later continued, “Mr. Connor [the Buyer] stated to me, and the City Attorney, and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Bane back in February, that he would do 75 beds there to start. When I asked him if the beds would be limited to homeless people from San Clemente, he said that they would start with San Clemente but that there was no guarantees that it would be just for San Clemente homeless people.” QUESTION 9: QUESTION 9:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) IS
THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE WILLING TO
PURCHASE THE PARCELS FROM THE PURCHASE THE PARCELS FROM THE ASSOCIATION? ASSOCIATION? 26:21
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1581) QUESTION 10: QUESTION 10:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) IF 327 (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) IF
THE CITY WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE THE CITY WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE
PROPERTY, WHAT SAFEGUARDS COULD BE PUT PROPERTY, WHAT SAFEGUARDS COULD BE PUT
IN PLACE TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY WOULD
NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A HOMELESS NOT BE DEVELOPED AS A HOMELESS SHELTER? SHELTER? 26:35
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1595) Listen to Makshanoff’s full answer on placing a conservation easement on the property to not only stop a homeless shelter but also serve as another piece of the puzzle in blocking a toll road route! QUESTION 11: QUESTION 11:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) HOW IS THE VOTE COUNTED? WHAT IS THE HOW IS THE VOTE COUNTED? WHAT IS THE
PROCEDURE FOR THE SECRET BALLOT VOTE PROCEDURE FOR THE SECRET BALLOT VOTE COUNT? 27:52
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1672) Makshanoff shared for the record, “The City owns two lots in the business park, and we plan to vote against it.” 28:21 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1701) QUESTION 12: QUESTION 12:
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699)
THE CIVIL CODES STATE THE BALLOT IS THE CIVIL CODES STATE THE BALLOT IS IRREVOCABLE. IF A PROPERTY OWNER IRREVOCABLE. IF A PROPERTY OWNER
ALREADY VOTED BUT THEN SEES THIS NEW
INFORMATION OR REALIZES THE LETTER AND
BALLOT ARE INCORRECT, WHAT MECHANISM
IS IN PLACE FOR OWNERS TO CHANGE THEIR IS IN PLACE FOR OWNERS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES? 28:19
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1699)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) FROM THE PUBLIC FROM THE PUBLIC 29:17
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=1757) Including: Including:
• Zoning changes? Zoning changes?
328
• Other buyers? Other buyers?
• Eminent Domain from the State? Eminent Domain from the State? • Under 1 Acre loophole? Under 1 Acre loophole?
• Missing ballots? Missing ballots?
• New vote with corrected ballot information? New vote with corrected ballot information? • Moving the SB2 overlay? Moving the SB2 overlay?
• Why didn’t the Association provide more details to the public? Why didn’t the Association provide more details to the public? • And many more important questions! And many more important questions! “The letter that went out talked about that it’s less likely for a shelter to go in “The letter that went out talked about that it’s less likely for a shelter to go in the business park, and that’s 100% inaccurate.” -Glenn Walker of Walker the business park, and that’s 100% inaccurate.” -Glenn Walker of Walker Insurance Solutions Insurance Solutions 31:06 31:06 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=1866) -What if the property is developed under 1 acre to avoid a public community vote? 39:37 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2377)
-Why didn’t the Association provide more information to the community prior to entering escrow with a homeless shelter operator? 40:48 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2448) “If in fact it is voted down and that property over there, the 10 acres, will that “If in fact it is voted down and that property over there, the 10 acres, will that be up for sale to anybody that would want to buy it and use that for parks and be up for sale to anybody that would want to buy it and use that for parks and recreation and stuff?” -Jay Longley of Rainbow Sandals recreation and stuff?” -Jay Longley of Rainbow Sandals 41:46 41:46 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2506)
-With both the City of San Clemente and Olen Properties wanting to purchase the property, is the Association still asking for property owners to approve the current vote, and if so, why? 49:31 49:31 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=2971)
“For those who did not get their ballots, how do they get?” -Krisna Macdonald “For those who did not get their ballots, how do they get?” -Krisna Macdonald of Matsushita International of Matsushita International 55:02 55:02 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3302) 329
-Dale Lyon, Senior Vice President of Olen has currently submitted an offered to purchase the property and shared they would have entertained an offer originally if they would have known it was for sale. “We’re voting no.” 55:15 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3315) “It’s right across the street. I mean it’s going to impact. It’s going to bring an “It’s right across the street. I mean it’s going to impact. It’s going to bring an element to the neighborhood.” -Dale Lyon of Olen Properties element to the neighborhood.” -Dale Lyon of Olen Properties 59:56 59:56 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3596)
“Is the ballot going to be valid since it isn’t correct? ... everyone who’s voting “Is the ballot going to be valid since it isn’t correct? ... everyone who’s voting thinks that this Pico lot is in the SB2 zone but it’s not….” thinks that this Pico lot is in the SB2 zone but it’s not….” 1:00:40 1:00:40 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3638)
“If there was not an error in law, there was an error in judgment here on the “If there was not an error in law, there was an error in judgment here on the part of the board of directors…” -Jon Parry of Bemus Landscape part of the board of directors…” -Jon Parry of Bemus Landscape 1:04:43 1:04:43 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=3881)
-Can the SB2 zoning be moved to cover the parcels in escrow? 1:10:38 (https://youtu.be/53z7Kq2jBR0?t=4238)
CLOSING STATEMENT: CLOSING STATEMENT: 1:11:13 1:11:13
(HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=4273) (HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/53Z7KQ2JBR0?T=4273) THE “NOW WHAT?” THE “NOW WHAT?”
Several of these questions were left outstanding by the close of the event, with Mauriello stating he will be talking to the Association’s Board of Directors to find answers for these pending topics.
We urge you to watch the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53z7Kq2jBR0) above to gain the ultimate insight on this current Rancho San Clemente homeless shelter escrow situation. Ballots must be returned to the RSCB Association for a vote count by October 30, 2019.
VIEW Q&A FORUM HANDOUT PACKAGE (/S/PACKAGE-FOR-QA-RSCHOMELESS-SHELTER-FORUM-10-7-19.PDF)
SUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBE
Stay tuned for more updates as this story develops. Subscribe below to get breaking business news updates right to your inbox.
330
COMMENTS (1)
Tagged: san clemente (/news/tag/san+clemente), homeless shelter (/news/tag/homeless+shelter), business park
(/news/tag/business+park)
1 Likes
Sale of Parcels • Clarification
If the owners vote to remove the parcels from the CC&R's, it appears that in addition, a majority vote by the Master Board is needed in order to sell the parcels to the City, County or other public agency (see CC&R's § 4.2 below).
Further, the Item (sale of the 2 parcels) would need to be listed on the Agenda in order to allow public discussion board review, and a vote by the Board.
It may be prudent for counsel to review the Agendas, Minutes, and CC&R's:
"Section 4.2 Power to Convey and Dedicate Property to Government Agencies— The Master Association with the approval of Members representing at least a majority of the voting power of the Master Association, shall have the power to grant convey, dedicate or transfer any Master Association Properties or facilities to any public or governmental agency or authority for such purposes and subject to such terms and conditions as the Master Association shall deem appropriate, subject to the provisions elsewhere contained in this Master Declaration for approval of the same by Declaration with respect to property previously transferred to the Master Association by Declarant."
Respectfully,
Vonne Barnes, RSCCA Board President
Newer Post
Chapman University 2020 Economic Forecast
Summary (PLUS the full report!) (/news/champanOlder Post Jim Wynne Hosting San Clemente City Council
Forum - 2019 Special Election (/news/jim-wynneupdates right to your inbox.
Like us on Facebook @WynneCRE (https://www.facebook.com/WynneCRE) and share this info with your San Clemente business neighbors!
! ! Share
Newest First
Preview POST COMMENT…
Vonne Barnes 2 years ago · 0 Likes
331
Summary (PLUS the full report!) (/news/champanuniversity-2020-economic-forecast-summary-plusthe-full-report) Forum - 2019 Special Election (/news/jim-wynnehosting-san-clemente-city-council-forum-2019)
JIM WYNNE OF KIDDER MATHEWS JIM WYNNE OF KIDDER MATHEWS LIC#01242705 LIC#01242705
ORANGE COUNTY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST ORANGE COUNTY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST 949.557.5060 949.557.5060
[email protected]
KIDDER MATHEWS | 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1700, IRVINE, CA
92614 | KIDDER.COM
(https://www.facebook.com/WynneCRE) (https://twitter.com/WynneCRE) (https://www.instagram.com/wynnecre/) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSUzzbqzIxyMqXiWcK27Vmg) HOME (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM)
PROPERTIES (/PROPERTIES)
NEWS (/NEWS)
ABOUT (/ABOUT)
SEARCH (HTTPS://WWW.WYNNECRE.COM/SEARCH)
CONTACT (/CONTACT)
332
Exhibit 2
333
+ −
Map Satellite
2
Search
mode !
Neighborhoods
Zip Codes
Current map
Radius
Polygon
+
−
Map Satellite
Map data ©2021 Google,
INEGI
Expand Map"
Marshal Vogt
Lee & Associates
(714) 564-7117
Principal Contact
Your Featured Local Broker #
California > Orange County > San Clemente
31 Office Spaces for Rent in San Clemente, CA
$ Sort By Best Match Next Page
940 Calle Negocio, Ste 165
940 Calle Negocio, Ste 165, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 23,263 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
1 Space / 790 Sqft
For Lease
$1.52/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
Office 910
910 S. El Camino Real Road, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 6,709 Sqft
Year Built
1985
Availability
2 Spaces / 1,800 Sqft
For Lease
$2/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
Talega Medical Plaza
1300 Avenida Vista Hermosa, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 27,522 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Availability
2 Spaces / 6,666 Sqft
For Lease
$34.2 - $35.4/Sqft/Y…
View Details Contact Property
San Clemente Professional Plaza
655 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 32,477 Sqft
Year Built
1973
Availability
1 Space / 1,444 Sqft
For Lease
$2.1/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
% %
% %
% %
By Location& ' Office & Price & ( More Filters Clear All ) Save Search For Lease & Commercial Real Estate Coworking Add a Listing Advertise *Log In We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful and to better understand how they are used. You can find out more about which cookies we are using and update your preferences in Cookies Settings. By clicking “Accept All Cookies,” you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Cookie Notice
Cookies Settings
Accept All Cookies
334
Talega Business Park - 1211 Puer…
1211 Puerta Del Sol, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 43,737 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Availability
1 Space / 3,923 Sqft
For Lease
$2/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
The Presidio Building
300 S. El Camino Real Road, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 11,760 Sqft
Year Built
1982
Availability
4 Spaces / 2,205 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
Plaza by the Sea
616 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 51,696 Sqft
Year Built
1974
Availability
1 Space / 1,200 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
1402 N. El Camino Real
1402 N. El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 1,900 Sqft
For Sale
$1,190,000
View Details Contact Property
Pacific Pointe Corporate Centre
901 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 120,527 Sqft
Year Built
2001
Availability
1 Space / 2,785 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
647 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 2… 647 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 223, San Clemente, … Property
Office / 1,200 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 1,180 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
LIB
@CommercialEdge
% %
% %
335
1001 Avenida Pico
1001 Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 20,000 Sqft
Availability
3 Spaces / 6,614 Sqft
For Lease
$1.95 - $2.95/Sqft/M…
View Details Contact Property
1051 Avenida Pico
1051 Avenida Pico, San Clemente, CA
Property
Retail / 5,507 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 2,992 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
Pacific Pointe Corporate Centre
901 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 120,527 Sqft
Year Built
2001
Availability
7 Spaces / 20,076 S…
For Lease
$2.4 - $2.45/Sqft/Mo…
View Details Contact Property
910 S El Camino Real
910 S El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Other / 6,709 Sqft
Year Built
1985
Availability
1 Space / 2,175 Sqft
For Lease
$26.4/Sqft/Year
View Details Contact Property
Not finding the right space?
Tell us where and what you're looking for and the brokers will come to you Post my Space Need
% %
% %
% %
336
San Clemente Commerce Center
927 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 71,397 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
Contact for availabili…
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
110 Av. La Pata
110 Av. La Pata, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 46,476 Sqft
Availability
1 Space / 20,475 Sqft
For Lease
Contact for pricing
View Details Contact Property
665 Camino De Los Mares #200
665 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 1,200 Sqft
For Sale
$648,000
View Details Contact Property
Amanecer Business Park
940-946 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 81,260 Sqft
Year Built
1989
Availability
3 Spaces / 4,540 Sqft
For Lease
$1.3 - $1.6/Sqft/Month
View Details Contact Property
107 AVENIDA DE LA ESTRELLA
107 AVENIDA DE LA ESTRELLA, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 16,200 Sqft
Year Built
2007
Availability
1 Space / 1,050 Sqft
For Lease
$30/Sqft/Year
View Details Contact Property
951 Calle Amanecer
951 Calle Amanecer, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 39,000 Sqft
Year Built
1991
Off Market
Off Market Off Market
% %
% %
% %
337
San Clemente, CA Office Space Listings
There are currently 27 office listings available in San Clemente, CA. These listings include 31 office spaces that encompass a total of 68,134 square feet. Available office spaces in San Clemente, CA range in size from 152 square feet to 20,475 square feet. A total of 8 off-market office properties located in San Clemente, CA are also available for research.
See San Clemente office price per sqft in 2020, along with vacancy rates, sales report, and construction stats.
Commerce Center
940 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 44,554 Sqft
Year Built
1985
665 Camino De Los Mares
665 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 40,000 Sqft
Talega Business Park - 1311 Calle…
1311 Calle Batido, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 85,316 Sqft
Year Built
2002
Oceanview Medical Center
675 Camino De Los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 30,931 Sqft
Year Built
1983
1401 N El Camino Real
1401 N El Camino Real, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 16,000 Sqft
629 Camino de los Mares
629 Camino de los Mares, San Clemente, CA
Property
Office / 29,700 Sqft
Year Built
1979
2 »
@commerciolEdge
Off Market Off Market
Off Market Off Market
1 % %
% %
338
San Clemente, CA Office Inventory Breakdown
Office Spaces
Total: 287,103 SF
Data provided by Yardi Matrix, properties over 50k SF, includes office with retail By square footage range:
50k to 100k SqFt 166,576 SqFt 58.02% of total office
100k to 500k SqFt 120,527 SqFt 41.98% of total office
By class:
Class B 287,103 SqFt 100% of total office
Other Popular Searches
Look For Office Space Near Me
Are you still looking for the office space near you that’s perfect for your business? Browse through all available CommercialCafe listings in your area to find the right fit — the space that meets your requirements, right now and for the future. Easily compare sizes, prices, amenities and locations of office spaces for rent near me. Expand your search beyond your neighborhood and ZIP code and search our listings in any city or state to find the best fit for your needs, wherever you are in the U.S. The perfect office space for rent near San Clemente, CA is only one search away.
Irvine Office Space - 475 listings
Newport Beach Office Space - 168 listings
Santa Ana Office Space - 161 listings
Carlsbad Office Space - 144 listings
Riverside Office Space - 140 listings
Anaheim Office Space - 119 listings
Costa Mesa Office Space - 103 listings
Orange Office Space - 67 listings
La Jolla Office Space - 67 listings
Brea Office Space - 46 listings
339
Frequently Asked Questions
How much does office space cost in San Clemente, CA?
The average office rental rate in San Clemente, CA is $25.86 per square foot. Asking prices vary based on the property’s location, overall rating, amenities, proximity to restaurants, cafes and entertainment venues, as well as public transport, airports and highways. Check San Clemente Office Market Trends for more stats.
What is the size of available office spaces in San Clemente, CA? The San Clemente, CA office market can accommodate various businesses, sporting a range of office space availabilities. The average size of office space availabilities is 10,314 square feet. If you’re just starting out as a company or as an entrepreneur, the smallest available office space in San Clemente, CA is 152 square feet, while the maximum rentable space on the market now is 20,475 square feet.
How do I get office space in San Clemente, CA?
Start your search for office space in San Clemente, CA by using our filters that allow you to find the best space for your business needs. Filter listings by location, property size, available space or lease rate. Property pages will offer details about an office building’s rating, year built, availabilities, price per square foot and more. After drawing up a shortlist, make sure you contact the listed broker(s) to schedule a viewing and begin the negotiation process for your lease contract.
How many office listings are available in San Clemente, CA? There are 27 office listings on the San Clemente, CA market. See all available office spaces for rent.
What other property types are available for lease in San Clemente, CA? In addition to traditional office spaces, commercial real estate listings on our platform also include coworking & shared office space options, retail spaces, industrial buildings, warehouses, distribution facilities, and more.
San Clemente, CA Demographics & Income
Median Age 42.1
340
Population by age category
Under 20 24.7%
20 to 64 57.0%
65 and over 18.3%
Population by age range
11.8%
0-9
12.9%
10-19
9.6%
20-29
12.9%
30-39
13.4%
40-49
12.8%
50-59
15.2%
60-69
7.9%
70-79
3.5%
80-89
In 2019, the median age of San Clemente residents was 42.1 years old. Aproximately 57.0% of total population is between the ages of 20-64, with 9.6% between 20-29 years old.
Income per capita $61,323
Median Income per age
$67,043
0-25
$150,037
25-44
$172,969
45-64
$84,656
65+
The median income for San Clemente residents 45-64 years old stands at $172,969, with 25-44 years old earnings $150,037 per year. $101,588
Management, business
and financial occupations
$128,280
Computer, engineering
and science occupations
$47,410
Sales and office
occupations
The mean wage for San Clemente workers in management, business and financial ocupations is $101,588, whereas those in computer engineering and science occupation earn $128,280 per year. Sales and office occupations workers mean income is $47,410.
Pick your country:
About Us
Contact Us
Our Tools
Add a listing
341
© 2021 - Yardi Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
! " # $
Who We Are
Terms Of Service
Privacy Statement
Your CA Privacy Rights
Sitemap
Blog
Real Estate Terms
342
Exhibit 3
343
344
Exhibit 4
345
SUBSCRIBE DONATE
HOME | NEWSROOM | HOUSING | The City of San Clemente backed away from an inhumane homeless ordinance, but it’s the tip of the iceberg in California The City Of San Clemente Backed Away
From An Inhumane Homeless Ordinance,
But It’s The Tip Of The Iceberg In California
January 24, 2020, By Western Center Senior Litigator, Alex Prieto Last month, after pressure from a case filed by Western Center and our partners, Emergency Shelter Coalition v. City of San Clemente, San Clemente passed an emergency repeal of a deeply inhumane ordinance targeting people experiencing homelessness. The ordinance would have forced anyone without a place to sleep to camp at a storage lot next to a waste treatment plant. The City made the repeal permanent this week.
The ordinance was the latest in a series passed by San Clemente targeting the City’s growing homeless population. Sadly, the City’s actions re!ect an approach to homelessness that is common in California, aimed at pushing the problem out of public view rather than addressing it in a meaningful way.
In 2018, San Clemente enacted an ordinance similar to those adopted by many California cities, which criminalized camping by those experiencing homelessness. The City was forced to amend the law in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Martin v. Boise, which said it is unconstitutional to punish someone for sleeping outdoors on public land when alternative shelter is unavailable.
But the City’s amendment did not mark a change in attitude. After Martin, San Clemente still clung to its same shortsighted approach to homelessness, and remained focused on citing and arresting people for living on the street, sleeping in public, and other unavoidable offenses. The ordinance challenged in our Emergency Shelter Coalition case was a product of that approach.
At the City Council meeting where San Clemente adopted the ordinance, Emergency Shelter Coalition, the plaintiff in the case, offered the City an alternative: a financial donation to fund an indoor homeless shelter, and land for a location. San Clemente opted instead to force its homeless population to camp at the site near the waste treatment plant, which the City previously rejected as the location for an animal shelter due to safety concerns. This choice shows that the City wasn’t interested in providing adequate shelter for people experiencing homelessness.
The City’s decision to repeal the ordinance came only after sustained pressure from our case — a victory against the criminalization of homelessness. But the notion that criminal enforcement is a solution to homelessness continues to attract politicians and administrators peddling quick fixes.
Exhibit A: a proposed 2020 state ballot initiative by former Assemblyman Mike Gatto, which takes the debunked idea that California can arrest its way out of a homeless crisis to disturbing extremes.
The initiative requires law enforcement officers to set aside other priorities to make mandatory 346
arrests for certain offenses, mostly minor nuisance violations. It then requires judges to impose the maximum sentence on anyone found to have a mental health or drug addiction issue. Judges would also be authorized to order that sentences be served in locked mental health and drug treatment facilities.
If enacted, the initiative will result in the mass institutionalization of people deemed mentally unwell at the discretion of police and judges.
Gatto claims the initiative will connect people to financial and housing assistance, but this is only window dressing – the measure provides no funding for housing or homeless services. The only financial assistance it refers to is General Relief, an existing program that already provides far less aid than necessary to obtain housing and meet basic needs. In Los Angeles County, for example, the maximum General Relief payment is $221.00 per month.
Such superficial gestures should not distract from what the initiative really is: a destructive nonsolution that will trample the rights of people with mental health disabilities. It is an example of the “out of sight, out of mind” approach to homelessness at its worst.
Moreover, this approach also perpetuates wider systemic inequities, both historic and current. In a country and state that continues to struggle with racialized policing practices, it makes no sense to impose mandatory arrests and maximum sentences on an already marginalized population that is disproportionately Black.
Criminalizing homelessness does nothing to solve a long-term crisis resulting from entrenched inequities in housing access, economic opportunity, the criminal justice system, and medical and mental health services. But it does allow cities to push the visual evidence of the issue temporarily out of sight. Cities too often assert that some people experiencing homelessness will eventually move to other cities when faced with the constant threat of arrest, which allows them to treat homelessness as someone else’s problem.
Harmful policies like San Clemente’s now-repealed ordinance and Gatto’s proposed ballot measure move the state backwards when we should be investing in real solutions, like increased funding for deeply affordable housing and significant increases in General Relief grants. Western Center will continue to advocate for sustainable state and local policies that actually work, and we will fight those seeking to expand the criminalization of homelessness in court.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
Medi-Cal Benefits Eliminated A
Decade Ago, Such As Foot Care
And Eyeglasses, Are Back
NEXT ARTICLE
Western Center Statement On
Supreme Court Public Charge
Ruling
347
siteground
© 2019 Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc. WCLP, WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY and design are registered trademarks owned by Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc. All rights reserved. WCLP ® ...
LOCATIONS
3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90010
213.487.7211
1107 Ninth Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.442.0753
449 Fifteenth Street, Suite 301
Oakland, CA 94612
213.487.7211
Fax # 213.487.0242
Contact us via email
QUICK LINKS
About
Our Staff
Advocacy
Resources
Our Client Stories
Newsroom
SUPPORT WESTERN CENTER
DONATE NOW
SITE MAP TERMS OF USE PRIVACY STATEMENT
348
Exhibit 5
349
___
By ERIKA I. RITCHIE | [email protected] | Orange
County Register
PUBLISHED: August 30, 2019 at 8:16 p.m. | UPDATED: August 31, Greg Naylor pauses as he considers his options after being told he would not be allowed to stay at a city designated homeless area on Avineda Vista Hermosa in San Clemente, CA, on Friday, Aug 30, 2019. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG)
LOCAL NEWS
San Clemente clears homeless
camp site and requires proof
of ties to the city for reentry
350
2019 at 12:21 p.m.
About 70 people were removed from a makeshift homeless
campground along Avenida Pico in San Clemente for a clean-up of the site, Friday morning, Aug. 30, but only 23 were allowed to return.
In order to regain entrance to the city yard, city officials said, the homeless living there had to prove a tie to the city — either by showing a valid driver’s license or other identification, a utility bill indicating prior residence in the city or bringing along a family member who could vouch for their connection to San Clemente.
Since the campground opened in May, officials said, it had been filling up with people from out of town.
Notice of the cleaning and an order to clear the site of all belongings by 7 a.m. Friday was posted at the yard Aug. 21 and again Aug. 28, said Assistant City Manager Eric Sund.
The cleaning, he said, was being conducted to clear out trash and debris that had accumulated on the half-acre lot and to create a healthy and safe environment.
Folded up tents, chairs, clothing and surfboards were piled high along the sidewalk as the clean-up progressed through the morning Friday. As city and county workers cleared the site, a handful of homeless people waited outside the gates sitting on their belongings.
Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies were on hand to monitor the transition and to keep watch over workers from the Orange County Health Care Agency. Across the way, some San Clemente residents watched the scene unfold.
Roger Etzwier was one of the homeless people denied re-entry to the camp when the doors re-opened around 2 p.m.
351
“I’m upset because I got lured out here on false pretenses and the gate slammed shut on me,” the 57-year-old from San Juan Capistrano said. “I signed up just last week. I was a roofer in San Clemente for 30 years but that doesn’t help me now. I don’t have anything to prove it.”
Gregory Naylor, 57, also was locked out. The former Laguna Beach restaurant chef complained about the lack of toilets at the site and water with which to shower, but he was in tears when he was turned away.
“I’m going to set up my tent and I’m sure people will complain,” he said as he pointed across the street toward multi-million dollar homes in the Sea Summit community. “This is a total collapse of our system. How can they say we don’t live here? We were all here last night.”
Those who were not allowed to return to the campground were given vouchers for bus, train and Uber rides to transport them elsewhere.
The city lot was set up as a homeless campsite May 24, after the San Clemente City Council passed an urgency ordinance to move a growing homeless community away from North Beach.
The ordinance, created to address threats to public safety, health, and welfare, prohibited camping on public property but provided the camping option for the homeless at the lot.
Brooke Weitzman, one of several lawyers threatening action in response to the city’s relocation plan, was on site during Friday’s clean-up.
Weitzman filed a lawsuit on behalf of several homeless people against San Clemente, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Irvine and San Juan Capistrano in February.
On Aug. 12, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson dropped four of five south Orange County cities from a lawsuit and ordered lawyers for the homeless people to amend their complaint against San Clemente, which remains a defendant along with the county.
352
Elsewhere around Orange County, Laguna Beach gives shelter priority to homeless people with ties to the city. Those claims are reviewed by Laguna Beach Police Department personnel. In Tustin and Anaheim, officials also ask that those seeking shelter have ties to the community.
The Courtyard shelter in Santa Ana does not require proof of prior connections to a community.
Duane (Gibson) Nichols, a Navy veteran and one of three homeless people named in the lawsuit against San Clemente, said Friday he wasn’t happy with the new situation. Though he was on the list to move back in, the new decor and tents didn’t suit his style.
“I’m not moving into that little dog house,” he said, referring to 40 tents the city brought in Friday. “I have my own tent. I’m moving back to North Beach.”
He also lamented about conditions at the city site, especially with the influx of people from out of state.
“They’re having problems with the toilets now that there are 75 to 80 people here,” he said. “People are coming from all over … Kentucky, Florida, Iowa and New York. There’s more vandalism and crime. There’s more petty theft in the area. They’re hitting the 7-11, the 99 Cents Only Store and Albertsons. People wander around after lights-out and they’re not following the rules.”
Newsroom Guidelines News Tips Contact Us
Report an Error
Be the first to get the most important news.
Sign up for our Breaking News
newsletter now.
Enter email to subscribe
353
Exhibit B
354
1 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
EDMOND M. CONNOR (SBN 65515)
[email protected]
DOUGLAS A. HEDENKAMP (SBN 216487)
[email protected]
LAURA L. BLAKE (SBN 148024)
[email protected]
KAMRAN KHAKBAZ (SBN 328911)
[email protected]
CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-2600
Attorneys for The Emergency
Shelter Coalition
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. TIPPETS IN SUPPORT OF THE EMERGENCY SHELTER COALITION’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE’S EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION RE API NOS. 688-011-01 AND 688-011-02
355
2 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM E. TIPPETS
I, William E. Tippets, declare and say:
1. I am over the age of eighteen and a resident of California, and I submit this declaration in support of the Emergency Shelter Coalition’s (“ESC’s”) Supplemental Response and Objections to the City of San Clemente’s Eminent Domain Action Re API Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (“ESC’s Response”).
2. I am an Environmental Consultant. My resume, which details my relevant education, and employment experience is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3. At the request of Connor, Fletcher and Hedenkamp (CFH), the attorneys for ESC, I made a site visit to Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 (“Parcel 1”) and 688-011-02 (“Parcel 2”) in San Clemente, California (collectively, the “Properties”) along with Ed Connor and Doug Hedenkamp on April 14, 2020. The purpose of the visit was to assess the overall topographic features and vegetative conditions of the parcels, with particular attention as to whether any streambed or wetland habitats are present. I was on the properties from approximately 10:00-11:45, the sky was sunny/partly cloudy, there was mild wind, and the temperature was in the mid-60s.
4. This site review was made as follow-up to correspondence dated April 7, 2020 between the Emergency Shelter Coalition (ESC) and City of San Clemente regarding the City’s intent to adopt a Resolution of Necessity to acquire these parcels by eminent domain “for use consistent with the property's general plan and zoning designation, including preservation of open space, habitat conservation and mitigation banking ("the Project").” [See Page 6. Section 3.1 of the April 7, 2020 letter]. The type of mitigation bank apparently was not specified in the Project description, and could be for wetlands or uplands. [See Page 19, Section 3.7 of the April 7, 2020 letter]
5. True and correct copies of two photographs I took during the site review of Parcel 1 are attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and are labelled “Photo 1” and “Photo 2.”
6. An aerial photograph provided by CFH, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, identifies Parcel 1’s approximate boundaries and general orientation, situated between E. Avenida Pico to the south/east and an unnamed stream to the north/west. No engineering-level survey boundary markers were found, but several stakes and one road curb paint marker established by the property owner were used with the 356
3 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
aerial photo to provide a general onsite delineation of the parcel boundaries. Parcel 1 is oriented SWNE, much is NW-facing slopes of 10-15% with a small flat section on the NE end. The slopes comprising the parcel are part of the nearby stream’s watershed. Non-native plant species dominate (99%+) the site’s vegetation (black mustard, milk and artichoke thistles, yellow melilotus, oat and brome grasses, eucalyptus, etc.). A few, scattered native plants were observed (coyote brush, lemonadeberry, elderberry). Few animals were observed.
7. A paved (asphalt) road runs the length of Parcel 1 that, based on a sewer manhole cover within the road, appears to be associated with a municipal sewer line. In addition, a small concrete brow ditch runs for an undetermined distance from the SW end of the parcel (beginning near to and downslope from the asphalt road entrance). Two power poles are on the NE portion of the parcel.
Various right-of-way infrastructure – recycled water irrigation system, electrical and other boxes – generally within grassy landscaping - occur adjacent to E. Avenida Pico.
8. Based on the site visit, there are no streambeds or wetland habitats on Parcel 1. It is not clear what the historical natural vegetation community was, but based on the few native species that are present, the northern-orientation and moderately steep slopes, it may have been mixed chaparral/sage scrub.
9. True and correct copies of two photographs I took during the site review of Parcel 2 are attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and are labelled “Photo 3” and “Photo 4.”
10. Exhibit 3 provided by CFH identifies Parcel 2’s approximate boundaries and general orientation, situated between E. Avenida Pico to the south/east and an unnamed stream to the north/west. No engineering-level survey boundary markers were found, but portions of an old fenceline and one road curb paint marker were used with the aerial photo to provide a general onsite delineation of the parcel boundaries. The parcel is oriented SW-NE, the western portion is NW-facing slopes of 10- 15%, but the eastern portion is a larger flat section. The parcel is part of nearby stream’s watershed.
Non-native plant species dominate (99%+) the site’s vegetation (black mustard, milk and artichoke thistles, yellow melilotus, fennel, oat and brome grasses, eucalyptus, date palm, acacia, pampas grass, etc.). A few, scattered native plants were observed (coyote brush and cudweed). Few animals were observed.
357
4 Declaration of William E. Tippets
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
11. The stream channel north of Parcel 2 enters a concrete intake structure buttressed by concrete riprap prior to entering a culvert that goes under E. Avenida Pico. The SW end of the property does not appear to extend to the stream channel, but is part of the steep slopes above the stream channel. Various right-of-way infrastructure – recycled water irrigation system, electrical and other boxes – generally within grassy landscaping - occur adjacent to E. Avenida Pico.
12. Based on the site visit, there are no streambeds or wetland habitats on Parcel 2. It is not clear what the historical natural vegetation community was, but based on the few native species that are present and the northern-orientation, it may have been mixed chaparral/sage scrub.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 16th day of April, 2020, at La Jolla, California.
By ____________________________
William E. Tippets
358
Exhibit 1
359
Resume
of
WILLIAM EUGENE TIPPETS
5850 Soledad Mtn. Rd., La Jolla, CA 92037
619-822-4323
SS# 565-84-3010
Citizenship: USA
EDUCATION
Master of Science (Ecology and Fisheries Biology) 1976
University of California at Davis
Thesis: Epibenthic Feeding by Rainbow Trout
(Salmo gairdneri=Onchorhynchus mykiss)
in the McCloud River, California
Bachelor of Science (Biological Sciences) 1973
University of California at Davis
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Environmental Volunteering/Consulting 07/2014-Present
Since retiring from fulll-time work, I prepare (pro bono) reviews and comments on a variety of program and project environmental documents for several local environmental non-profit organizations. I am on the Board of Directors of Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association, the Conservation Committee of the SD Chapter Sierra Club, and assist the Conservation Committee of the SD Audubon Society. Areas of focus include habitat and species conservation, climate change and sea level rise adaptation, and regional transporation.
I periodically work as an environmental consultant, primarily focusing on biological resource impacts and mitigation, habitat and species conservation, and environmental compliance and permitting issues.
Senior Project Director 02/2011-07/2014
The Nature Conservancy
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1350
San Diego, CA 92101
Supervisor: Alfredo Gonzalez, Regional Director
360
Responsible for developing and managing TNC’s San Diego and northern Baja CA Region’s programs. Oversaw and / or led TNC’s habitat and species conservation and planning projects, including land acquisitions. Researched, developed and led regional climate change and urban conservation strategies; co-created a green conservation-action coalition of non-governmental organizations to advise government and business interests on cilmate change mitigation and adaptation. Developed population movement studies of and convened a major workshop on Peninsular bighorn sheep management along the California-Baja CA border. Researched and oversaw studies on northern Baja CA water supply and renewable energy issues that TNC funded. Reviewed and prepared comments on non-TNC conservation planning documents and environmental (CEQA) documents.
Principal Water Resource Specialist 06/2004 – 12/2010
San Diego County Water Authority
4677 Overland Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager
Develop the strategy and manage the preparation (and wrote conservation and adaptive management sections) of the Water Authority’s Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. The plan covers capital improvement program projects and operations and maintenance activities throughout its 900,000+ acre Service Area in San Diego County and a portion of southweatern Riverside County. Develop technical approaches, manage costs, and implement/oversee the Authority’s involvement with environmental mitigation measures for the All-American and Coachella Canal lining projects. Key work products/activities involve endangered species and desert bighorn sheep mitigation; desert habitat creation, restoration and preservation; and various social-recreational mitigation activities. Serve as the Authority’s representative (ex oficio) to the Imperial Irrigation District’s Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Team. Primary duties include advising on the selection of mitigation measures, reviewing and advising on mitigation cost management, and verifying permit compliance. Also represent the Authority on the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program’s Habitat Working Group and Alternatives Working Group – both of which are responsible for developing and recommending to the State Advisory Committee the habitat and species conservation objectives, options to meet those objectives, and the alternatives that integrate those options.
Deputy Regional Manager
& Environmental Program Manager 01/2001 – 06/2004
Department of Fish and Game, Southcoast Region
361
State of California
4949 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Chuck Raysbrook, Regional Manager
Assisted the Regional Manager by providing direction and supervision to key functions of the region (135 staff) including Land Management, Wildlife and Inland Fisheries, and Habitat Conservation. Directly managed the South Coast Region's (Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties) Habitat Conservation Program. This program includes 30 staff (five supervisory positions), and is responsible for conducting environmental project reviews, administering Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), preparing Streambed Alteration Agreements and Endangered Species Permits, coordinating the Fishery Restoration Grant Program and handling other habitat and species conservation efforts in the region. The program administers up to $15 million per year in grants. Served as the Regional Representative to the NCCP Manager's Committee and provided policy and program direction to state and federal staff.
Environmental Specialist IV/Program Supervisor 04/1993 - 12/2000 Department of Fish and Game, Southcoast Region
State of California
4949 Viewridge Ave., San Diego, CA 92123
Supervisor: Chuck Raysbrook, Regional Manager
Field supervisor for the southern California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. Served as the Department's lead for establishing and implementing the program throughout the initial planning region (five counties and over 70 jurisdictions and special purpose agencies). This is the State's and Nation's prototype model for regional conservation planning.
Responsible for direct supervision of six full time staff, directly managed research contracts; provided biological analyses of regional conservation plans and specific development projects; primary regional liaison with other state and federal agencies and non-governmental entities. Also provided program support on legislation, policy and funding issues.
Senior State Park Resource Ecologist 08/1989 - 03/1993
Department of Parks and Recreation
State of California
362
8850 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
Supervisors: Clay Phillips, Southern Service Center Manager Ken Jones, Regional Director
Southern California supervisor for ecological services for the State Park System.
Supervised a staff of four biologists and two archeologists, and seasonal employees. Administered programs for the restoration and enhancement of natural and cultural resources within the region (up to $1,000,000/yr.).
Supervised preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and CA Coastal Commission permits. Project developer, contract manager, and field monitor for habitat restoration projects. One of the selected department members of the statewide "Phoenix Committee" which planned, developed, and oversaw initial implementation of the Department's statewide reorganization.
Associate State Park Resource Ecologist 10/1983 - 08/1989 Department of Parks and Recreation
State of California
8850 Rio San Diego Drive, San Diego, CA 92108
Supervisor: Dave Van Cleve, Senior State Park Resource Ecologist Developed and managed resource management projects to restore tidalestuarine habitats, coastal dunes and bluffs, and upland habitats. Functioned as the environmental coordinator for CEQA project reviews; prepared Departmental correspondence. Other responsibilities included planning and conducting pest control, prescribed fires and marine survey research projects while serving as Pest Control Advisor, Prescribed Fire Manager and Certified Scuba diver.
Energy Specialist 08/1981 – 09/1983
California Energy Commission
State of California
1470 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Developed programs (regulations, procedures, staffing and budgets) to implement Commission policies for the State’s energy emergency information and fuel allocation programs. Developed and managed contracts to improve the State’s petroleum data information system. Participated in tests of the information collection, transfer, and reporting procedures.
Associate Scientist 01/1979 – 07/1981
Ecological Analysts, Inc.
363
Exhibit
2 364
Parcel APN 688-011-01 (Photo 1, looking North)
Photo 2, looking SW across small flat area
365
Exhibit
3 366
367
Exhibit
4 368
Parcel APN 688-011-02 (Photo 3, looking NE across to Parcel 1) Photo 4, looking W across flat area
369
From: Savage, Jennifer
To: Housing
Subject: RE: Revised Housing Element Available for Review Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:30:08 PM
From: Mark McGuire <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Savage, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Revised Housing Element Available for Review Hi Jennifer.
Thanks for sending the revised draft of the Housing element Update. I have just a couple of comments.
1. Re the Environmental Constraints discussion, candidate Rezone site “U” is said to contain grasslands, but in fact it primarily consists of Coastal Sage Scrub, and, as we’ve discussed before, it occupied California gnatcatcher habitat (the gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened). Because of this, Talega Associates committed to preserve this area in perpetuity in compensation for impacts to unoccupied CSS elsewhere in the project site. Below is a snip of the draft easement exhibit prepared in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW:
370
The area highlighted in yellow (a portion of the area Talega committed to preserve) I believe is roughly the same as site U. This is why it was redesignated from commercial to Open Space in the Centennial General Plan. The conservation easement has not yet been recorded. Incidentally there is also a County regional hiking trail easement that traverses through the center of this site (red dash lines on exhibit).
I guess theoretically the existing commitment of this site as habitat preservation land does not mean that it could never be proposed to be developed as housing—but it would be EXTREMELY unlikely to receive the needed State and Federal authorizations given that it is valuable habitat for a federally-protected species that was specifically designated as mitigation for other CSS impacts.
My second comment is another topic we’ve discussed before, namely that the current zoning rules under MU1 and MU2 do not realistically allow for the development of 36 units to the acre, as all ground floor development and at least 35% of the total square footage is required to be commercial, not residential. This in turn means that a substantial portion of any site needs to provide parking for that commercial square footage, leaving too little developable area for residential development to achieve 36 units per acre (note the residential also needs to be parked). This is relevant to the evaluation of the parcels associated with sites M,N,P and Q (at a minimum). Table 4-4 uses an 80% of max assumption; I respectfully think even that is optimistic unless and until the City modifies the zoning standards to reduce the commercial percentage requirement and allows for some ground floor residential units.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised draft Housing Element Update.
Best regards,
Mark
From: Savage, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 3:00 PM
Subject: Revised Housing Element Available for Review
Hello,
The City of San Clemente has revised the Housing Element Update adopted by City Council in October 2021. The draft revisions are available for review from April 8 to April 15, 2022.
Link to revised Housing Element Update
If you have any questions or comments, please email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jennifer Savage, AICP | CTP
Assistant to the City Manager
City of San Clemente
949.361.6186
371
April 15, 2022
San Clemente City Council
City Hall, 100 Avenida Presidio
San Clemente, California
Re: April 2022 version of Draft Housing Element Update, 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Dear Mayor James, Mayor Pro Tem Duncan, and Councilmembers Ferguson, Knoblock and Ward,
The San Clement Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) commends the City staff on their hard work in revising the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (H.E.) to meet the numerous concerns raised by the California Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in its January 12, 2022 Review Letter. (See 1/12/22 Review Letter: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/orasanclementeadoptedout011222.pdf. See earlier 8/6/21 Review Letter: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/orasanclementedraft080621.pdf.) As you know, the Coalition is committed to advocating for increased affordable housing opportunities for San Clemente’s lower income residents. While we appreciate staff’s effort to address HCD’s concerns in this latest draft, we believe more changes are needed in the H.E. if it is to serve as an adequate blueprint for developing the lower income affordable housing our City desperately needs.
A Few General Observations
1. The H.E. makes much of the fact it now uses vacant land to meet 77% of the City’s lower income RHNA. But there are substantial problems with the three parcels of vacant land identified for lower income units, raising serious concerns as to the feasibility of all three vacant sites.
2. A new “Workforce Housing Overlay” allowing densities between 30 and 45 units per acre, with a minimum density of 30 units per acre, and requiring at least 20% affordable units at lower income levels should be applied to all the lower income sites on Table 4-6 – the Candidate Sites for Rezoning.
3. The City’s Inclusionary Ordinance must be strengthened. 372
4. The H.E. still fails to address the infeasibility of the existing SB2 Zone and the unreasonable restrictions in the City’s Emergency Shelter Overlay
5. The City should take all steps necessary to allow the Emergency Shelter Coalition (ESC) to use its vacant 10-acre site on Pico for lower income housing, including permanent supportive housing, and temporary supportive housing (Navigation Site).
Specific Questions, Concerns and Recommendations
Category I The following comments and questions concern the Residential Sites Inventory (Table 4-4 on Page HE-79) and the Candidate Sites for Rezoning (Table 4-6 on Page HE 89).
A. Problems with the three vacant sites
1. Item “P” on the Residential Site Inventory (1801 N. El Camino Real) Comment: This site is listed as a .74-acre vacant lot with 22 lower income units possible. We question whether this site is available/feasible for affordable housing development.
We have learned from the City’s Planning Department that the owner of this site has submitted plans to develop the site for commercial use, with no residential component, and that the plans have received at least preliminary approval.
Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for lower income housing, given the above information regarding the owner’s plans for the property?
Comment: A recent news article described an applicable “view corridor” restriction on building height as one of the challenges to developing the property.
Question: What is the effect of this height limitation on developing affordable housing on this site, given that the current zoning is MU1, which requires residential units to be on the second floor?
Recommendation: If this site is deemed feasible for lower income housing, the Affordable Housing Overlay should be extended to include this site, allowing housing on the ground floor.
2. Item “A” on the Candidate Sites for Rezoning list (190 La Pata) Comment: This site is listed as 2.17 acres of vacant land with 52 lower income units possible. In our previous letter, we noted this site is owned by Christianitos Church, operating as Heritage Christian Fellowship. The church is actively fundraising and applying for city permits to develop a portion of this parcel as an additional parking area for the church facilities on the adjacent 373
parcel. (See “Lot 2” indicated in the property diagram of the “Parking Expansion Project” described in https://heritagesc.org/parking-lot-project/ ) In a telephone conversation, knowledgeable church personnel confirmed the church has plans for the remainder of the nowvacant lot and has no interest in selling it or using it as an affordable housing site.
Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for affordable housing development, given the above information that we provided to the City?
3. Item “U” on the Candidate Sites for Rezoning list
Comment: This site, newly restored onto the list, is listed as 8.46 acres of vacant land on Pico, with 271 lower income units possible. The addition of this property is a highly significant change to the City’s plan for meeting its lower income RHNA. We question whether this site is available/feasible for affordable housing development.
The H.E. lists the current zoning for this parcel as “TSP (C&OS).” The “OS” designation means the parcel is at least partly deemed “open space,” making it subject to San Clemente’s Measure V, a local land use ordinance which is a significant constraint on development because it requires a vote of the people to change the use of any Open Space land to Non-Open Space use, unless a specific exception applies.
1 Question: What part and how much of this property is “OS?” Comment: The H.E. concedes this property is in a “high fire risk” zone. City planners stated at a public meeting at an earlier stage of this process that residential development on this property would require a new fire station, at an annual operating cost to the City of $2.5 million.
Question: Will the City commit to absorbing the new expense of paying the $2.5 million annual operating cost of a new fire station to facilitate the development of affordable housing at this site?
Recommendation: The City should commit to resolving the feasibility problems of the Talega site within two years. Specifically, if the "OS" designation requires a vote under Measure V, within two years the City should put the proposed zoning change (from “OS” to “TSP RH (40)”)
1 Measure V’s Exception 2 allows the City to reclassify an open space site for residential use without a vote of the people upon the application of the landowner if the City Council finds residential use is "necessary to comply with federal or state law regarding the provision of housing." The City Council would also have to find that a specific federal or state law requires the City to accommodate the proposed housing, and "no alternative site within the city which is not open space” could be used to satisfy the state housing law.
Exception 5 allows a reclassification of not more than one acre of an open space parcel, upon the application of an affected landowner, “to the extent the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, . . . [that] (b) reclassifying the Open Space Area in question to authorize or permit a Non-Open Space Use allows for a superior development alternative that benefits the public health, safety, or welfare . . . ." 374
on the ballot or make the specific findings under Measure V needed to exempt the parcel from that vote requirement (see fn. 1, preceding page). Additionally, the City should commit to funding the annual operating cost of a new fire station as required for this new housing.
Moreover, the City should commit, alternatively, in the event it fails within two years to meet the requirements of either the zoning change or commitment to fire station funding, the City should substitute ESC’s ten acres of vacant land on Pico in place of these 8.5 Talega acres, and make the findings necessary under Measure V to exempt ESC's land from the city-wide vote requirement.
B. Problem with item “G” on Residential Sites Inventory (100 Ave. Del Poniente) Comment: This site is listed as .65 acres, “low intensity strip shopping with large parking lot” with 17 units possible. We have learned from the City’s Planning Department that the owner of this site has submitted plans for an expansion and remodel of the existing structure for commercial uses, with no residential component. The plans are now awaiting final approval.
Question: What information do you have about this site that leads you to believe this site is feasible for lower income housing, given the above information regarding the owner’s plans for the property?
C. Problem with item “V” on Candidate Sites for Rezoning list (654 Camino de las Mares)
Comment: This large site is a closed, former hospital owned by Memorial Care. The last H.E. draft said of the 232 housing units to be built here, only 24 would be lower income. This draft of the H.E. provides no numbers other than 239 total possible units. A recent news article stated this site has recently had a re-focus as a possible combined Medical and Senior Housing residence for “250” units, with only 10 units reserved for lower income housing. (See https://www.sanclementetimes.com/memorialcare-proposes-senior-living-health-carecommunity-on-site-of-former-hospital/ Question: How many of the units will be Lower Income?.
Recommendation: The City should require 20% lower income affordable units in exchange for the proposed upzoning to 45 units/acre.
Category II The Infeasible SB2 Zone and unreasonable restrictions in the Emergency Shelter Overlay
Comment: We agree with the excellent arguments of the Emergency Shelter Coalition in its April 15, 2022 letter to HCD, signed by its General Counsel Laura Lee Blake, regarding the latest draft of the H.E. We wholeheartedly endorse and incorporate by reference all of ESC’s arguments and its recommendations for improving the H.E. 375
Recommendations:
In particular, we recommend:
- That the City include ESC’s 10 acres in its Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone (“ESOZ”), since the current Rancho San Clemente Business Park (“Business Park”) is an unworkable site for the much-needed homeless shelter and supportive housing. - That the City Council vote to invoke exception No. 2 and/or exception No. 5 to Measure V, so that no vote of the citizens of San Clemente would be required to use ESC’s land for affordable housing, including permanent supportive housing, and emergency shelter. - That the City should amend the ESOZ so that it includes all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02. This would best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City.
Category III Programs Needed to Facilitate Affordable Housing Production Comment: HCD noted in its January 12th letter the following (bold print added):
“Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element largely did not address this finding. The element must add, or revise programs based on a complete analysis, listing, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.
Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues and include metrics and milestones to target meaningful fair housing results. Currently, the element identifies outreach-focused programs to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to facilitate meaningful change nor address affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) requirements, including metrics or targeted numerical outcomes. Given that the city is significantly whiter and wealthier than the region, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more affordable housing choices in an inclusive manner throughout the community.”
We believe the following recommendations would make the Housing Element more compliant with respect to making progress toward meaningful fair housing results.
Recommendations:
a. All lower income Candidate Sites for Rezoning (Table 4-6) should be zoned with an new Workforce Housing Overlay requiring at least 20% affordable units at lower income levels.
376
b. The City should strengthen its inclusionary housing policy, requiring 15% of new units to be affordable to lower income households, with an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot. c. The City should also donate city-owned land for affordable housing, and add city-owned land to the site inventories.
d. The City should adopt a set of housing programs commensurate with the challenge of attracting affordable housing developers to build on these sites with existing structures. Such programs could include reduced parking requirements, greater density and height allowed, reduced permit fees, alternative development standards, among other incentives.
CONCLUSION
Lower income San Clemente residents earning less than $50,000 per year are in dire need of affordable housing. The City must act affirmatively to meet that need. Thus far, the City’s failure to identify adequate sites to meet its lower income RHNA while refusing to allow ESC to use its 10 acres of vacant land for affordable housing and for emergency housing speaks volumes. The City is turning a blind eye to the housing needs of its own lower income residents.
Thank you for considering our concerns about the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.
Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani,
San Clemente resident and
Chair, San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Planning Commission Chair Crandell, Chair Pro Tem McKhann, Vice Chair Tyler and Planning Commissioners Crandell, Cosgrove, McCaughan, and Prescott-Loeffler.
Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Assistant Manager
Mr. Paul McDougall & Marissa Prasse - CA Department of Housing and Community Development
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Ed Conner, Emergency Shelter Coalition Chair
Laura Lee Blake, Emergency Shelter Coalition General Counsel Members of the San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition 377
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 August 18, 2022
Land Use and Planning Unit
California Department of Housing and Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
[email protected]
City of San Clemente
Community Development Department
Planning Services
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, CA 92672
[email protected]
RE: City of San Clemente Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear HCD Staff,
Public Law Center (“PLC”) is a 501(c)(3) legal services organization that provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County. We write again on behalf of individuals in need of affordable housing in Orange County to comment on the City of San Clemente (“the City”) adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element.
It is the City’s statutory responsibility to create adequate housing opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community.1 To move forward in the housing element process, the City should make a concerted effort to implement the changes suggested by advocates and required by HCD rather than providing more information to recontextualize the noncompliant provisions. The City should promote the development of affordable housing and support its most vulnerable residents such as seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, families with female heads of households, farmworkers, and people experiencing homelessness.
To accomplish these statutory objectives, the City’s housing element should identify and analyze its housing need, inventory existing resources relevant to meeting these needs, assess constraints and barriers to meeting these needs, and create policies and programs that address any unmet need.2
1 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583. 2 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a). 378
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Affordable and Fair Housing
The City of San Clemente is a wealthy, predominantly white jurisdiction within Orange County.3 Most residents are high-income earners with 56.2% of households making over 100% of the area’s median family income.
4 As a result, the City’s median household income is
$110,434, which is $20,200 higher than the County’s median household income.5 Additionally,
81.4% of the City’s population is White and has a median income of $114,515, which is $30,383 higher than the City’s next-largest demographic, the Hispanic population (12% of the population).6 Because of this high concentration of White residents with high incomes, there are five Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence within the jurisdiction. 7 Despite this affluence,
34.4% of residents are lower income and face high cost burden.
Renter households are most affected by high cost burden. In 2018, there were 8,265 renter households, with only 2,426 earning over $100,000.8 There are 1560 extremely lowincome renters, 83.7% of which are cost burdened and 82.4% are severely cost burdened; 1440 very low-income renters with 93.4% cost burdened and 60.8% are severely cost burdened; and 1520 low-income renters, 67.4% of which are cost burdened and 15.5% are severely cost burdened.9
According to the City, a one-bedroom apartment rental costs approximately $1,935, a two-bedroom costs $2,549, and a three-bedroom costs $3,831.10 At these rates, one- and twoperson households must earn a moderate income to afford a one-bedroom rental, while lowerincome households of any size cannot afford to rent a two-bedroom unit.11 A household needs to earn $111,250 to afford a two-bedroom rental, which is more than the City’s median income.12 Despite the need for affordable units within the jurisdiction, the City has failed to generate a significant amount of affordable housing in the previous cycle, failed to properly analyze at-risk assisted developments, failed to address constraints to the development of affordable housing, and is at risk of being out of compliance with housing element laws related to rezoning. Additionally, the City must conduct a proper assessment of fair housing issues and strengthen its ADU program.
Past Programs Promoting Affordable Housing
Although Programs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 were intended to promote the development of affordable housing, these programs failed to generate a significant number of affordable units. 13 While the City considers these programs a success because 93 units affordable to lower-income households were constructed and it met its very low- and low-income RHNA, these successes are misleading.14 First, only 13% of the 675 total units constructed during the last planning 3 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-5, C-22 (June 2022). 4 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-22 (June 2022). 5 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-21 to 22 (June 2022). 6 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-30 (June 2022). 7 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-32 (June 2022). 8 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-8, HE-10 (June 2022). 9 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-20 (June 2022). 10 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-17 (June 2022). 11 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-18 (June 2022). 12 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-18 (June 2022). 13 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-1 to 5 (June 2022). 14 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-3 (June 2022). 379
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 period were affordable to lower incomes.15 If this trend continues in the 6th Cycle, 3,431 total units would need to be built within the jurisdiction to yield the 446 lower-income units needed to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA.16 However, the City cannot accommodate this number of units as it’s site inventory and anticipated ADUs can only accommodate 1,921 units.17 Second, while the City met its very low- and low-income RHNA for the 5th Cycle, it was only required to plan for one very low-income unit and one low-income unit.18 With such a low goal, the City’s success in the 5th Cycle is not indicative of its potential success in the 6th Cycle. The City should have examined the housing projects that included affordable units, ascertained which programs specifically encouraged the development of those units, and identified which incentives were successful. The City could have then described those incentives in its review of these programs and ensured those successful practices are continued in the 6th Cycle.
Preservation of Assisted Developments
The City’s analysis of assisted developments is incomplete. First, the City identified all of the assisted developments within the jurisdiction but provides incorrect information.19 A jurisdiction is required to include a listing of each development, which includes the earliest possible date of change from low-income use.
20 Instead, the City identified each project’s latest
possible date of expiration.21 As a result of this misinformation, the City failed to identify two additional projects that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next 10 years:22 # Project # of Assisted Units Assistance End Date
1 Talega Jamboree Apartments
Phase I
(123 Calle Amistad)
124 units Earliest End Date: 5/4/2022
2 Vintage Shores
(366 Camino De Estrella)
122 units Earliest End Date: 7/3/2027
The City must revise its analyses of preservation and replacement in this section to include these projects or should be done aggregately for all projects.23 Second, despite acknowledging that “preservation of at-risk housing requires not only financial resources but also administrative capacity of nonprofit organizations,” the City does not 15 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-1, B-3 (June 2022). 16 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-73 (June 2022). 17 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-98 (June 2022). 18 HCD, Annual Progress Reports (APRs), APR Dashboard – Housing Element Open Data Project, https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/annual-progress-reports.shtml (last visited Jan. 26, 2022). 19 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-32 (June 2022). 20 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(A). 21 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-32 (June 2022); National Housing Preservation Database, https://nhpd.preservationdatabase.org/Data (last visited Mar. 12, 2022). 22 National Housing Preservation Database, https://nhpd.preservationdatabase.org/Data (last visited Mar. 12, 2022). 23 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-32 to 35 (June 2022); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(B).
380
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 complete this analysis.24 The City only identified funding from its Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fund, CDBG funds, and SB2 grants while generally noting that “the HCD and HUD offer construction, rehabilitation, and permanent financing as low as three percent to qualified applicants such as housing authorities or private not-for-profit developers.”25 The City should have considered the use of all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing authority operating within the community.26 The City also should have differentiated between the funds available for affordable housing construction and the funds available for the preservation of assisted developments, as well as any funding that is legally obligated for other purposes.
27 Further, while the City identified four “agencies [that] have the capacity and experience to develop and manage affordable housing in San Clemente” and describes their past involvement with affordable projects within the jurisdiction, it should have explained how it ascertained their current capacity for preserving these at-risk developments.28
Constraints on the Development of Affordable Housing
Nongovernmental Constraints
In analyzing nongovernmental constraints, the City has completely failed to analyze the price of land, cost of construction, and the availability of financing.29 First, the City merely states that “land costs have a significant influence on the cost and availability of housing” and lists the land costs of three addresses.
30 The City does not explain how the cost of land compares to the surrounding area or how it plans to mitigate this constraint. Second, the City does not analyze the cost of construction and instead states that the market influences these costs.31 The City must actually compare the cost of construction, including labor and materials, to surrounding areas, describe how the high cost of construction negatively impacts the development of affordable housing, and explain how its funding programs can mitigate these costs. Third, the City’s description of lending practices is inadequate.32 Rather than simply describing how many loans were approved, the City should have compared the cost of land and the median home value within the jurisdiction with regional data to illustrate how vital availability of financing is to its residents. It should have also analyzed whether racial and ethnic minorities are being provided equal access to financing, which is important to addressing patterns of segregation by giving lower-income people of color the opportunity to obtain long-term or permanent housing in the form of homeownership. After analyzing these constraints, the City could have created specific financial assistance programs for affordable housing developers, first-time homebuyer programs for lower-income households, or programs to collaborate with affordable housing developers such as Habitat for Humanity create lower-income housing opportunities. 24 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-35 (June 2022). 25 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-101 (June 2022). 26 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(D). 27 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(D). 28 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(9)(C). 29 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6). 30 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-69 to 70 (June 2022). 31 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-70 (June 2022). 32 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-70 to 71 (June 2022). 381
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Governmental Constraints
In analyzing governmental constraints, the City failed to identify land use controls or development fees, as constraints on the development of housing. Here, the City identified land use designations where residential uses are permitted.33 However, the City provides the maximum permitted density rather than the minimum permitted density. This means that while many land use designations and corresponding zoning districts permit density housing up to 36 dwelling units per acre, it is possible that these areas also allow lower density development. The City must clarify the minimum density permitted in these areas to allow for a thorough analysis of areas where affordable housing is likely to be developed. Additionally, the City described its planning and development fees but failed to analyze or identify them as constraints.34 Rather than simply listing the fees and explaining what the funds are used for, the City must actually examine the impact of them on development and should consider whether they can be reduces or eliminated for affordable housing development.
Further, the City claims that its development requirements in mixed-use zones are not constraints on the development of housing.35 However, the City fails to fully analyze these land use tools and instead considers only one project that was not constrained by them.36 The City should analyze its requirements for mixed-use zones more broadly and revise this section as appropriate. Similarly, the City failed to analyze its building codes and enforcement processes before declaring that they are not constraints to the development, maintenance, or preservation of housing.37 While the City adopted standard construction codes, it notes that the City has its own building codes, local amendments, and code enforcement activities but does not describe any of them.38 The City must provide this information and explain how it determined that they are not constraints.
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the RHNA and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.39 Programs 2B, 5, and 6 are all aimed at addressing governmental constraints but should be revised to better promote the development of affordable housing.
Program 2B: Streamlining for Projects with Affordable Units will “ensure that eligible multi-family projects with an affordable housing component are provided streamlined review and are subject only to objective design standards consistent with relevant provisions of SB 35” and will implement this practice “within three years of Housing Element adoption, and no later than October 2024.”40 However, this timeline means this program would only benefit affordable housing developers for half of the planning period. The City should seriously consider 33 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-37 to 38 (June 2022); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5).
34 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-56 to 57 (June 2022). 35 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-49 to 50 (June 2022). 36 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-49 to 50 (June 2022). 37 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-54 (June 2022). 38 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-54 (June 2022). 39 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5). 40 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-104 (June 2022). 382
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 implementing this program as soon as possible to better promote the development of affordable units within the jurisdiction and improve the possibility of accommodating its lower-income RHNA.
Program 5: Affordable Housing Overlay states that “the City will continue to review various aspects of the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone in order to improve is effectiveness at producing affordable housing units and make amendments as necessary.”41 However, this review should have been completed as part of the City’s analyses of governmental constraints on the development of affordable housing. The City could have surveyed affordable housing developers about the overlay, identified potential constraints, and used Program 5 to remove those constraints. The City must complete this analysis and revise this program as necessary.
Program 6: Inclusionary Housing Program states that developers of six or more units are required to set aside 4% of the total number of units for very low-income households. 42 This
requirement can be met by providing these units on-site, off-site, or through paying an in-lieu fee, which “was intended primarily for small to mid-size in-fill developments or subdivisions where insufficient land exists to provide both for-sale and rental units,” or through the provision of land.43 First, although the City plans to “retain a consultant to evaluate the effectiveness of [the] Inclusionary Housing Program in facilitating the development of all income levels, and conduct a feasibility study to evaluate increasing the inclusionary housing requirement from 4% very low to 15% (5% very low, 5% low, and 5% moderate)” by 2025, this timeframe is not effective for promoting the development of affordable housing in the 6th Cycle.44 The City should have conducted this analysis during the housing element update process and this program could have implemented the 15% set-aside requirement. Further, if the City plans to retain this consultant by 2025, that means there would only be four years for the consultant to complete this evaluation, for the City to draft a new program, and for the City to implement the new program.
This would drastically reduce the effectiveness of this program within the planning period. The City should move up the implementation of this program to better provide for the housing needs of its residents. Second, because moderate-income households can afford market-rate housing, the City should not include moderate-income units in this program.45 The City should replace moderate-income units with extremely low-income units instead. Third, the City should remove the options for providing the required affordable units off-site or through an in-lieu fee. By allowing the units to be placed off-site, the City is enabling developers to segregate affordable units away from the higher-income units. Similarly, in-lieu fees allow developers to avoid their would-be obligation to provide housing for all income levels at a much cheaper rate than actually building the units.
Programs Promoting Affordable Housing
In addition to the aforementioned programs that may address constraints on the development of affordable housing, the City should revise Program 1 to ensure it can meet the housing needs of its residents. Program 1: Provide Adequate Sites and Monitoring for No Net 41 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-106 (June 2022). 42 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-106 (June 2022). 43 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-106 (June 2022). 44 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-106 (June 2022). 45 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-17 to 18 (June 2022). 383
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Loss may not allow the City to meet its rezoning requirements. The program states that “rezoning of candidate sites as summarized in Table 5-1 below and detailed in Table 4-6 will be completed within three years of the statutory deadline of the Housing Element.”46 According to recent legislation, this timeline would only be permissible if this Draft is approved by HCD and adopted by the City before October 15, 2022.47 If the City does not meet these requirements, it cannot be found in compliance with Housing Element law until all rezoning is complete.48 Therefore, if this Draft is not approved by HCD, the City must revise this program to complete rezoning as soon as possible in addition to revising this Draft to meet statutory requirements.
Additionally, the City should strengthen Program 8: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to promote the development of affordable ADUs available to the rental market.49 While the City plans to promote pre-approved site and floor plans created by the Orange County Council of Governments, it should ensure that there are pre-approved plans that are accessible to people with disabilities or mobility restrictions.50 The City should also consider reducing or eliminating building permit and development fees,
51 expediting procedures,52 offering financial assistance,53 and providing other incentives for affordability.54 Finally, the City should provide ADU owners with materials regarding fair housing laws as they may be unaware of their legal obligations as landlords.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
California law requires that public agencies administer all “programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”55 To affirmatively further fair housing, a public agency must do the following:
[Take] meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.56
46 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-102 (June 2022). 47 HCD, Housing Element Process and Public Comment Submission, Consequences for Late Housing Elements, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd (last visited Aug. 17, 2022). 48 HCD, Housing Element Process and Public Comment Submission, Consequences for Late Housing Elements, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd (last visited Aug. 17, 2022). 49 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-108 (June 2022). 50 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-108 (June 2022). 51 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 52 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020). 53 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 54 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 55 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(b). 56 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a)(1). 384
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Meaningful action means taking significant action that is designed and reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing.57 Housing elements must incorporate the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in the following aspects: (1) outreach, (2) assessment of fair housing, (3) site inventory, (4) identification and prioritization of contributing factors, and (5) goals, policies, and actions. Each section is addressed below.58
Outreach
The City’s description of its public participation efforts continues to be insufficient as it does not describe how it affirmatively furthered fair housing. Although the City contacted numerous organizations and met with a handful, it does not explain why these organizations were contacted or describe the discussions held at these meetings.59 Without proof that key stakeholders engaged in the City’s housing element update process, the City cannot demonstrate “meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public participation” to meet its affirmatively furthering fair housing obligations.60
Assessment of Fair Housing
A fair housing assessment needs to have a summary of fair housing enforcement and capacity.61 In addition, the assessment must analyze these five areas: (1) fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; (2) integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics; (3) racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) or racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs); (4) disparities in access to opportunity for people with protected characteristics, including persons with disabilities; and (5) disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.62 Furthermore, each of these analyses must include local and regional patterns and trends, local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors.63 The analyses should each arrive at conclusions and have a summary of fair housing issues.64
57 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 66 (April 2021); Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 80 Fed. Reg. at 42354. Although the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not enforce this federal AFFH rule, California law has adopted the federal rule. This means that the federal AFFH rule can inform how to interpret the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in California law.
58 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 21 (April 2021).
59 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, A-2 to 3 (June 2022); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 22 (April 2021). 60 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 22 (April 2021).
61 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).
62 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 27–28, 62 (April 2021).
63 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).
64 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).
385
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity.
The City’s analysis of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity lacks necessary information. While the City includes San Clemente-specific housing discrimination inquiries,65 the City does not analyze regional patterns and trends regarding housing discrimination.66 Furthermore, besides noting the existence of 19 housing discrimination inquiries, the City fails to analyze these inquiries such as why the inquiries were focused in one area of the jurisdiction. 67 The City should revise this section to include this information.
Segregation and Integration.
The City has insufficiently analyzed segregation and integration trends. The City comments that “[s]egregation is lower in San Clemente for all racial/ethnic groups compared to the County as a whole.”68 However, the City also notes that “isolation indices for White residents are significantly higher than Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents in San Clemente (Table C-6)” and that “White residents in San Clemente have a significantly higher isolation index . . . compared to the County,” which the City attributes to having a majority White population.69 Further, the City acknowledges that “exposure to White residents by non-White residents has decreased.”70 However, the City does not draw any conclusions from this data. If the City had analyzed this information, it should have acknowledged that it indicates that patterns of segregation exist within the jurisdiction. Additionally, the City described the distribution of RHNA units by racial and ethnic minority population, which illustrated a concentration of lower-income units in areas with 41-60% racial/ethnic minority population. 71 Again, the City does not acknowledge that concentrating lower-income units in majorityminority areas exacerbates patterns of segregation. Similarly, the City acknowledges the concentration of lower-income households in certain areas of the jurisdiction but does not acknowledge the negative impacts that these patterns of segregation on them. In fact, the City plans to largely continue this pattern of segregation by placing most of its lower-income sites in areas with concentrations of lower-income households while keeping above moderate-income units to wealthier areas.72 Because the City did not sufficiently analyze regional data, the City’s discussion of segregation and integration is incomplete.
R/ECAPs and RCAAs.
The City’s analysis of racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) omits analysis. Like the City’s segregation and integration analysis, the City’s R/ECAPs and RCAAs analysis fails to incorporate pertinent regional data.
73 While the City notes that other jurisdictions in the County have higher concentrations of residents under the poverty level, R/ECAPs, and segregation, it does not 65 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-3 (June 2022). 66 See HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 24, 62 (April 2021).
67 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-3 to 4 (June 2022). 68 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-6 (June 2022). 69 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-7 (June 2022). 70 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-7 (June 2022). 71 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-8 (June 2022). 72 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-21 to 24 (June 2022). 73 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-25 to 28 (June 2022). 386
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 analyze this information to explain how these trends affect its residents.74 The City’s analysis of RCAAs is similarly lacking. Although the City states that “there are several block groups in the City where less than 20% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group,” the City does not explicitly identify these areas as RCAAs and does not recognize that more than half of the City is considered an RCAA.75 The City should have explicitly identified these RCAAs, explained the relationship between regional and local RCAAs, and analyzed how these trends impact residents of ethnic and racial minority backgrounds.76 Disparities in Access to Opportunity.
In its analysis of access to opportunities, the City merely provides surface-level data regarding education, transportation, job opportunity, and environmentally healthy neighborhoods.77 However, the City should have also included information about violent crime and parks and recreation.78 The City should have also analyze the information provided and answered the questions required by HCD.79 To meet statutory requirements, the City must provide this analysis.
Conclusion and Summary of Fair Housing Issues.
At the end of its assessment, the City should have provided conclusions and summaries of fair housing issues. The City should have also conducted surveys and other public participation efforts to obtain local knowledge of these issues. Without this information, the City’s analysis remains incomplete.80
Site Inventory
The City’s site selection fails to affirmatively further fair housing because it perpetuates patterns of segregation on multiple levels.81 Figure C-4 compares the site inventory to racial/ethnic minority concentrations and shows that almost all of the lower income sites are minority-concentrated areas.82 Discussed above, Figure C-13 shows a similar trend when comparing the site inventory to concentrations of lower-income households.83 Figure C-19 demonstrates the City’s effort to concentrate lower-income housing opportunities in an area that is highly segregated and impoverished while above moderate-income sites are in moderate 74 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-25 (June 2022). 75 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-29 (June 2022); See also Attachment 1: Map of City Indicating RCAAs. 76 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 32–34, 48 (April 2021). 77 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 48 (April 2021).
78 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 48 (April 2021).
79 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 35–36 (April 2021).
80 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 24–25, 62 (April 2021). 81 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.2(a); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 45 (April 2021).
82 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-10 (June 2022). 83 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-24 (June 2022). 387
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 resource areas.84 This same area also has low economic, education, jobs, and CalEnviroScreen scores as well as high rates of overpayment, overcrowding, aged units, and risk of displacement.
85 For these reasons, the City has not identified sites that affirmatively further fair housing and must revise its site inventory to do so.
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors The City did not correctly identify and prioritize contributing factors. While the City identified a few factors and provided associated data, it does not identify where this data came from. If this data is still solely sourced from Orange County’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments, it is not adequate. Jurisdictions should have identified contributing factors based on local knowledge.86 The City must clarify the source of its information and conduct the required assessment if it has not done so already.
Goals, Policies, and Actions
Because the City’s fair housing assessment is inadequate in several areas and its identification and prioritization of contributing factors may be based on incomplete data, the City cannot properly create goals, policies, and actions to address these issues. 87 After revising its
analysis, the City must revise Program 12: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing to address local issues.
Housing for Seniors
The City has failed to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze senior housing needs.88 First, the City does not clearly identify the number of seniors living within the jurisdiction due to differing information. The City first states that 29.3% of all households are people over 60 years old, which would be 7,187 households.89 Then, in describing its residents’ cost burden, it identifies 7,034 elderly residents.90 Finally, when describing special housing needs, the City identifies 6,885 households with occupants age 65 and above.91 The City should clearly state how many seniors are in the jurisdiction in order to ensure that this group’s needs are properly assessed.
Second, the City failed to analyze the effect of lower incomes on senior housing needs.
There are 315 extremely low-income senior renters, 68.3% of which are cost burdened and
65.1% are severely cost burdened; 335 very low-income senior renters with 92.5% are cost burdened and 65.7% are severely cost burdened; and 255 low-income renters with 82.4% cost burdened and 25.5% severely cost burdened.92 Additionally, the median household income for 84 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-37 (June 2022). 85 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, C-40, 43, 48, 52, 59, 62, 64, 67 (June 2022). 86 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51 (April 2021). 87 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51 (April 2021).; Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); AFFH Guidance Memo 63 (April 2021).
88 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7); HCD, Housing Element Building Blocks, Seniors, https://hcd.ca.gov/seniors (last visited Jul. 19, 2022). 89 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-9 (June 2022). 90 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-20 (June 2022). 91 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-23 (June 2022). 92 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-20 (June 2022). 388
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 seniors is $30,000 less than the citywide median income.93 The City should have analyzed how these financial challenges impact its senior residents and described how its programs and the units currently in the Site Inventory address the need for affordable senior housing. The City acknowledges that seniors face challenges with housing due to “limited income, prevalence of physical or mental disabilities, limited mobility, and high health care costs,” and that seniors with disabilities especially “may need financial assistance in making necessary repairs or accessibility improvements.”94 However, the City could have surveyed its senior residents on these issues to determine whether past programs have been effective at meeting senior housing needs and more effectively revise these programs for the 6th Cycle.
Past Programs Addressing Senior Housing Needs
While none of the City’s 5th Cycle programs directly promoted the development of affordable senior housing, Program 1. Provide Adequate Sites and Monitoring for No Net Loss and Program 12. Social Services Grant Program touched on senior needs but failed to yield meaningful results. Program 1 resulted in the approval of the Shorecliffs Senior Housing Development, but it is unclear whether it will include any affordable units for lower income seniors.95 Additionally, because the Shorecliffs project is stated to be “under review” and “the City does not know when construction is expected to begin,” the City cannot claim that this project is currently addressing senior housing needs.96 Program 12 was intended to “provide assistance to approximately 2,000 homeless persons and persons with special needs, including seniors and disabled persons, on an annual basis.”97 However, Family Assistance Ministries, which received funding through this program, appears to serve people experiencing homelessness, including unhoused seniors, but does not specifically focus on the needs of seniors.98 Considering the poor performance of these programs in the 5th Cycle, the City must revise its 6th Cycle programs to better meet senior housing needs.
Programs Promoting Affordable Senior Housing
The City identifies several programs that provide seniors with meals, transportation, health care, social activities, and other wraparound services and notes that there are 270 affordable senior units within the jurisdiction.99 It also notes that there are a number of residential care facilities that serve 309 seniors and adults.100 However, considering the high percentage of lower-income seniors that are cost burdened, the City must make developing affordable senior housing a priority.101
While Program 7: Affordable Housing Development intends to “proactively encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing by non-profit organizations for lower income households, particularly those with special needs including large households, seniors, extremely low-income (ELI) households, and households with persons who have disabilities,” it 93 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-23 (June 2022). 94 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-22 to 23 (June 2022). 95 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-1 (June 2022). 96 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-24 (June 2022). 97 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-1 (June 2022). 98 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-6 (June 2022). 99 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-23 to 24 (June 2022). 100 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-25 (June 2022). 101 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-20 (June 2022). 389
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 does not explain how it will specifically target the development of senior units. The City must revise this program to include these details or create a separate program to encourage the development of affordable senior housing.
Similarly, the City claims that Program 16: Neighborhood Revitalization Program will assist elderly homeowners, as “many may need financial assistance in making necessary repairs or accessibility improvements” and acknowledges that “funding is limited” and that “the City will pursue additional funding in the future.”102 However, it merely requires the City “explore and pursue if appropriate, housing funding programs administered by the State HCD to expand the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program” and does not explain how this program will help seniors.103 The City must revise this program to describe specific actions it will take to address senior housing needs or create a separate program that will do so. The City must also include specific timelines for these actions. For example, the City should set a deadline for applying for new funding.
Further, although Program 5: Affordable Housing Overlay does not include provisions to promote the development of affordable senior housing, the City should consider doing so. There are two existing affordable senior housing developments, Vintage Shores Apartments (122 Units) and Cotton’s Point Senior Apartments (76 units) are located in the City’s affordable housing overlay.104 Given the high percentages of cost burdened senior renters within the jurisdiction, the City should analyze how these senior housing developments were created and develop a program that encourages this process. As currently drafted, permitting 100% senior housing to be developed in “nonresidential and mixed‐use zones, including in the AH Overlay Zone” leaves it to developers to build either affordable or market rate-housing units.105 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City states that persons with disabilities make up 7.8% of its population but fails to provide the total number.106 It is important for the City to quantify the number of residents with disabilities to ensure that its programs and sites can accommodate the needs of group. The City has also failed to qualitatively identify the needs of this group. While it identifies two main categories of challenges people with disabilities face, “(1) physical design to address mobility impairments and (2) in‐home social, educational, and medical support to address developmental and mental impairments,” it should have identified the need for affordable housing or proximity to services, such as public transportation.107 The City should have also surveyed this demographic to more clearly identify the distinct needs of this group rather than grouping these general issues together. With more specific information, the City can create programs to address the housing needs of people with disabilities.
For example, although the City states that there are “23 State‐licensed residential care facilities for the elderly and one adult residential facility,” it should analyze how many seniors 102 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-23 (June 2022). 103 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-116 (June 2022). 104 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-77 to 78 (June 2022). 105 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-66 (June 2022). 106 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-25 (June 2022). 107 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-25 (June 2022). 390
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 with disabilities utilize these services compared to non-seniors with disabilities.108 Because
43.2% of persons with disabilities in the jurisdiction are age 65 and over, if the majority of residential care facilities available are age-restricted, these resources would be inaccessible to the other half of these residents. If more non-senior residential care facilities are found to be needed, the City should create a program to promote the development of additional services.
Additionally, the City should identify how many units are in each facility and whether living in these facilities is affordable to lower-income people with disabilities. If there are few affordable spaces, the City should create a funding program to facilitate access by lower-income residents in need.
Further, the City could create a funding program for accessibility devices and universal design renovations, offer incentives for developers that include units with universally designed affordable units, and commit to streamlining its reasonable accommodation process.
Housing for Large Households
The City identifies 2,350 total households with 5 or more people, 988 of which are renter-occupied.109 The City also identified overcrowding and the need for adequately-sized affordable units as housing needs specific to this group.110 However, it failed to analyze the severity of the cost burden that large renter household face. There are 635 extremely low-income large household renters, 100% of which are cost burdened or severely cost burdened; 320 very low-income large household renters with 82.8% being cost burdened and 31.3% being severely cost burdened; and 120 low-income large household renters, 41.7% of which are cost burdened and 25.5% are severely cost burdened.111
Despite this extreme affordability issue, the City’s only proposed solutions to these challenges are its general programs, “including the Orange County Housing Authority Housing Choice Voucher program, the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program,” and other community and social services.112 However, these programs do not contain language specific to the needs of large households. While the general development of affordable housing could mitigate some of the housing needs of this group, the City’s current programs do not contain language indicating that large affordable units will be built or that room additions/expansions will be possible. The City should consider including more programs to address this need. For example, the City could allocate funds to assist lower-income large households to build bedroom additions or accessory dwelling units and create a publicly available database of large units within the jurisdiction.
Housing for Single-Parent Households
The City identifies 1,277 single-parent households in the jurisdiction, with an “estimated” 736 female-headed households.113 Further, “approximately 11 percent of the City’s female‐ headed households had incomes below the poverty level.”114 In its brief discussion of this 108 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-25 (June 2022). 109 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-27 (June 2022). 110 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-27 (June 2022). 111 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-20 (June 2022). 112 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-27 to 28 (June 2022). 113 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-26 (June 2022). 114 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-27 (June 2022). 391
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 group’s special housing needs, the City acknowledges that single-parent households, especially female-headed households, are challenged with a “greater need for affordable housing, as well as accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services,” as well as generally lower incomes and higher living expenses due to childcare.115 However, the City’s suggested solutions to these challenges are limited to Youth Programs and Community Center which offer activities and classes, as well as general affordable housing programs.116 While its Youth Programs and Community Center are useful, they do not mitigate the need for affordable housing. Also, the City should clarify if these programs and classes are accessible to low-income parents, and whether any affordable housing units are located close to these resources. Further, while the City’s general affordable housing program may help some households, it contains no language regarding childcare needs or affordable housing in close proximity to childcare facilities. The City must explore more options of assisting low-income families with childcare needs, such as providing childcare allowances or scholarships to specific childcare facilities. The City should also identify any affordable housing developments that are near childcare facilities. If no such housing options exist, the City should explore a program that will promote the development of affordable childcare facilities near resources frequently accessed by lower-income families.
Housing for Farmworkers
There are 76 persons employed in the agricultural industry within the jurisdiction, and the City acknowledges that farmworker households “tend to have high rates of poverty, live disproportionately in housing in the poorest condition, have very high rates of overcrowding, have low homeownership rates, and are predominately members of minority groups.”117 The City does not offer solutions to these challenges, instead arguing that farmworkers make up a small portion of agricultural workers.118
Regardless of the City’s arguments, there is clearly an identifiable need for farmworker/employee housing. While the City acknowledges the requirement of the Employee Housing Act in which “housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units [is] treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted,” the City, immediately after, states that it “does not permit agricultural uses in any of its zones and is, therefore, not required to specifically provide for farmworker housing.”119 The conclusion that the City can ignore the housing needs of farmworkers and agricultural workers because of the Employee Housing Act is incorrect.120 The City must revise this section to analyze its lack of agricultural uses as a constraint to the development of employee housing and create a program based on the findings of that analysis to accommodate the development of affordable employee housing.
115 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-26 (June 2022). 116 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-27 (June 2022). 117 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-31 (June 2022). 118 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-31 (June 2022). 119 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-49 (June 2022). 120 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1)(C); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7). 392
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness
There are 145 people experiencing homelessness within the jurisdiction, with 49 being sheltered and 96 unsheltered.121 While the City identifies several resources serving people experiencing homelessness, it must identify the number of emergency shelter beds available for its residents at the Family Assistance Ministries and at Laura’s House to take credit for them.122 The City cannot use the Friendship Shelter’s Alternative Sleeping Location to accommodate its emergency shelter need without describing a valid multijurisdictional agreement because it is located in a neighboring jurisdiction.123 Without this information, it is unclear whether the 49 sheltered individuals remain sheltered.
As the numbers of unhoused people in Orange County have increased by 61% since 2013, the City must make a concerted effort to provide services to them.124 However, the City has failed to identify a reasonable area for emergency shelter development, its past programs have failed to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness, it imposes unlawful constraints on the development of shelters, and its programs are inadequate to remedy these issues.
Required Zoning for Emergency Shelters
The City only permits the development of emergency shelters within the Emergency Shelter (ES) Overlay.125 However, the area allowing emergency shelters is extremely limited and is occupied by active light industrial businesses.126 In fact, over the 145 parcels within the ES Overlay, there were only four vacant parcels in March 2021.127 Because the City limits the number of beds within each shelter to 35 beds, it would need three emergency shelters to address its unsheltered need.128 If it is typical for only four parcels to be vacant at a given time, it will be difficult for shelter providers to find a site adequate to meet their needs.
Additionally, the ES Overlay is limited to the Rancho San Clemente Business Park. In previous letters, we have discussed the current business owners’ open hostility to emergency shelter uses which is evidenced by a lawsuit filed by multiple property and business owners within the Business Park to undo the sale of real property they feared would be used as an emergency shelter. The lawsuit claimed that the use does not comply with the governing declaration for the Rancho San Clemente Business District and that an emergency shelter would increase maintenance costs “due to vagrancy and put the safety and security of [Rancho San Clemente Business Park businesses] and their employees, tenants, and business invitees, at risk.”129
121 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-29 (June 2022). 122 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-29 (June 2022). 123 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-29 (June 2022); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(d). 124 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-28 (June 2022). 125 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-40 (June 2022). 126 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-43 to 44 (June 2022). 127 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-44 (June 2022). 128 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-44 (June 2022). 129 Complaint, Olen Properties Corp. v. Rancho San Clemente Business Park Community Association, 30-2020- 01130657-CU-OR-CJC, filed in California Superior Court, County of Orange February 7, 2020, Page 8, Paragraph
7.d.
393
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Further, despite designating this area suitable for the development of emergency shelters by-right, the City has filed its own lawsuit to acquire the same property through eminent domain because of the same concern that the property owner will attempt to develop an emergency shelter on the site.130 This lawsuit is clear evidence of the City’s true intent - to prevent the development of any emergency shelter within the jurisdiction and circumvent housing element law. Throughout the housing element update process, the City has ignored PLC’s instructions to designate an appropriate site where a shelter with greater capacity could be developed by-right and amend its ordinance to actually encourage and facilitate the development of emergency shelters.
Past Programs Addressing Needs of People Experiencing Homelessness The City’s past efforts to aid people experiencing homelessness have not adequately addressed its need in the long-term. While Program 13: Zoning Ordinance Monitoring allegedly monitored the ES Overlay, the City improperly assess the success of the program. The City states that it “conducted a survey of shelter providers in the region to identify impediments to shelter development within the ES Overlay” which “found that Shelter Operators would not allow homeless persons from other cities to utilize available beds” and “there was a general lack of interest from the County and other private entities to develop a shelter in the ES Overlay.”131 However, the City claims that “the lack of interest was not a result of impediments that fall within the scope of factors outlined in Program 14.”132As a result, the City was “in the process of collaborating with neighboring cities to apply for State grants and other resources in order to address the needs of the unsheltered.”133 As evidenced by the City’s unsheltered population, it is clear that Program 13 was not successful and should be revised in the 6th Cycle. The City should describe the reasons for the lack of interest and create a program to address them, thus encouraging the development of emergency shelters.
Program 14: Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay largely focused on transit accessibility and monitoring the implementation of Program 13.134 However, this program failed to encourage the development of emergency shelters. First, although the City “designated a campsite for the homeless to provide for the needs of unsheltered individuals,” “due to the significantly reduced homeless population in San Clemente by the end of 2019, the City chose to close the designated campsite in December of 2019.135 The City should have explained how this initiative was so successful at addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness that it was only necessary for one year. By analyzing this data, the City could have replicated this model in a more permanent facility to better meet the needs of its unhoused population. Second, “in August 2019, the City considered a lease proposal for a shelter in the City’s SB2 Overlay area,” which “illustrates that there is interest in establishing a shelter in the existing SB2 Overlay area.”136 The City does not explain why this shelter was not approved and opened. The City 130 See Complaint of City of San Clemente and Answer of Defendant Emergency Shelter Coalition, City of San Clemente v. Emergency Shelter Coalition, 30-2020-01153535-CU-EI-CXC, filed in Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on July 31, 2020.
131 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-7 (June 2022). 132 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-7 (June 2022). 133 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-7 (June 2022). 134 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-8 (June 2022). 135 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-8 to 9 (June 2022). 136 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-9 (June 2022). 394
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 should review this project, determine why the shelter was unable to open, and create a program that mitigates any constraints on the development of future emergency shelters. Third, after conducting a “shelter impediment survey,” the City found that “while the City’s emergency shelter development standards are not an impediment, the cost to operate an emergency shelter is an impediment.”137 However, the City’s emergency shelter development standards are overly burdensome and not permitted by statute, as described below. Additionally, if the City analyzed the lease proposal described above, it could have identified specific impediments that actually prevented an emergency shelter from being developed. While the City claims it was “in the process of collaborating with neighboring cities to apply for State grants and other resources to address unsheltered needs,” it appears these discussions were unsuccessful as the City has not increased its emergency shelter capacity.138 To better address the needs of the City’s unhoused residents, it must revise these programs for the 6th Cycle to include specific action items that will address impediments to shelter development.
Constraints on the Development of Emergency Shelters
The City has also failed to address constraints on the development of emergency shelters.
The City failed to describe its emergency shelter standards in their entirety and failed to demonstrate that they are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.139 Additionally, several of the City’s development standards are not permitted by statute:140
First, the City places impermissible limits on the number and capacity of emergency shelters:
• “The number and capacity of Emergency Shelters allowed without a Conditional Use Permit approval shall be limited to that required to meet the shelter needs of the number of estimated homeless persons in the City, as established by current reliable information and approved by the City Council. This number shall be updated every two years, after the "point-in-time counts" are published for the County.”141 State law requires a jurisdiction identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit.142 A jurisdiction may identify additional zones where emergency shelters are permitted with a conditional use permit.
143 The City’s provision is impermissible because emergency shelters would not longer be permitted to be developed by-right in any zone after there is enough capacity to meet the City’s emergency shelter need. The City must remove this provision from its municipal code to meet statutory requirements.
Second, the City’s provisions relating to intake areas and parking are overly burdensome and impermissible by statute:
137 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-9 (June 2022). 138 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, B-9 (June 2022). 139 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 140 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(i)-(viii). 141 San Clemente, Cal., Code 17.56.100 (2022). 142 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 143 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 395
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 • “On-site Waiting and Intake Areas. On-site waiting and client intake areas shall be provided in the Emergency Shelter building. Outdoor waiting areas, if provided, shall be visually screened from the public right-of-way and from adjacent land uses.”144 • “Parking. On-site parking shall be supplied at a ratio of not less than one vehicle space per five beds. Parking spaces shall be designed to meet City standards. Enclosed, secure bicycle parking shall be provided on-site at the ratio of not less than one bicycle parking space per ten beds.”145
The City may only have standards about the size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas but cannot place an extra burden on emergency shelter providers by requiring the space to be screened in this manner.
146 Similarly, the City’s vehicle parking
standards are permissible, but its requirements relating to enclosed and secure bicycle parking are not and operate to add unnecessary costs to emergency shelter providers.147 The City must remove these provisions from its emergency shelter standards.
Third, the City’s requirement relating to architectural review is only permissible if other residential and commercial development within the same zone is subject to the same standard:
148
• “Architectural Review. Emergency Shelters shall comply with the City's Design Guidelines, Specific Plans, and the Zoning Ordinance regarding architectural and development standards to ensure shelters are compatible with their surroundings, provide adequate privacy between uses, and minimize potential impacts of the proposed shelter on adjacent uses.”149
If the City cannot demonstrate this, it must remove this standard from its emergency shelter ordinance.
Program 15. Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay could be used to address these constraints as it requires the City to “evaluate amending ESOZ operating and development standards, including parking, so ensure development standards comply with State law and are not impediments to siting shelters” and “update the ESOZ development standards, including but not limited to bed‐limit and maximum separation requirement allowable under State law, to reflect and accommodate the most recent point‐in-time count.”150 The City must commit to amending its emergency shelter standards to comply with State law and cannot merely commit to evaluating them.
144 San Clemente, Cal., Code 17.56.100 (2022). 145 San Clemente, Cal., Code 17.56.100 (2022). 146 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(i)-(viii). 147 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(i)-(viii). 148 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)(i)-(viii). 149 San Clemente, Cal., Code 17.56.100 (2022). 150 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-115 (June 2022). 396
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Programs Addressing Needs of People Experiencing Homelessness Programs 14 and 15 are intended to address emergency shelter needs but do not actually encourage the development of emergency shelters. Program 14: Zoning Ordinance Amendments states that the City will amend its Zoning Ordinance to “establish parking requirements based on staffing level only” in accordance with AB 139.151 However, it should also expand the ES Overlay to provide adequate opportunities for emergency shelter development.
Program 15: Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay states that it will continue to monitor its ES Overlay for its effectiveness while also committing to taking actions that will deter emergency shelter development.152 The City’s resistance to addressing the needs of unhoused people are reflected in some of this program’s objectives. First, the City states that “emergency shelters will be allowed without discretionary action until the unsheltered homeless need identified in this assessment is met and continue to be permitted through a discretionary review process.”153 This means that the City will stop permitting emergency shelter uses in this area by-right once it has enough shelters to meet the need identified by the 2019 Point-In-Time Count. However, the City must maintain a zone where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and cannot revoke the byright use when it decides homelessness is no longer an issue.154 Second, the City notes that “significant changes in the housing market conditions occur that would impact the City’s homeless shelter needs between the Homeless Censuses” and that “the City will consult homeless service providers to establish the appropriate modifications to the established unmet homeless shelter needs.”155 It is unclear what the City means by “[establishing] appropriate modifications” in this scenario, but given the aforementioned rise of homelessness in Orange County, the City should be prepared to expand emergency shelter services rather than planning for ways to reduce those services.
Public Participation
The City has again failed to demonstrate a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community.156 Despite PLC’s previous letter informing the City of this issue, it has not described any additional attempts at obtaining public input on its Drafts.
The chart below illustrates the City’s limited attempts at obtaining public participation in 2021 and shows the number of Drafts the City published without offering its residents the opportunity to have meaningful interaction with City officials them:
Timeline of Public Participation Opportunities157
October 22, 2020 Housing and Safety Element Webinar #1
December 11, 2020 Housing Survey – Housing Needs
January 26, 2021 Housing and Safety Element Webinar #2
151 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-113 (June 2022). 152 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-114 (June 2022). 153 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-115 (June 2022). 154 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A). 155 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, HE-115 (June 2022). 156 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(9). 157 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, A-1 (June 2022); City of San Clemente, Housing Element Update, https://housing-element-2-sanclementeca.hub.arcgis.com/ (last visited Jul. 22, 2022). 397
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 February 5, 2021 Housing Survey – Rezone Sites
March 26, 2021 Housing Survey – Housing Types
May 2021 Draft Housing Element Published for Public Review June 7, 2021 Draft Housing Element Submitted to HCD158
July 1, 2021 Housing and Safety Element Webinar #3
August 2021 Draft Housing Element Published for Public Review September 2021 Draft Housing Element Published for Public Review October 5, 2021 Draft Housing Element Adopted by City Council159 October 14, 2021 Adopted Housing Element Submitted to HCD160 April 2022 Draft Housing Element Published for Public Review June 23, 2022 Adopted Housing Element Submitted to HCD161 Even if the City held Planning Commission or City Council meetings regarding these Drafts, such meetings limit public participation to written comments or short, timed verbal comments with no opportunity for interactive discussion. Additionally, although the City noted the comments it received at its two community meetings and its survey results, it did not identify our comment letter, which indicates that it did not identify all of the comments it received.162 It also did not properly describe how public comments were incorporated into its Drafts.163 Therefore, the City continuously deprived its residents of sufficient opportunity for public participation and cannot meet the related statutory requirements.
Conclusion
The housing element process is an opportunity for jurisdictions to meet the needs of California’s residents, including needs for housing that is accessible to seniors, families, and workers and the needs of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income families for affordable housing. We encourage the City to revise its Housing Element to comply with state law and to make a concrete effort to assess the fair housing needs of its community and identify sites that affirmatively further fair housing and not perpetuate patterns of segregation. We look forward to working with the City in this effort to ensure that the housing needs of all residents of the City are addressed.
Sincerely,
THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, BY:
Alexis Mondares, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Staff Attorney Arshil Sulayman, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Paralegal 158 HCD, Housing Element Download Tool, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-element-download-tool (last visited Jul. 22, 2022).
159 HCD, Housing Element Download Tool, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-element-download-tool (last visited Jul. 22, 2022).
160 HCD, Housing Element Download Tool, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-element-download-tool (last visited Jul. 22, 2022).
161 HCD, Housing Element Download Tool, https://hcd.ca.gov/housing-element-download-tool (last visited Jul. 22, 2022). 162 City of San Clemente, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Appendix A (June 2022). 163 HCD, Housing Element Building Blocks, Public Participation, https://hcd.ca.gov/public-participation (last visited Jul. 19, 2022).
398
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Attachment 1:
Map of City Indicating RCAAs
399
AFFH Analysis
County of Riverside, SanGIS, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA
Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty "R/ECAP'S" (HUD, 2009 - 2013) - Tract 0 - Not a R/ECAP
(R) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence "RCAA" (ACS, 2015 -2019) - Tract 0 - Not a RCAA
1 - RCAA
8/17/2022, 6:56:04 AM
0 0.5 1 2 mi
0 1 2 4 km
1:72,224
CA HCD
400
CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
August 17, 2022
Mr. Scott McKhann, Chair and Planning Commission Members Planning Commission
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
RE: August 18, 2022, Planning Commission Agenda Item B.
General Plan Amendment PLN20-036
Housing Element and Safety Element Updates
Dear Sirs/Madams:
The Emergency Shelter Coalition (“ESC”) respectfully submits that the 6 th Cycle Housing
Element Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated July 2021 (“DEIR”) should be revised to include additional Project Alternatives to be analyzed in Section 9.0 of the DEIR. At a minimum, Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (“ESC’s Parcels”) should be included and properly addressed as alternative sites as discussed in ESC’s letters to HCD, dated June 28, August 9, and December 6, 2021, and June 21, 2022, copies of which are enclosed herewith.
CEQA Section 21002 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 require that EIRs describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, “which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” ESC’s Parcels, which are undeveloped, are located adjacent to the Potential Rezone Sites C-P and have the same or superior environmental impacts as Sites C-P. ESC’s Parcels do not contain any biological or natural resource sensitive habitat. The inclusion of the ESC’s Parcels meets all the objectives of the Project.
401
San Clemente Planning Commission
August 17, 2022
ESC is willing to develop its Parcels as affordable housing for persons of very low- and lowincome, as well as a navigation center, and emergency, transitional, and supportive housing.
ESC could provide this housing within the planning period. Notably, the owner of Sites C-P has expressed no desire to develop any housing on its parcels. Furthermore, the owners within the Rancho San Clemente Business Park have publicly stated they do not want a homeless shelter within the Business Park, even though that is the only location in the City where emergency shelters are currently permitted as a matter of right as part of the Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone.
Government Code Section 65863 requires that “jurisdictions maintain adequate sites to accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period.”
1 Therefore, the Housing Element should include additional housing sites that could accommodate the unmet RHNA so that there is no net loss.
Sincerely,
Edmond M. Connor
cc: Scott McKhann – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Cameron Cosgrove – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Barton Crandell – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Brent Davis – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Steven M. Camp – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Gary McCaughan – Planning Commissioner ([email protected]) Karen Prescott-Loeffler – Planning Commissioner
([email protected])
Jennifer Savage – City of San Clemente ([email protected]) [email protected]
David Zisser – HCD ([email protected])
Paul McDougall – HCD ([email protected])
1 Deputy Director Olmsted, Department of Housing and Community Development Memorandum, October 2, 2019, No Net Loss Law Government Code Section 65863
402
CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600
E-MAIL: [email protected]
June 28, 2021
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Analyst
California Department of Housing and
Community Development (“HCD”)
2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
[email protected]
VIA EMAIL
Re: City of San Clemente 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, Dated June 2021 Dear Ms. Prasse:
We are writing this letter on behalf of the Emergency Shelter Coalition (“ESC”), for which our law firm is legal counsel and several of our attorneys and executive staff serve on ESC’s Board of Directors. As explained more fully below, ESC has worked for numerous years to establish a homeless shelter in San Clemente, all to no avail. We are offering this letter to identify specific Amendments to the City of San Clemente’s 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element that will assist to compel and motivate the City to take the necessary action to provide a shelter and accompanying affordable housing for the unhoused and underprivileged residents of the City.
By way of background, ESC has written prior letters to the HCD, including one dated November 9, 2016, in connection with various revisions to the City’s then-Housing Element 2013-2021 and revised Emergency Shelter (“ES”) Ordinance. In response, HCD required the City to make changes to the prior Housing Element and ES Ordinance but, regrettably, nothing whatsoever has changed. Since the City’s certification of the 5th Cycle Housing Element in October 2016, and the subsequent updates to the Housing Element and ES Ordinance in 2017, no emergency shelter has been developed in the City’s SB 2 ES Overlay. And this current version of the City’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element clearly shows that the City really has no intent of developing one – or of allowing a shelter proponent, such as ESC, to develop a shelter in the upcoming years.
In this context, ESC’s proposed four (4) Amendments to the Draft Housing Element will make a notable difference. We look forward to working with you to answer any questions, and hopefully assist in accomplishing the work of HCD to promote safe and affordable homes, and a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community for all residents in the City of San Clemente, California.
403
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
A. ESC’s Efforts to Establish A Shelter.
By way of background, in October 2017, HCD issued a conditional approval of the City’s SB 2 compliance plan that called for a portion of the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, an industrial park located several miles east of the 5 Freeway in San Clemente (the “Business Park”), to become the City’s SB 2 Emergency Shelter Overlay Zone (“ESOZ”). Unfortunately, the business owners in the Business Park were strongly opposed to the City’s decision to establish the ESOZ in the Business Park, which presented new challenges to ESC as it sought to establish a shelter.
Starting in early 2017, ESC sought to rent or purchase a building in the Business Park ESOZ. ESC discovered that many properties for rent were in multi-tenant buildings that would not be appropriate for an emergency shelter. ESC looked at two office buildings for rent, but when the building owners discovered that the anticipated use was for an emergency shelter, they declined to rent the building. In addition, buildings available for purchase were 30,000 square feet or more.
Thus, the cost to purchase a building was prohibitive because the City’s current zoning regulations limit an emergency shelter to no more than 35 beds. It should also be noted that the Business Park owners and members made it abundantly clear that they would never accept an emergency shelter in their Business Park area,1 let alone three (3) shelters as the City is now suggesting in its Draft Housing Element (see, e.g., HE-45.).
After significant effort, in January 2020, ESC purchased a site consisting of two (2) sizeable parcels of vacant and undeveloped land of nearly ten (10) acres within the same Business Park, located across the street along E. Avenida Pico, in the City of San Clemente, California, with Lot nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02. This nearly 10 acres is across Avenida Pico, but part of the same Business Park for which the City adopted the SB 2 ES Overlay.
However, the City refuses to include ESC’s 10 acres of land in the SB 2 ESOZ because the City knows that an emergency shelter and accompanying affordable housing will then be promptly developed in the area.
From the start, ESC has made known to the City its willingness to develop these 10 acres of land for a homeless shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City. In response, the City has rejected all proposals, and on July 31, 2020, the City filed a lawsuit against ESC in an effort to take the land by eminent domain, so that this land will always remain vacant and undeveloped, while the homelessness crisis and lack of affordable housing in the City continue unabated.
To provide a quick overview, as set forth in its Complaint for eminent domain, the City is alleging that it is seeking to take the land from ESC to preserve it as “open space” and to add it to another 287-acre segment of land called the Marblehead Conservation Easement Area (“Marblehead Area”) for which the City purportedly has obtained a “conservation easement.” By doing so, the City is asserting that not only can it conserve valuable open space land, but it can also prevent the Transportation Corridor Agencies (“TCA”) from using the land to extend the 241 Toll Road through San Clemente to connect it with the I-5 Freeway. 1 Indeed, several of the business owners were so opposed to emergency shelters in the area that they filed a lawsuit against the Board of the Business Park for selling the 10 acres to ESC, based on a fear that ESC would develop a shelter across the street from the Business Park. (See, Olen Properties Corp. v. Rancho San Clement Business Park Community Association, Emergency Shelter Coalition, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01130657-CU-OR-CJC.) 404
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
The City’s purported reasons for the lawsuit are without support. Despite the City’s contentions, the truth is (a) the City has never recorded a conservation easement for the adjacent Marblehead Area, so there is nothing to which ESC’s 10 acres can be officially added for this socalled “conservation easement area”; (b) ESC’s 10 acres of land is zoned Private-Open-Space, and is not subject to habitat conservation or mitigation banking; (c) the City has never maintained ESC’s 10 acres as being for conservation purposes, and in fact, recently ordered weed abatement that can destroy the natural habitat and new seedlings, and (d) on March 12, 2020, TCA took official action to abandon all plans to extend the 241 Toll Road through San Clemente.
In light of the foregoing, ESC is requesting HCD to compel the City to comply with its legal housing element obligations. Specifically, ESC has detailed below several concerns from the City’s Draft Housing Element, along with a proposal for the addition of four (4) Amendments to open the way for a much-need homeless shelter and affordable housing in the upcoming years, including the use of ESC’s 10 acres of land that can be developed and operated free of charge to the City.
B. The Public Comments Identified Shelters for the Homeless and Affordable Housing as Priorities, But The City Has Made Few Efforts To Comply.
Over the past many months, the City has undertaken the task of preparing the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element in an effort to “identify the City’s housing needs and outline goals, policies and programs to address them.” It is important to note that the residents of the City have identified shelters for the homeless and affordable housing as priorities, and the Business Park area as appropriate for additional affordable housing:
“During the October 2020 workshop, participants identified affordable housing and housing for the homeless as priority housing needs in the community... During the January 2021 workshop, residents suggested North El Camino Real and Rancho San Clemente [Business Park] Specific Plan as appropriate areas for additional housing…” (See, HE-2; emphasis added.)
C. The City’s Draft Housing Element Identified the Increasing Numbers of Homeless, But Only Included A Promise to “Monitor” the ES Overlay.
In its Draft Housing Element, the City provided the most recent count of homeless persons in San Clemente from 2019, with a reported 96 “unsheltered” persons, as follows (HE-30):
In its Draft Housing Element, however, the City only offered to “monitor” the ES Overlay under Program 15. (HE-102.) This appears to be nothing more than an alleged avowal of advocacy without any specific actions or performance measures. Without specific Amendments designed for true change, ESC is concerned that again nothing will be accomplished in the next eight years.
405
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
D. The City’s Draft Housing Element Does Not Go Far Enough To Satisfy The SB 2 Requirements, and Committing to Only “Monitor” The ES Overlay Will Not Work.
As indicated, the City’s Draft Housing Element identified “Program 15: Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay,” and stated that “The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Overlay as well as the rideshare program.” (HE-102.) With respect to the “monitoring” of the ES Overlay under the City’s Program 15, the language used to meet this objective shows that no true action is designed to be taken. For example, in each of the bullet points under the heading entitled “Objectives,” the only activities described involve analytical actions such as “evaluate,” “determine if,” “assess,” “review and analysis.” (HE-102.) Without specific action designed to establish homeless shelters, and hefty penalties for a failure to comply, ESC is concerned that the no new advancements will occur.
ESC proposes that Amendments are necessary to compel and influence the City into action.
E. The City’s Purported “Capacity” from the ES Overlay Is Not Feasible, and the Emergency Shelter “Development Standards” Are Unworkable.
In its Draft Housing Element, the City is now asserting that the Business Park (zoned L1) contains adequate capacity to shelter the homeless, and states that there is plenty of space in this Business Park to develop three (3) homeless shelters that will be necessary to meet the needs of the 96 homeless persons last counted in San Clemente in 2019 (HE-45).
We believe the City is well aware that none of this is feasible. The Business Park is an upscale area with office buildings for established tenants such as Olen Properties Corp., Rainbow Sandals – Corp. Headquarters, Olsen Orthodontics, Ocean Physical Therapy, Kingdom Nutrition, Lightning Technology, etc. The development of even one (1) homeless shelter in this business park would be challenging and prohibitively costly, let alone three (3) of them that are spaced 300 feet apart as the City proposes, to house the 96 homeless residents last counted in 2019, which number has presumably increased significantly over the past 24 months.
Moreover, as indicated above, ESC already tried this approach in the Cycle 5 Housing Element. It did not work when ESC was looking to establish only one (1) shelter, and the City has offered no explanation of how or why it could work now -- especially if 3 or more shelters need to be established to house the homeless residents of the City.
Rather than working with ESC to create a solution, the City has continued to promote unworkable “Emergency Shelter Development Standards,” as follows:
“Emergency Shelter Development Standards
“In September 2017, the City amended the ES Overlay Ordinance and as amended includes the following:
Separation. An emergency shelter shall not be established or operated at any location less than 300 feet from another emergency shelter providing shelter and other services to homeless persons, provided, however, that this standard shall not apply where homeless shelters proposed to be located within 300 feet of each other are operated by the same social service provider…. Maximum Number of Beds. The maximum number of beds per emergency shelter facility shall not exceed 35 beds…. (HE-47.)
406
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
As ESC has explained in its prior letters to the City and to HCD, these regulatory barriers do not comply with section 65583 of the Government. Without Amendments to this Draft Housing Element for 2021-2029, ESC is highly concerned that the next eight years will result in a dismal lack of any progress of which to speak. In light of the foregoing, and as set forth below, ESC requests that the City include the following four (4) amendments to its Draft Housing Element prior to HCD’s certification, to facilitate and encourage the development of an emergency shelter for the 96 or more unhoused residents in San Clemente, and to make a real difference for the underprivileged residents with the building of sufficient affordable housing in San Clemente.
F. ESC’s Proposed Amendments to the Draft Housing Element Will Make a Notable Difference for the Homeless and Underprivileged Residents of San Clemente.
To make a true change, ESC is proposing (4) Amendments as follows:
Amendment No. 1:
For Amendment No. 1, ESC respectfully requests that HCD require the SB 2 ES Overlay to be amended and expanded to include all land within the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Specific Plan, and especially including ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02.
The Draft Housing Element states: “[o]n October 18, 2016, the City Council adopted the Emergency Shelter (ES) Overlay at the Rancho San Clemente Business Park (see Figure 3-1).” (See HE-43 and Figure 3-1 on HE-44.)
407
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
Unfortunately, this representation by the City is not completely true. While the diagram on Figure 3-1 above shows the SB 2 ES Overlay that was adopted by the City Council for a partial area of the Business Park area under the Specific Plan, the City’s statement is misleading because ESC’s nearly 10 acres of property is also included in the Business Park under the Specific Plan, but it was not added to the SB 2 Overlay.
In addition, Figure 4-1 below of the Draft Housing Element is entitled Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory. (HE-88.) It shows blocks of red that represent the areas the City is considering for rezoning purposes for the development of residential sites. These sites, however, are already fully developed and unsuitable for such purposes. By way of example, the site of the Orange County Mattress store is depicted as a very small box on the far left, the Pico Plaza Shopping Mall is shown as a larger box on the far left, the Target / Tesla Supercharger site is depicted as an oblong-shaped box at the top of the diagram, and the Plaza Pacifico site is displayed as the largest red box located in the middle of Figure 4.1. The Plaza Pacifico site has been developed with large commercial retail stores (e.g., Walmart, Lowes, Albertsons, Michaels, Office Depot, among others) along Avenida Pico in San Clemente:
Significantly, the Plaza Pacifico area with the large box stores along Avenida Pico in San Clemente is immediately adjacent to the SB 2 ES Overlay, as is ESC’s property. (See the Figure on the following page, which shows ESC’s parcels in yellow.) For obvious reasons, ESC’s property would be far less expensive for the development of an emergency shelter and affordable housing than the purchase and relocation of large retail stores. ESC’s site would also be fully compatible and complementary to any affordable housing located within this area of the City. 408
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
In light of the foregoing, ESC submits that an Amendment to the SB 2 ES Overlay to include all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688- 011-01 and 688-011-02, would best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City. (See the attached Exhibit “A” also set forth below.) (1) The City’s “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory” in red; (2) The current SB 2 Overlay at the Business Park in purple with a red border; and (3) ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (that are part of the Business Park under the Specific Plan) in yellow:
409
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
Amendment No. 2:
ESC further requests that the City’s Draft Housing Element be revised to include an implementation program for the amendment of the zoning code to allow, by right, (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing and (e) transitional housing, all within the SB 2 ES Overlay.
In support, ESC notes that the City has already included one parcel from the SB 2 ES Overlay located on Avenida La Pata in its Figure 4-1 entitled: Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory. (See Figure 4-1 diagram above, and the little red square slightly to the right of the big red block in the middle of the diagram, at HE-88.) Indeed, if this one parcel is acceptable for affordable housing and all related protected residential uses, it follows that the rest of the SB 2 ES Overlay should also be acceptable for all protected residential uses. Amendment No. 3:
ESC also requests that the Draft Housing Element be amended to include implementation programs for the amendment of the ES Overlay Ordinance that removes regulatory barriers to the development of an emergency shelter. The specific regulatory barriers to be removed include:
Remove the “Separation” standard and any requirement that emergency shelters cannot be located within 300 feet of each other (HE-47); and Remove the “Maximum Number of Beds” standard with the 35-bed maximum limit for an emergency shelter (HE-47).
a. The Separation standard: The SB 2 ES Overlay is a small area of San Clemente, and it would be impossibly difficult to develop and locate no less than three (3) 35-bed emergency shelters within the Business Park that are spaced 300 feet apart for the last count of 96 unhoused residents in the City. No other protected class of housing has a separation requirement in the zoning code.
Ordinarily, a separation of shelters might be allowed under SB 2, provided that it does not discourage the development of shelters. Given that the City has restricted the SB 2 ES Overlay to only a portion of the overall Business Park, and the smaller buildings are located in one area of the Business Park, the 300-foot radius limit will undoubtedly prevent development of more than one emergency shelter, particularly when coupled with a 35-bed limit. Unless the 35-bed limit is increased and more areas are added to the SB 2 ES Overlay, both the SB 2 ES Overlay and the Draft Housing Element will need to be revised to eliminate the 300-foot separation requirement. b. The Maximum Number of Beds standard: The 35-bed limit is unreasonably low.
The bed limit should be increased to allow for a more reasonable number of beds in order to encourage and facilitate the development of a year-round shelter that could adequately serve the needs of the entire homeless population of San Clemente.
As noted, the Business Park consists of industrial buildings typically ranging from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. in size and with prices between $188 to $264 or more per square foot.
Smaller spaces are typically in multi-tenant buildings, making it unlikely that a landlord would rent to an emergency shelter or that the building would have the required fire exits needed for an overnight shelter. Simply stated, the 35-bed limit in the ES Overlay and the Housing Draft Element is an obvious hindrance to the development of an emergency shelter in the Business Park or elsewhere in San Clemente, and should either be removed or increased substantially. 410
Ms. Marisa Prasse
June 28, 2021
Amendment No. 4:
For Amendment No. 4, ESC requests a revision of Program 15 entitled “Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay” to require implementation actions by designated deadlines, and performance criteria for a failure to do so. This would include three (3) implementation actions:
1. Assess and update the City’s ES Overlay Ordinance to eliminate (a) the 300-foot separation and (b) the maximum number of beds, by no later than December 31, 2021;
2. Implement a monitoring study every six (6) months to assess if the housing needs and corresponding services for all of the unhoused residents of the City have been met, with the first monitoring study to be commenced no later than January 1, 2022;
3. For every six-month monitoring period for which there is no approved and operational homeless shelter in the City, and/or for which not all of the unhoused residents of the City have been provided shelter or appropriate housing and services, the City will be required to take all necessary action to implement specific programs with zoning ordinance amendments. These shall include, but not be limited to, expanding the SB 2 ES Overlay to include any area zoned for “multiuse” or “commercial,” along with paying for hotel rooms for the unhoused until such time as an emergency shelter is approved and operational in the City, so that the housing needs of all unhoused and homeless residents have been met.
With these important Amendments to the Draft Housing Element, the City can satisfy its objectives, as well as meet the needs of the homeless and underprivileged residents of the City.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Very truly yours,
Laura Lee Blake
General Counsel, ESC
cc: Mr. Paul McDougall, HCD
Ms. Robin Huntley, HCD
Ms. Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Senior Planner
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente Community Development Director ESC Board of Directors
411
EXHIBIT “A”
412
413
CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600
E-MAIL: [email protected]
August 9, 2021
August 9, 2021
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Housing Policy Analyst and Specialist California Department of Housing and Community Development [email protected]
Mr. Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager
California Department of Housing and Community Development [email protected]
VIA EMAIL
Re: City of San Clemente 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, Dated June 2021 Dear Ms. Prasse and Mr. McDougall:
Lest our silence be deemed acquiescence, we are writing this letter in response to the July 21, 2021 correspondence submitted by Jennifer Savage, Project Planner for the City of San Clemente, CA, in reply (“Reply”) to our June 28, 2021 letter to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).
In the City’s July 21, 2021 Reply letter, the City objected to the four (4) Amendments we had requested on behalf of the Emergency Shelter Coalition (“ESC”) to the City’s 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, which were designed to ensure that the City took the necessary steps to facilitate the development of an emergency shelter and accompanying affordable housing for the unhoused, as well as the low income, residents of the City. Given that the City’s Reply to the proposed Amendments is inaccurate at best, and disingenuous at worst, we are compelled to provide the necessary facts and information for HCD to make an informed decision about the necessary changes for the Draft Housing Element.
To lay the proper overview for this response, we will borrow a famous line from Andrew Carnegie, “As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” For San Clemente, the City’s actions, or complete lack thereof, show its true intent. Since the City’s certification of the 5th Cycle Housing Element in October 2016, and the subsequent updates to the Housing Element and ES Ordinance in 2017, to date no emergency shelter has been developed in the City’s SB 2 ES Overlay. Regrettably, this current version of the City’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element is no different. For the reasons outlined in our Opening Letter, the City really has no intent of developing an emergency shelter, or of allowing a shelter proponent, such as ESC, to develop one in the upcoming years. Regardless of the promising objectives and anticipated accomplishments, the City has shown time and again that it will do nothing on its own to develop, or facilitate the development of, a shelter. HCD’s assistance is necessary to force the action.
414
August 9, 2021
A. The City’s Reply To ESC’s Proposed Four (4) Amendments to the Draft Housing Element.
1. The City’s Reply to Amendment No. 1:
In the opening of its Reply, the City took issue with ESC’s statements that it is infeasible for the City to proceed with its current Draft Housing Element proposal for the development of three (3) homeless shelters in the Rancho Santa Clemente Business Park (“RSC Business Park”). The City contended that the RSC Business Park (zoned L1) contains adequate capacity to shelter the homeless, and there is plenty of space to develop three shelters that will be necessary to meet the needs of the 96 unsheltered persons last counted in San Clemente in 2019 (HE-45), which number has presumably increased significantly over the past 24 months.
As we explained in our opening letter, the RSC Business Park is an upscale area with office buildings for established tenants such as Olen Properties Corp., Rainbow Sandals–Corp.
Headquarters, Olsen Orthodontics, Ocean Physical Therapy, Kingdom Nutrition, Lightning Technology, etc. The development of even one (1) homeless shelter in this RSC Business Park would be challenging and prohibitively costly, let alone three (3) of them with 35 beds each that are spaced 300 feet apart, as the City proposed.
Consequently, for Amendment No. 1, ESC respectfully requested that HCD require the SB 2 ES Overlay to be amended and expanded to include all land within the RSC Business Park Specific Plan, and especially including ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02. The Infeasibility of the City’s Proposal That Three (3) Emergency Shelters Can Be Developed in the RSC Business Park
In response to ESC’s proposal, the City asserted as follows:
“In August 2019, the City identified a property in the ESOZ that appeared suitable for a homeless shelter and recommended Council approval of (i) a 10-year lease with the property owner; (ii) appropriation of $78,000 from the City’s low and moderate income housing fund for lease payments; and (ii) issuance of an RFP for a shelter operator. The ultimate annual cost of the lease and operation of the shelter was estimated to be between $1.1 and $2 million. The item did not pass, but what this shows is that development of a homeless shelter in the ESOZ, while expensive, given the land values in South Orange County, is not ‘infeasible.’” (Reply, p. 2.)
It is truly remarkable that the City relied on the August 2019 events to support its position, because there could be no greater example of how unworkable, impracticable, and infeasible it would be for the City to develop even one (1) homeless shelter in the current ESOZ located in this upscale RSC Business Park, let along three (3) of them. The August 20, 2019 City Council meeting minutes demonstrate the incongruity of the City’s contentions. Specifically, during this particular City Council meeting, there were a number of “Homeless Issues” addressed, including the proposal for a standard industrial / commercial single-tenant lease for a piece of property located in the RSC Business Park at 950 Calle Negocio, for use as a temporary homeless shelter, and authorization for the release of a request for proposal (“RFP”) for a shelter operator. (See August 20, 2019 City Council meeting minutes, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) As detailed below, the meeting minutes included a summary of twenty (20) public comments that were issued before the City Council took a straw vote (by which it unanimously 415
August 9, 2021
rejected the proposals), followed by another 16 public comments, and then a City Council final vote that again unanimously rejected the recommendations for the development of a homeless shelter in the RSC Business Park.
Significantly, these initial public comments included those of Gene James, who at the time was not a City Council member, but was later elected to the position and is currently serving in the role of Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem James is recognized as one of the most outspoken and vociferous opponents of the development of emergency shelters and affordable housing in the City. The public comments also included opposition from various business owners from the RSC Business Park. For example, RSC Business Park owner Glen[n] Walker not only opposed such a proposal during this August 2019 City Council meeting, but approximately six (6) months later became a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by several Business Park owners against the RSC Business Park Community Association Board of Directors and ESC for the sale of the 10 acres, in the lawsuit known as Olen Properties Corp. et al v. Rancho San Clemente Business Park Community Association, et al, OCSC Case No. 30-2020-01130657-CU-OR-CJC.
The sixteen (16) public comments following the City Council’s straw vote included opposition from additional business owners in the Business Park, along with opposition from Chris Megison and Paul Webster with Solutions for Change, who have supported, and continue to support, Mayor Pro Tem James in his efforts to stop the development of affordable housing first in San Clemente.
Here is a sampling of the public comments recorded in the August 20, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Gene James [currently serving as Mayor Pro Tem], San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the placement of a shelter on Calle Negocio [in the RSC Business Park] since it is close to a school, dance studio, karate studio, etc.; stated that mental illness and addiction need to be treated.
Glen[n] Walker [a recent plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Business Park Community Association Board and ESC for the sale of the 10 acres], San Clemente, owner of the property at 940 Calle Negocio, urged Council to reject the establishment of a homeless shelter at 950 Calle Negocio, noting that problems are already occurring in the neighborhood.
Sanjiv Jain, owner of property at 960 Calle Negocio, urged that Council delay a decision until the impact of a homeless shelter on surrounding businesses can be assessed.
Rob Johnston, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the establishment of a homeless shelter in the heart of the City's thriving business community. [COUNCIL’S STRAW VOTE UNANIMOUSLY REJECTING THE PROPOSAL] Andrew Fogg, representing the owner of the property at 942 Calle Negocio, stated that the City needs to go through the CEQA process to enter into a lease for a homeless shelter; asserted that inadequate notice of this agenda item was provided to adjacent property owners.
Thomas Mauriello, attorney for the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association, spoke in opposition to the subject project, citing legal and economic grounds; suggested that a homeless shelter is premature and fiscally irresponsible; stated that CEQA applies to the lease under consideration.
416
August 9, 2021
Larry Dunnwald, owner of two buildings on each side of 950 Calle Negocio, voiced concern with the impact that a homeless shelter will have on his business and the safety of his employees.
Chris Megison [a supporter of Mayor Pro Tem James in his opposition to the development of housing first in the City], Solutions for Change, commented on the need to address mental illness and addiction since they are often the underlying cause of homelessness. [COUNCIL’S FINAL VOTE UNANIMOUSLY REJECTING THE PROPOSAL] According to a news article about the August 20, 2019 City Council meeting, the opposition to the homeless shelter proposal was not limited to only a handful of public commenters. It was reported that, “San Clemente residents and business owners showed up in number at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, a majority of whom voiced strong opposition to the city’s consideration of leasing a property at 950 Calle Negocio for use as a temporary homeless shelter.” (See August 22, 2019 San Clemente Times article entitled “City Council Rejects Homeless Shelter Proposals,” attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Needless to say, the City’s assertion that this August 19, 2019 City Council meeting, with the strong opposition and unanimous rejection of the emergency shelter proposal, is somehow a shining example of how feasible and practical it is to develop only one (1) 35-bed homeless shelter in the RSC Business Park, let alone three (3) of them, is an oxymoron to say the least because, in reality, it actually underscores the strong public and political opposition to allowing a shelter to be developed and operated in the RSC Business Park. Indeed, the City Council’s unanimous vote to reject the shelter proposal is hardly evidence of the feasibility of establishing a shelter in the RSC Business Park and HCD should not allow the City to suggest otherwise. The City Failed To Inform the HCD About Available Solutions, Including the Open Space Ordinance Exception and the County Alternative In addition to repeating its unfounded assertion from years past that the upscale RSC Business Park is purportedly a “feasible” site for three (3) 35-bed homeless shelters spaced at least 300 feet apart, the City also claimed in its Reply that ESC’s proposed Amendment No. 1 cannot be achieved. The City contended that the 10 acres of land cannot be added to the current ESOZ because the acres are zoned for “Open Space.” The ESOZ specifically excluded land zoned as Open Space, and a change to Open Space with an ESOZ Overlay would require voter approval and be inconsistent with SB 2, which requires ministerial approval of emergency shelters. (See, City’s Reply, p. 2.)
In making these broad assertions, the City failed to inform HCD of two (2) important solutions to the Open Space zoning for ESC’s parcels that should be taken into consideration.
First, the City failed to address the provisions of its Open Space Ordinance entitled:
“An Ordinance Amending The Land Use Element Of The City Of San Clemente General Plan To Require City Voter Approval Of General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Adoptions And Zoning Amendments That Change The Permitted Uses Of Open Space Lands To Non-Open Space Uses,” No. 1475, which was adopted on November 4, 2008 (attached hereto as Exhibit C), which provides the following exception for a voter approved change:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, Zoning Ordinance amendment, Specific Plan adoption, or zone change that authorizes or permits Non-Open Space Uses in an Open Space Area shall not be subject to this Section V.Y and shall be permitted without City voter approval in the following circumstances only: …
417
August 9, 2021
”2. Upon the application of an affected landowner to convert the Open Space Area to a residential use if the City Council determines that doing so is necessary to comply with federal or state law regarding the provision of housing. The City Council may do so only if it first makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a specific provision of federal or state law requires the City to accommodate the proposed housing; (b) the amount of land to be reclassified is no greater than necessary to accommodate the required housing; (c) no alternative site within the City that is not an Open Space Area could be used to satisfy the applicable federal or state housing law; and (d) the proposed housing will be located adjacent to already developed lands and roads …” (Id.; emphasis added.) Here, of course, there is a state law requiring the City to provide affordable housing.
Moreover, each of the required four (4) factors are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including subparagraph (c). Indeed, as discussed above, at this point, the City has in fact failed to identify an alternative site within the City that is not an Open Space Area that could be used to satisfy the applicable state housing law, since the RSC Business Park is simply not feasible for even one (1) homeless shelter, let alone three (3) of them.
Moreover, none of the other proposed residential sites will work. The City’s Figure 4-1 in the Draft Housing Element is entitled Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory (HE-88), and it shows blocks of red that represent the areas the City is considering for rezoning purposes for the development of residential sites. These sites, however, are already fully developed and unsuitable. By way of example, the site of the Orange County Mattress store is depicted as a very small box on the far left, the Pico Plaza Shopping Mall is shown as a larger box on the far left, the Target / Tesla Supercharger site is depicted as an oblong-shaped box at the top of the diagram, and the Plaza Pacifico site is displayed as the largest red box located in the middle of Figure 4.1.
The Plaza Pacifico site has been developed with large commercial retail stores (e.g., Walmart, Lowes, Albertsons, Michaels, Office Depot, among others) along Avenida Pico in San Clemente:
418
August 9, 2021
The City relies on a colorful map to establish its purported reasonableness and good faith efforts to find sites for residential purposes. But the photos of these specific sites demonstrate that they are fully developed, and do not constitute an alternative site that is not an Open Space Area and that could be used to satisfy the applicable federal or state housing laws. Indeed, the last set of photos in the attached Exhibit D shows the perfect land opportunity and availability of ESC’s 10 acres for the development of a homeless shelter and accompanying affordable housing in the City. (See, e.g., photos of the City’s proposed residential sites, along with a photo of ESC’s available 10 acres, attached hereto as Exhibit D.)
As previously indicated, the Plaza Pacifico area with the large box stores along Avenida Pico in San Clemente is immediately adjacent to the SB 2 ES Overlay, as is ESC’s property. (See the Figure on the following page, which shows ESC’s parcels in yellow.) For obvious reasons, ESC’s property would be far less expensive for the development of an emergency shelter and affordable housing than the purchase and relocation of large retail stores. ESC’s site would also be fully compatible and complementary to any affordable housing located within this area of the City.
Second, as ESC has informed the City on several occasions, if the 10 acres of land owned by ESC were conveyed to the County of Orange with restrictions for the land to be developed for emergency shelter and affordable housing uses, the parcels would immediately be exempt from Measure V and no “vote of the public” would be required to rezone the property for uses other than Open Space. In fact, ESC has offered to transfer title to the County to obviate the need for the City Council to take any action to override Measure V. The City has shown no interest in working cooperatively with ESC to accomplish that goal.
Under ESC’s proposal, the County would be the public agency that would have the power and authority to designate the property for SB 2 purposes, not the City. Also, the SB 2 zoning would not require ESC to obtain any discretionary permits to establish shelter facilities on those parcels. The County would then oversee any building plans for shelter facilities at that location.
Based on the recent passage of Assembly Bill 143 that amended Govt. Code § 8698.4, the County could lease the property to ESC and/or other third parties, such as Jamboree Housing, for use as an emergency shelter complex and/or permanent supportive housing units without being subject to CEQA.
In light of the foregoing, ESC submits that an Amendment to the SB 2 ES Overlay to include all land within the Business Park Specific Plan, and especially ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688- 011-01 and 688-011-02, would best ensure the development of an emergency shelter, transitional and supportive housing, and much-needed affordable housing for the extremely low, very low, and low-income residents of the City. (See the attached Exhibit F also set forth below.) (1) The City’s “Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory” in red; (2) The current SB 2 Overlay at the Business Park in purple with a red border; and (3) ESC’s Parcel Nos. 688-011-01 and 688-011-02 (that are part of the Business Park under the Specific Plan) in yellow:
419
August 9, 2021
2. Amendment No. 2:
For its proposed Amendment No. 2, ESC requested that the City’s Draft Housing Element be revised to include -- within the SB 2 ES Overlay -- an implementation program for the amendment of the zoning code to allow, by right, (a) Low Barrier Navigation Centers, (b) supportive housing, (c) emergency shelters, (d) affordable housing, and (e) transitional housing. 420
August 9, 2021
The City responded by asserting that it has committed to amending the zoning code to allow, by right, Low Barrier Navigation Centers “in areas zoned for nonresidential zones (including mixed use zones as required by law) permitting multi-family uses if it meets specified requirements” (HE 101), as well as supportive housing where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted (HE 48). With that said, the City conceded that neither of these anticipated amendments would be applicable to the SB 2 ES Overlay.
Even though the City is opposing this proposed Amendment No. 2, it is significant to note that the City has already included one parcel from the SB 2 ES Overlay located on Avenida La Pata in its Figure 4-1 entitled: Residential Sites and Rezone Sites Inventory. (See Figure 4-1 diagram above, and the little red square slightly to the right of the big red block in the middle of the diagram, at HE-88.) Indeed, if this one parcel is acceptable for affordable housing and all related protected residential uses, it follows that the rest of the SB 2 ES Overlay should also be acceptable for all protected residential uses.
3. Amendment No. 3:
In its Reply, the City contended that it is in full compliance with Govt. Code § 65583 with respect to its 35-bed limit and 300-foot separation requirement. The City cited to the pertinent language of this Government Code section, but failed to acknowledge that its standards are undoubtedly in violation thereof. While it is correct that the City “may apply written, objective standards” to the permitting, development, and management processes of emergency shelters, this is expressly conditioned on the City’s demonstration that such standards are objective and “encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.” (Govt. Code § 65583(a)(4)(A). Here, the City’s record shows the opposite is true.
As detailed above, only two years ago, on August 20, 2019, the City Council unanimously rejected a proposal to lease a site at the RSC Business Park for the development and operation of a 35-bed homeless shelter. As explained in the City’s Reply letter, “The ultimate annual cost of the lease and operation of the shelter was estimated to be between $1.1 and $2 million.” (Reply, p. 2.) If the City was admittedly unable to approve one shelter at such a high cost, how can it possibly argue that three (3) of them will pose no problems, especially with these unworkable standards at this specific RSC Business Park?
If we take these same financial estimates and increase them significantly for the recent inflationary escalations over the past two years, and then triple them to account for the three (3) 35-bed shelters spaced at least 300 feet apart that need to be developed at the RSC Business Park, where the local business owners are strongly opposed to any emergency shelters whatsoever, let alone three of them, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive that the City’s standards are encouraging anything at all – and most certainly not the development of, or conversion to, any emergency shelters. Without these high-level barrier standards, it is possible that one shelter might be developed to house all unsheltered residents of the City. Consequently, it is the removal of these standards for the City’s ESOZ that will in fact “encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters” as mandated by Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
Simply stated, the 35-bed limit in the ES Overlay and the Housing Draft Element is an obvious hindrance to the development of an emergency shelter in the RSC Business Park or elsewhere in San Clemente, and should either be removed or increased substantially. 421
August 9, 2021
4. Amendment No. 4:
For Amendment No. 4, ESC requests a revision of Program 15 entitled “Monitoring of Emergency Shelter Overlay” to require implementation actions by designated deadlines, and performance criteria for a failure to do so. In its Reply, the City had no response other than to contend that it would not make sense for the City to be required to accelerate any of its studies or actions if the County’s Biannual Homeless Census is only conducted every two years.
ESC respectfully responds that the City can move forward with the following three (3) implementation actions without relying on the County’s census of homeless persons in the San Clemente area:
1. Assess and update the City’s ES Overlay Ordinance to eliminate (a) the 300-foot separation and (b) the maximum number of beds, by no later than December 31, 2021;
2. Implement a monitoring study every six (6) months to assess if the housing needs and corresponding services for all of the unhoused residents of the City have been met, with the first monitoring study to be commenced no later than January 1, 2022;
3. For every six-month monitoring period for which there is no approved and operational homeless shelter in the City, and/or for which not all of the unhoused residents of the City have been provided shelter or appropriate housing and services, the City will be required to take all necessary action to implement specific programs with zoning ordinance amendments. These shall include, but not be limited to, expanding the SB 2 ES Overlay to include any area zoned for “multiuse” or “commercial,” along with paying for hotel rooms for the unhoused until such time as an emergency shelter is approved and operational in the City, so that the housing needs of all unhoused and homeless residents have been met.
With these important Amendments to the Draft Housing Element, the City can satisfy its objectives, as well as meet the needs of the homeless and low income residents of the City.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Very truly yours,
Laura Lee Blake
General Counsel, ESC
cc: Ms. Jennifer Savage, San Clemente Senior Planner
Ms. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, San Clemente Community Development Director ESC Board of Directors
422
Exhibit A
423
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
City Council Minutes
Special and Regular Meeting - August 20, 2019
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.
A Special Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order on August 20, 2019 at 4:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 100 Avenida Presidio, San Clemente, California, by Mayor Pro Tern Bane.
PRESENT
ABSENT
FERGUSON, HAMM, WARD, MAYOR PRO TEM BANE
NONE
STAFF PRESENT James Makshanoff, City Manager; Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney; Joanne Baade, City Clerk; Laura Campagnolo, Deputy City Clerk.
***
CLOSED SESSION (SPECIAL MEETING)
Brad Malamud, San Clemente, asserted that deficiencies exist with regard to the agenda language for some of the Closed Session items; suggested that a Council subcommittee should serve as the City negotiators with Memorial Care.
Mayor Pro Tern Bane noted that he will recuse himself from the portion of the Closed Session relating to the existing litigation case of City of San Clemente v. Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor.
Deputy City Attorney Hull announced that Closed Session Item D relates to the TCA and potential fiscal improprieties.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WARD, CARRIED 4-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:38 p.m. to discuss the following: · A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)
Number of potential cases: 1
Closed Session items continued on next page
424
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 654 Camino de Los Mares (San Clemente hospital)
Agency Negotiator: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and City Attorney Negotiating Parties: City of San Clemente and Memorial Health Services and Saddleback Memorial Medical Center and/or their authorized agent(s) Under Negotiation: Interim or Long Term Acquisition or Lease C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) Number of Cases: 6
Case Name: MemorialCare Services, et al. v. City of San Clemente Case Number: 8:16-CV-00852 DOC-JCG
Case Name: Capistrano Shores, Inc. v. City of San Clemente Case Number: OCSC 30-2014-007099897-CU-EI-CXC
Case Name: Malamud, et al. v. City of San Clemente, et al.
Case Number: USDC 8: 19-CV-00855
Case Name: Housing is a Human Right Orange County, et al. v. County of Orange et al.
Case Number: USDC 8:19-CV-00388 DOC-KES
Case Name: Emergency Shelter Coalition v. City of San Clemente Case Number: 30-2019-01080355-CU-WM-CXC
Case Name: City of San Clemente v. Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency and County of Orange
Case Number: OCSC 30-2017-00934703-CU-PT-CXC
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of potential cases: 1
(
i
\
BUSINESS MEETING CONVENED (REGULAR MEETING) f
The City Council Business Meeting of August 20, 2019 convened at 6:00 p.m., with all • members present. l
INVOCATION
Shadi Farhadi, of Baha'i Faith Community, gave the invocation. 425
I
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 3
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Ferguson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A.
B.
Commendation Presentation - Posthumously Honoring Mayor Steve Swartz
This item was deferred.
Toll Road Update
Councilmember Ferguson reported that Mayor Pro Tern Bane and she attended this month's Transportation Corridor Agencies Board Meeting; explained that Councilmember Joe Muller, of Dana Point, advocated for Alternative Route 22 (Los Patrones Parkway extension).
Mayor Pro Tern Bane reported on the hearing that took place on August 15, 2019 concerning the Motion for Summary Judgment that was filed by the City and The Reserve, noting that the judge determined that he would make his final decisions on both the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Judgment that was filed by The Reserve and the City on October 18, 2019.
Vonne Barnes, President of the Rancho San Clemente Community Association Master Board, narrated a PowerPoint presentation (which is on file with the City Clerk); voiced concern that Alternative Route 14 for the proposed extension of SR 241 transects an active landslide area.
HOMELESS ISSUES
A. Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease for Property Located at 950 Calle Negocio for Use as a Temporary Homeless Shelter, and Authorization for the Release of a Request for Proposal for a Shelter Operator
Management Analyst Johnston narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "San Clemente Temporary Homeless Shelter Update", which is on file with the City Clerk.
City Manager Makshanoff reviewed restrictions associated with the enforcement of City camping ordinances; reported that he cannot 426
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page4 recommend the proposed lease, but was directed by Council to agendize the issue for Council consideration; responded to Council inquiries.
Jackson Hinkle, San Clemente, voiced concern with the establishment of a homeless shelter in San Clemente and the associated burden on taxpayers; urged that the City demand that the County fund a South County regional solution to the homeless crisis.
Brad Malamud, San Clemente, urged Council to vote against a homeless shelter in San Clemente; stated that a shelter won't solve the homeless problem and noted the Sheriff won't enforce camping ordinances because insufficient beds would be available.
Mike Ray, San Clemente, suggested that other South Orange County cities don't plan to provide shelters and, instead, are waiting for San Clemente to open a shelter; urged that San Clemente's quality of life be preserved.
Mike Robbins, Anaheim, member of Housing is a Human Right OC, suggested that the cost to keep people on the streets is greater than the cost to provide shelter; spoke in support of providing modular housing units.
Linda Lehnkering, Housing is a Human Right, advocated for permanent supportive housing.
Thomas Fielder, Anaheim, stated that San Clemente can be the first city in Orange County to end homelessness; suggested that homeless people need homes as opposed to a shelter.
Eve Garrow, American Civil Liberties Union of California, spoke on the need for affordable housing to address the root cause of homelessness; stated that shelters should be held to high standards and urged that the City utilize the housing-first approach.
David Duran asserted that the County of Orange has not done enough to address homelessness, noting that the County has funds available to use toward the homeless issue.
Jeanine Robbins, founding member of Housing is a Human Right OC and member of the Anaheim People's Homeless Task Force, addressed the need for permanent supportive housing in which people in temporary shelters can transition.
Sanjiv Jain, owner of property at 960 Calle Negocio, urged that Council delay a decision until the impact of a homeless shelter on surrounding businesses can be assessed.
427
(
I
l I
l
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 5 Doug Schaaf, Sea Summit resident, spoke on the need for an alternate shelter that is not located near residences.
Rob Johnston, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the establishment of a homeless shelter in the heart of the City's thriving business community.
Terrence Geney, resident of the encampment on Avenida Pico, explained that the camp site has been a blessing for him and expressed gratitude to the City; stated that he would like to give back to the City; suggested that the camp site needs enforcement.
Gene James, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the placement of a shelter on Calle Negocio since it is close to a school, dance studio, karate studio, etc.; stated that mental illness and addiction need to be treated.
Cathy Domenichini, San Clemente, urged that the City investigate the possibility of providing small houses; suggested that the City investigate funding sources for housing, including approaching the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
R. Courtney Roland opined that homeless people should not be congregated in one location; spoke on the value of providing homeless persons with work and things to do to help them retain their dignity.
Rick Loeffer, San Clemente, stated that it does not make sense to build a shelter since it will not enable the Sheriff's Department to enforce City ordinances; suggested that the City examine the possibility of transitioning to its own Police Department.
Glen Walker, San Clemente, owner of the property at 940 Calle Negocio, urged Council to reject the establishment of a homeless shelter at 950 Calle Negocio, noting that problems are already occurring in the neighborhood.
Roger Etzwiler, San Clemente, stated that a large piece of land between Dana Point and Capistrano Beach, which is currently being used for storage, could be used for homes for homeless persons.
Paul Maurer, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to a homeless shelter, noting that some people choose to live outside societal norms; spoke in support of the filing of an amicus brief to help overturn Martin v City of Boise.
Council took the following straw poll to ascertain Councilmembers' general opinions based on comments heard thus far. The intent of the straw poll was to help the public determine whether they still wished to address Council: STRAW POLL MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM,
SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, CARRIED 4-0, to decline 428
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 6 to accept Staff Recommendations 1, 2 and 3. For ease of reference, Staff Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 are as follows:
1. 2.
Approve and authorize the Mayor Pro Tern (or designee) to execute and enter into a standard industrial/commercial single-tenant lease for the property located at 950 Calle Negocio by and between the City of San Clemente and Laurence W Schuler.
Approve a FY 2019-20 supplemental appropriation of $78,000 to Account 038-809-43720 for the FY 2019-20 lease costs from the Low and Moderate Income Housing fund balance.
3. Approve and authorize the release of a Request for Proposal for a temporary homeless shelter operator.
Chris Megison, Solutions for Change, commented on the need to address mental illness and addiction since they are often the underlying cause of homelessness.
Paul Webster, Solutions for Change, suggested modifications to the proposed Request for Proposals (RFP) for a shelter operator.
Andrew Fogg, representing the owner of the property at 942 Calle Negocio, stated that the City needs to go through the CEQA process to enter into a lease for a homeless shelter; asserted that inadequate notice of this agenda item was provided to adjacent property owners.
Richard Price and Ricardo Nicol, Architectural Guild of South Orange County and members of the San Clemente Rotary Club, distributed a proposal to improve the aesthetics and functionality of the Pico camp site.
Bill Kreutinger, San Clemente, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "The Lack of Affordable Housing, It's Impact on Homelessness, and What We Can Do About It", which is on file with the City Clerk.
Thomas Mauriello, attorney for the Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association, spoke in opposition to the subject project, citing legal and economic grounds; suggested that a homeless shelter is premature and fiscally irresponsible; stated that CEQA applies to the lease under consideration.
Dee Coleman, San Clemente, encouraged Council to establish a homeless task force and volunteered to serve on the task force; suggested the City retain a grant writer on a contingency basis to apply for State and Federal funding to address the homeless problem.
(
\
I
\.
429
/
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 7 Michelle Brooks, San Clemente, opined that measures of success should be established for the City's contractor for outreach services; opined the housing-first system is not effective; stated that a system is needed to treat mental health, facilitate rehabilitation, and to help ensure that people who break the law are sent to jail.
Cord Bauer, San Clemente, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "It's a Mental Health Problem, It's an Addiction Problem", which is on file with the City Clerk; stated that only 1 % of homeless persons want to utilize a shelter.
Larry Dunnwald, owner of two buildings on each side of 950 Calle Negocio, voiced concern with the impact that a homeless shelter will have on his business and the safety of his employees.
Warren Vidrine, San Clemente, commented on the importance of addressing the homeless situation and urged that the City pursue assistance from the County.
Donna Vidrine, San Clemente, spoke in support of a shelter to help the homeless; commented that a shelter can be utilized as a central point for services.
Andrew Morrow, San Clemente, asserted that a homeless shelter will negatively impact property values, the economy, and public safety; voiced concern that a homeless shelter will pose a fire risk.
Carrie Hampton, San Clemente Christian School, asserted that a homeless shelter will have a negative impact on the students of San Clemente Christian School; pointed out that the school is only four buildings away from the proposed shelter.
Wendy Shrove, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to a homeless shelter; suggested that the housing-first model does not help people.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to reject all three Staff Recommendations as follows:
1. Reject the standard industrial/commercial single-tenant lease for the property located at 950 Calle Negocio by and between the City of San Clemente and Laurence W. Schuler.
2. Reject a FY 2019-20 supplemental appropriation of $78,000 to Account 038-809-43720 for the FY 2019-20 lease costs from the Low and Moderate Income Housing fund balance.
Action continued on next page
430
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 8
3. Reject the release of a Request for Proposal for a temporary homeless shelter operator.
MEETING RECESSED
Council recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 p.m., with all members present. \ B. Consideration of Establishing a Standing Committee on Homelessness
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
FERGUSON, CARRIED 4-0, to table consideration of establishing a standing Committee on Homelessness.
C. Contract Amendment - Homeless Outreach Services
Assistant City Manager Sund reviewed the contents of the Administrative Report and responded to Council inquiries.
Elizabeth Andrade, Chief Operations Director at Mercy House, narrated a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Mercy House Update", which is on file with the City Clerk; responded to Council inquiries.
Rachel Ashton, San Clemente, conveyed her opposition to continuing the City's contract with Mercy House since it has failed to demonstrate efficacy in its outreach efforts; spoke against the City providing financial contributions to Family Assistance Ministries.
Brad Malamud, San Clemente, stated that Mercy House is not qualified to conduct outreach and suggested that outreach services could be conducted by charities without cost to the City.
Pat Davis, Anaheim, commented that effective outreach requires the establishment of relationships; asserted that Mercy House should be registering all Pico camp residents into the Homeless Management Information System.
Rick Loeffler, San Clemente, suggested that Mercy House and Family Assistance Ministries have not been successful and urged the City to consider alternatives.
(
\
431
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page9
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue consideration of this item to the Council meeting of September 3, 2019. Council directed Staff to examine other potential options and to return to Council with a proposed contract. In the interim, Mercy House is to be funded at the 70% service level.
Waiving Reading in Full of All Resolutions and Ordinances
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to waive reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances.
D. Ordinance No. 1676 (Second Reading} - Prohibiting Camping on Public Property
Mark Richard Daniels, Anaheim, stated the homeless issue is a man-made problem that will exist for a long time; asserted that the City needs to address the· situation immediately in coordination with the County and State.
Mark Maurer, San Clemente, opined that neither Ordinance No. 1674 nor Ordinance No. 1676 should be exempt from CEQA because the encampment on Avenida Pico has a significant effect on the environment.
Jinhy Yoon, Sea Summit resident, described the negative impacts associated with the Pico encampment.
Bill Hart, San Clemente, stated that it is not San Clemente's job to solve homelessness in Orange County; stressed that citizens want law and order.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1676 entitled AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1674 FINDING THAT EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO IMMEDIATE THREATS TO THE
PUBLIC HEAL TH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE REQUIRE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 1674 RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.86
PROHIBITING CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, EXCEPT AS
PERMITTED HEREIN.
432
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 10
2. E. Ordinance No. 1677 (Second Reading) - Rules for Transitional Camps R. Joshua Collins, Homeless Advocates for Christ, spoke on the need to help people transition to a better life.
Rachel Ashton, San Clemente, described concerns relating to the degradation of the City due to vagrants and conveyed that she feels disenfranchised.
Cathy Domenichini, San Clemente, asserted that a greater security guard presence is needed at the Pico encampment and suggested that a curfew should be established.
Terry Rousseau, San Clemente, suggested that a registration process should be implemented for campers at the Pico site, which includes establishing camper identity and an inventory of personal property.
Doug Schaaf, San Clemente, spoke in support of a curfew at the Pico camp.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 3-1 (COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON VOTING NOE),
to adopt Ordinance No. 1677 entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE ADDING SECTION
8.86.050 TO THE SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RULES FOR TRANSITIONAL CAMPS.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (PART 1)
Council deferred Oral Communications Part 1 to later in the meeting, to be heard concurrently with Oral Communications Part 2.
3. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to waive reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances.
4. CONSIDERATION OF AGENDIZING ITEMS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION None.
(
433
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 11
5. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY
Capistrano Shores, Inc. v. City of San Clemente
Deputy City Attorney Hull reported that during this evening's Closed Session, Council approved a settlement agreement to resolve the case of Capistrano Shores, Inc. v. City of San Clemente, noting that the agreement will be made public after it has been fully executed; explained that some follow-up action will be agendized for future Council consideration.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the removal of Items 6B-11, 6B-12, 6-F, 6-P, 6-U, 6-V, 6-W, 6-X, 6-Z, 6-AA, 6-BB.
A City Council Minutes
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
(1) Approve the City Council Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2019.
(2) Approve the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2019.
B. Commission/Committee Minutes
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to receive and file:
(1) Investment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 26, 2018.
(2) Investment Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2019.
(3) Golf Course Committee Regular Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2019. (4) Coastal Advisory Committee Regular Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2019.
Action continued on next page
434
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 12 C.
(5) Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2019. (6) Beaches, Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2019.
(7) Human Affairs Committee Regular Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2019.
(8) Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2019. (9) Planning Commission Regular Study Session Minutes of June 19, 2019.
(10) Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2019. (13) Planning Commission Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2019.
Warrant Register
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2050
through 2051 paid on 5/31/19 and
Warrant Nos. 559169 through 559317,
paid on 6-14-19, in the amount of ................................. $1,071,345.93 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2052
through 2055 and Warrant Nos.
559318 through 559456, paid on
6-21-19, in the amount of ............................................. $1,751,311.67 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2056
through 2057 paid on 5/31/19 and
Warrant Nos. 559457 through 559686,
paid on 6-28-19, in the amount of ................................. $1,568,124.77 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2058
through 2066 and Warrant Nos.
559687 through 559813, paid on
7-5-19, in the amount of ............................................... $2,935,719.65 Warrant Register continued on next page
(
I
\_
(
435
[
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Approve Handwrite Nos. 559814
through 559823, paid on 7-8-19,
Wire Transfers Nos. 2067
through 2070 and Warrant Nos.
559824 through 560034, paid on
7-12-19, in the amount of .............................................. $3,658,229.51 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2071
through 2074 and Warrant Nos.
560035 through 560204, paid on
7-19-19, in the amount of ............................................... $1,323,542.82 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2075
through 2076 and Warrant Nos.
560205 through 560372, paid on
7-26-19, in the amount of ............................................... $1,290,359.95 Approve Wire Transfers Nos. 2077
through 2082 and Warrant Nos.
560373 through 560560, paid on
8-1-19, in the amount of.. .............................................. $3,013,303.85 Approve Handwrite No. 560758,
Wire Transfers Nos. 2083
through 2084 and Warrant Nos.
560561 through 560757, paid on
8-9-19, in the amount of ................................................. $1,476,748.81 TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER. .................. $18,088,686.96 Payroll Register
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
Approve Warrant Nos. 729 through
732 and Automatic Deposit Advises
56918 through 57256, for the period
6-3-19 through 6-16-19, paid on
6-21-19, in the amount of ............................................... $ 507,112.70 Payroll Register continued on next page
436
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 14 D.
Approve Warrant Nos. 733 through
735 and Automatic Deposit Advises
57257 through 57576, for the period
6-17-19 through 6-30-19, paid on
7-5-19, in the amount of ................................................. $ 508,398.96 Approve Warrant Nos. 736 through
739 and Automatic Deposit Advises
57577 through 57918, for the period
7-1-19 through 7-14-19, paid on
7-19-19, in the amount of ............................................... $ 534,096.03 Approve Warrant Nos. 740 through
7 42 and Automatic Deposit Advises
57919 through 58244, for the period
7-15-19 through 7-28-19, paid on
8-1-19, in the amount of .................................................. $ 531,698.12 TOTAL PAYROLL REGISTER. ..................... $2,081,305.81 Purchase Contract - Asbestos Remediation at the Orange County Sheriff Substation at 100 Avenida Presidio
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract C19- 56, a purchase contract by and between the City of San Clemente and Harbro Emergency Services & Restoration, providing for remediation of asbestos at the Orange County Sheriff Substation, located at 100 Avenida Presidio, in the amount of $83,573.
2. Approve a 10% contingency amount of $8,357 if needed for this work.
3. Approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $91,930 from the General Fund Unassigned Balance to Account 001-617-43410- 000-00000 (Maintenance of Buildings).
(
437
[
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 15 E.
G.
H.
Phase 1 Moving Expenses - 910 Calle Negocio Building Architectural Services
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to approve redirecting $36,000 from the Negocio remodel construction management and inspection budget for use on first phase moving expenses via a purchase order with Coast Valley Moving and Storage.
Notice of Completion - San Clemente Municipal Pier ADA
Accessibility Improvements
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve an increase in the project contingency from $32,000 to $38,220.
2. Accept the San Clemente Municipal Pier ADA Accessibility Improvements from the contractor, John S. Meek Company, Inc., Project No. 16811.
3. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the San Clemente Municipal Pier ADA Accessibility Improvements.
4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Payment Bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against John S.
Meek Company, Inc.
5. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond upon receipt of a Warranty Bond in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
Final Parcel Map 2018-165- Lindley/Penn Condos at 2489 S. Ola Vista
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Accept on behalf of the City of San Clemente the water rights as dedicated.
Action continued on next page
438
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 16 I.
2. Approve Final Parcel Map 2018-165 as it conforms to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act and the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map.
3. Authorize the Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute the Final Parcel Map upon verification that all fees have been paid. (
4. Authorize the City Clerk to execute and submit the Final Parcel Map to the County of Orange Recorder's Office for recordation. ( Notice of Completion - FY 2016 and FY 2017 Sidewalk Repair Program
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Accept the FY 2016 and FY 2017 Sidewalk Repair Program, Project No. 16355 and 27307, from the contractor, Calpromax Engineering, Inc.
2. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the FY 2016 and FY 2017 Sidewalk Repair Program.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Payment Bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against Calpromax Engineering, Inc.
4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond upon receipt of a Warranty Bond in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
J. Sidewalk Easement and Waterline Easement- 620 Avenida Pico
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Accept the Sidewalk Easement and Waterline Easement from 620 Avenida Pico, LLC.
2. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern and City Clerk to execute the Sidewalk Easement Deed and Waterline Easement Deed.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to submit the Sidewalk Easement Deed and the Waterline Easement Deed to the Orange County Recorder's Office for recordation.
439
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 17 K.
L.
Proposed Parking Prohibition - Avenida La Pata
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Prohibit parking on the south side of Avenida La Pata, as specified in the Location Map attached to the Administrative Report, dated August 20, 2019, which is on file with the City Clerk.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-27, entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING MASTER TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 1846,
ESTABLISHING 'NO PARKING AREAS' ON AVENIDA LA PATA.
Notice of Completion - Boys and Girls Club Trash Enclosure
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Accept the construction of the Boys and Girls Club Trash Enclosure (Project No. 19510) from the contractor, West Gate Contractor.
2. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the Boys and Girls Club Trash Enclosure.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Payment Bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against West Gate Contractor.
4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond upon receipt of a Warranty Bond in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
M. Notice of Completion - Fire Station No. 59 Diesel Fuel Tank
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Accept the construction of the Fire Station No. 59 Diesel Fuel Tank (Project No. 16812) from the contractor, Tafoya & Associates.
2. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the Fire Station No. 59 Diesel Fuel Tank.
Action continued on next page
440
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 18
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Payment Bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against Tafoya & Associates.
4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond upon receipt ( of a Warranty Bond in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
5. Approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $20,900 from the Public Facilities Construction Fund - Reserve for Public Safety Construction to Account 030-818-45300-000-16812.
N. Proposed Calle Las Bolas/Avenida Florencia Intersection Re-Striping Concept
0. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to approve implementation of the proposed intersection concept at the Calle Las Bolas/Avenida Florencia intersection to remove existing large radius right-turn yield lanes using striping and raised pavement markers.
Ratification of Emergency Construction Contract and Notice of Completion - Emergency Repairs of the Recycled Water Filter Backwash Force Main at the Water Reclamation Plant
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Make a finding that an emergency existed due to the potential failure of delivery of recycled water due to a broken pipe and loss of recycled water production during peak summer demands. This situation required immediate action to avoid putting many customers out of recycled water for an extended period of time.
2. Declare that the public interest and necessity demanded the immediate expenditure of public funds to safeguard public needs and interest.
3. Ratify the Emergency Construction Contract by and between the City of San Clemente and Gwinco Construction & Engineering Inc., providing for the Emergency Repairs of the Recycled Water Backwash Force Main, at the Water Reclamation Plant, Project No. 24401, in the amount of $109,927.42. (Contract C19-58)
Action continued on next page
(
I
441
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 19
4. Accept the Emergency Repairs of the Recycled Water Backwash Force Main at the Water Reclamation Plant.
5. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the Emergency Repairs of the Recycled Water Backwash Force Main at the Water Reclamation Plant.
6. Authorize the City Clerk to release the retention 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against Gwinco Construction & Engineering Inc., and upon receipt of a Warranty Bond from Gwinco Construction & Engineering Inc. in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
7. Approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $135,000 from the Water Operating undesignated fund balance to Account 052-466- 43420-000-24401, Annual Water System Rehabilitation.
Q. Contract Award - Supply and Delivery of Polymer - South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) and Polydyne, Inc.
R.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract C 19-59, a joint contract through South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) and Polydyne, Inc., providing for supply and delivery of Polymer.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve up to three one-year extensions to the contract if SOCWA and the City make a determination to extend the contract after the initial two-year period.
Ratification of Emergency Construction Contract - Repairs to Recycled Waterline on Avenida Vista Hermosa
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Make a finding that an emergency existed due to the need to restore recycled water service to protect property, health and safety in the event of an extended outage during the summer months.
Action continued on next page
442
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 20 S.
2. Declare that the public interest and necessity demanded the immediate expenditure of public funds to safeguard public needs and interest.
3. Ratify the Emergency Construction Contract by and between the City of San Clemente and O'Connell Engineering and Construction, providing for Repairs to a Recycled Waterline on Avenida Vista Hermosa (Project 24401), in the amount of $34,636.34. (Contract C14-23)
4. Accept the Emergency Repairs to a Recycled Waterline on Avenida Vista Hermosa.
5. Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, and the City Clerk to record, the Notice of Completion for the Emergency Repairs to a Recycled Waterline on Avenida Vista Hermosa.
6. Authorize the City Clerk to release the 5% retention 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against O'Connell Engineering and Construction and upon receipt of a Warranty Bond from O'Connell Engineering and Construction in the amount of 25% of the construction cost.
Replacement of Fleet Vehicle No. 1024
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve the purchase of a 2020 Ford Explorer from Tuttle-Click Ford Lincoln from the Fleet Replacement Reserve for the replacement of Fleet Vehicle No. 1024.
2. Authorize a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $31,663 to Fleet Automotive Account 065-824-45600 from the Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund balance.
T. Acceptance of 2019 Donation from the Friends of San Clemente Beaches, Parks and Recreation Foundation
(
i
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER ( HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to accept a donation from the Friends of San Clemente Beaches, Parks and Recreation Foundation in the amount of $30,500 to be used towards recreation programs and scholarships. l 443
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 21 Y. Payment Authorization for Maintenance and Support Renewal for Superion Trakit Software
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Authorize payment to Superion, LLC, a Central Square Company, in the amount of $36,732 in Fiscal Year 2019-20, for maintenance and support renewal for Superion Trakit Software.
2. Authorize payment to Superion, LLC, a Central Square Company, in an amount not to exceed $38,569 in Fiscal Year 2020-21, for maintenance and support renewal for Superion Trakit Software.
3. Authorize payment to Superion, LLC, a Central Square Company, in an amount not to exceed $40,497 in Fiscal Year 2021-22, for maintenance and support renewal for Superion Trakit Software.
CC. Municipal Facility License Agreement - New Cingular Wireless PCS
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve, and authorize the Mayor Pro Tern (or designee) to execute, Contract C19-61, a Municipal Facility License agreement by and between the City of San Clemente and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, providing for the installation of small wireless
telecommunications facilities within the public right-of-way.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute future extensions to this agreement, as specified in the lease, provided that the lease rate is not reduced.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
8(11). Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2019 Council referred to Page 7 of the Planning Commission minutes of July 17, 2019, which included a request from the Planning Commission that Council allow the Commission to review Section 17.04.040 of the San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) and possibly make recommendations to Council for potential amendments. During the ensuing discussion, Council indicated receptivity to the Commission's recommendation, provided the Code section review would not apply to the West of Artifex project that is currently under consideration.
444
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 22
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to authorize the Planning Commission to review SCMC Section 17.04.040 and make recommendations to Council if it desires, and to receive and file the Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes of July 17, 2019.
8(12). Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2019 (
Councilmember Ferguson withdrew her request to pull the Zoning l, Administrator minutes of July 18, 2019 for discussion, in light of the Council's action concerning the minutes of the Planning Commission minutes of July 17, 2018, which were considered immediately prior to this item.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, SECOND BY MAYOR
PRO TEM BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to receive and file the Zoning Administrator Regular Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2019.
F. Contract Award - Marine Safety Building and Bulkhead Repairs and Accessibility Improvements
Brad Malamud, San Clemente, voiced concern with the cost to repair the Marine Safety Building, suggested it would be more prudent to construct a new building, and opined that the proposed contract should have been attached to the Administrative Report.
Ken Nielsen, San Clemente, recommended that Council develop a plan for a new Marine Safety building instead of repairing the current structure.
Following discussion, MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WARD, CARRIED 3-1 (COUNCILMEMBER
FERGUSON VOTING NOE), to:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Marine Safety Building and Bulkhead Repairs, and Accessibility Improvements, Project No. 16530.
2. 3.
Approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $525,800 from the Facilities Maintenance Reserve Fund to Account 014-811- 45300-000-16530.
Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract C19- 57, by and between the City of San Clemente and John S. Meek Company, Inc., providing for the Marine Safety Building and Bulkhead Repairs, and Accessibility Improvements, in the amount of $1,322,380.
(
445
r
l
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 23 P. Contract Amendments -As-Needed Building Plan Check and Building Code Inspection Services
Brad Malamud, San Clemente, voiced concern with the lack of details, including the absence of the proposed contract, in the Administrative Report.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER WARD, CARRIED 4-0, to:
1. Approve, and authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, Amendment No. 1 to Contract AC-826, by and between the City of San Clemente and West Coast Code Consultants, providing as-needed building plan check and building code inspection services for the Building Division. This Amendment increases the contract amount from $25,000 to $130,000, an increase of $105,000. Of the increased amount, $15,000 is allotted for plan review services and $90,000 is allotted for inspection services.
2. Approve, and authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to execute, Amendment No. 1 to Contract AC-827, by and between the City of San Clemente and lnterwest Consulting Group, providing for as-needed building plan check services for the Building Division. This Amendment increases the contract amount from $25,000 to $30,000, an increase of $5,000.
U. Installation of a Commemorative Tile at the Ole Hanson Beach Club to Recognize Evangeline "Van" Rutan
Recreation Manager Wylie provided an overview of the proposal.
Ken Nielsen, San Clemente, stated that Van Rutan taught San Clemente how to swim and opined that she deserves to be honored with a commemorative tile at the Ole Hanson Beach Club.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM
BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the installation of a commemorative tile for Evangeline "Van" Rutan at the Ole Hanson Beach Club in the location specified in Attachment 2 of the Administrative Report, dated August 20, 2019, which is on file with the City Clerk.
446
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 24 V. Installation of an Educational Sign Regarding the Pier and PierPride Recreation Manager Wylie displayed a photograph of the educational pier sign and responded to Council inquiries.
Council noted that the subject sign is located in an Architectural Overlay and emphasized that the sign should have gone through the City's discretionary processes, and ultimately been approved by Council, prior to installation. ~
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WARD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to approve the installation of an educational sign on the San Clemente Pier regarding the Pier and PierPride, which was donated by PierPride.
MEETING RECESSED
Council recessed at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened at 10:33 p.m., with all members present.
W. Zoning Amendment 19-189 Update - Proposed Ordinance to Amend Permitting Requirements for Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in Response to Recent Federal Communications Commission Regulations
X.
In response to Council inquiry, Associate Planner Crockett, together with Attorney Andrew Mccardle with Best, Best and Krieger, explained City limitations with regard to its review of cell tower applications.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER WARD, CARRIED 4-0, to receive and file the Administrative Report, dated August 20, 2019, concerning an update to Zoning Amendment 19-189 (Permitting Requirements for Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in Response to Recent Federal Communications Commission Regulations).
Initiation of Specific Plan Amendment - Public Safety Uses in the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan
Senior Planner Roxas provided an overview of the proposal and responded to Council inquiries.
Mark Moran, San Clemente, narrated a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file with the City Clerk; expressed concern with the Specific Plan Amendment due to the proximity of public safety uses to residences, the (
(
\
447
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 25 ridge route trail and skate park; opined that the Amendment would increase the fire risk.
Vonne Barnes, President of the Rancho San Clemente Community Association, narrated a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file with the City Clerk; voiced concern that residences, the ridge route trail, and animal shelter are located within the Rancho San Clemente High Fire Zone.
Tom Barnes, San Clemente, continued Mrs. Barnes' PowerPoint presentation; expressed safety concerns with camp sites being allowed within the Rancho San Clemente Industrial area and urged Council to table the issue.
Shelley Moore, San Clemente, urged Council to oppose the Specific Plan Amendment, suggesting that homeless individuals will traverse residential areas and that the potential for fire and safety problems would increase.
Susan Smith, San Clemente, noted that the Pico camp has caused problems in the Sea Summit neighborhood; spoke in support of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; suggested that the money that would have been used to establish a homeless shelter would be better spent to form a San Clemente Police Department.
Douglas Schaaf, San Clemente, spoke in support of the initiation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; suggested a homeless camp should not be located within 500' of a residence; asserted that most fires are started by arsonists and that there is no correlation between homeless persons and a proclivity to start fires.
Marcie Skinner, San Clemente, urged Council to relocate the encampment from Pico to stop the current vandalism that adjacent residents are encountering.
Lyndie OToole, San Clemente, spoke in opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, noting her concern with the fire danger in Rancho San Clemente.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, CARRIED 4-0, to initiate a Specific Plan Amendment, as authorized by Municipal Code Section 17 .16.030(0), to amend the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan to include public safety uses as a permitted use in the Industrial Park Zone as well as a 4th fire station. Further, to direct Staff to consider other properties in the City (including property not owned by the City) that may be appropriate for public safety uses.
448
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 26 z. Contract Negotiation and Award - Hospital Transactional Consultation Brad Malamud, San Clemente, voiced concern that the Administrative Report lacks sufficient information and does not include the proposed contract; urged Council to oppose this item. (
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to authorize the City Manager ~ to negotiate and execute an agreement, providing for hospital consulting services, based on the terms outlined in the Administrative Report, dated August 20, 2019, which is on file with the City Clerk, in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Council directed that the $10,000 maximum contract allocation be spent only when needed. (Contract C19-60) AA. Contract Amendment - Legal Services (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) Brad Malamud, San Clemente, voiced concern that expenditures for services performed by O'Melveny & Myers have already exceeded $145,000, even though the original contract was for $100,000; voiced concern that the reason for O'Melveny & Myers retainer has not been disclosed.
Following discussion, MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER WARD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON, CARRIED 4-0, to recess to Closed Session at 11 :33 p.m. to discuss the below item that relates to the TCA and potential fiscal improprieties. (Note: This item appears as Closed Session Item D on this evening's Closed Session agenda):
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4)
Number of potential cases: 1
Council reconvened at 11 :45 p.m., with all members present.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 3-1 (COUNCILMEMBER FERGUSON VOTING NOE),
to approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Amendment No. 1 ( to Contract C19-54, by and between the City of San Clemente and O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, providing for legal services. This amendment i increases the contract amount from $100,000 to $150,000, an increase of t, $50,000.
449
City Council Minutes - Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 27 Disposition of Future Agenda Items Due to the Lateness of the Hour
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0 to 1) consider Item 6-BB at this time, 2) open and continue the three Public Hearing items to the Council meeting of September 3, 2019, and 3) continue the balance of the agenda to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
BB. Amicus Brief in Support of Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to Grant Review of the Ninth Circuit's Decision in Martin v. City of Boise Brad Malamud, San Clemente, opposed the City expending $10,000 toward an amicus curiae brief with regard to the case of Martin v. City of Boise.
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER WARD, CARRIED 4-0, to direct the City Attorney to authorize Special Counsel's preparation and filing of an amicus curiae brief in support of the City of Boise's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in the matter of Martin v. City of Boise.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Ordinance Introduction - Regulation of the Operation of Leaf Blowers Public Hearing to consider regulation of leaf blower operations.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to open and continue the Public Hearing concerning regulation of the operation of leaf blowers to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
B. Ordinance Introduction - Park Ranger Enforcement Authority Public Hearing to consider establishing enforcement authority for park rangers.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to open and continue the Public Hearing on Park Ranger enforcement authority to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
450
City Council Minutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 28 C. Ordinance Introduction - Sidewalk Vending Regulations Public Hearing to consider establishing sidewalk vending regulations.
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER ( HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to open and continue the Public Hearing concerning sidewalk vending regulations to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Installation of Monofilament Recycling Canisters on the Pier
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue this item to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (PARTS 1 AND 2)
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue Oral Communications to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
11. REPORTS
A. Commissions and Committees
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue this item to the City Council meeting of ( B.
September 3, 2019.
City Manager
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue this item to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
i
L
451
City Council M inutes- Special and Regular Meeting of August 20, 2019 Page 29 C. City Attorney
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue this item to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
D. Council Members
(1) Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) to League of California Cities Annual Conference
MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, SECOND BY
COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, CARRIED 4-0, to continue this item to the City Council meeting of September 3, 2019.
12. RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES
*Note: The second reading of Ordinance No. 1676 (Prohibiting Camping on Public Property) and the second reading of Ordinance No. 1677 (Rules for Transitional Camps) were acted upon earlier in this meeting. Please refer to Pages 9 and 10 of these minutes for a summary of those actions.
13. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMM, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BANE, CARRIED 4-0, to adjourn at 11 :53 p.m. to an Adjourned Regular Council Meeting to be held on September 3, 2019 in the Council Chambers, located at 100 Avenida Presidio, San Clemente, California. Closed Session items will be considered at 4:30 p.m. and the regular business meeting will take place at 6:00 p.m.
MA=:;;
~R PRO :t: TEM of th
San Clemente, California
ITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
452
Exhibit B
453
City Council Rejects Homeless Shelter
Proposals | San Clemente Times
By Staff
On August 22, 2019
SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories.
We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community.
Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
By Cari Hachmann
San Clemente residents and business owners showed up in number at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, a majority of whom voiced strong opposition to the city’s consideration of leasing a property at 950 Calle Negocio for use as a temporary homeless shelter. 454 After hearing from a number of speakers, including Housing is a Human Right-OC supporters, the four councilmembers decided to hold a straw poll vote on the first agenda item.
The council unanimously voted to reject city staff’s recommendation for both a proposed 10-year lease for a 35-bed temporary homeless shelter at 950 Calle Negocio and a Request for Proposal for a shelter operator. After more public comments, the council took a final vote on the matter and again rejected the proposals.
According to Michael Johnston, city management analyst, staff reached out to four property owners within the city’s SB2 overlay zone shelter in the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, an area the city had designated by law for an emergency shelter. Only one responded, and the property owner’s terms included a 10-year lease agreement for $1.14 million, with the total cost including a 3% annual increase, Johnston said.
However, City Manager James Makshanoff, who has had ongoing talks with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, said that even if the proposed shelter housed 35 of San Clemente’s reported 96 unsheltered individuals, it was still unclear whether Sheriff’s deputies would enforce the city’s anti-camping ordinances, which prohibit people from camping in public places.
“Their feeling is that if we want enforcement of our camping ordinance, then we need to be Martin v. Boise-compliant,” Makshanoff said.
Yet, Makshanoff said Martin v. Boise is vague on the issue, and he echoed a majority sentiment that the Sheriff’s hands are tied due to lawsuits in North and Central County with homeless advocates.
Because enforcement is “up in the air” even with a shelter, Makshanoff said, “It is difficult on my side of the dais here to recommend approval of the lease for 10 years.”
Many residents expressed disapproval of the shelter idea, saying it would be expensive, bad for business and that “housing first” is not 455
the right approach to address homelessness.
Others pointed to the County of Orange to step up and direct its financial resources toward a countywide solution.
Bane said he and the council take the comments to heart. “We do want to do something for our homeless from San Clemente—that have ties to San Clemente—but the state of the law is such that we cannot guarantee that if we open a shelter, like Tustin or others, that we can limit it to the folks that we are responsible for, so that’s the basis for the decision tonight. We are going to work towards getting to a definitive point where we can control the problem, address the problem on a regional basis, so that we do not become the regional clearinghouse for all of the homeless in Orange County.” The San Clemente City Council also voted to table an agenda item initiated by Councilmember Laura Ferguson that would have established a standing committee on homelessness.
The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 3, at 6 p.m.
Share this:
456
Exhibit C
457
ORDINANCE NJ. 1475
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE GENERAL PLAN TO REQUIRE CITY
VOTER APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS,
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTIONS
AND ZONING MvIENDMENTS THAT CHANGE THE PERMITTED
USES OF OPEN SPACE LANDS TO NON-OPEN SPACE USES
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the City of San Clemente General Plan identifies various classifications of permitted uses for the real property located within the City and the City's sphere of influence and includes a Land Use Plan l'vfap which designates the permitted land uses for all such areas; and
WHEREAS, among the General Plan land use classifications are five (5) classifications for open space uses, designated OS 1, OS 2, OS 3. OSC, and OSR, respectively (collectively, the <;General Plan Open Space Classifications"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable California law, · including without limitation Government Code Sections 65860 and 65454, the City's zoning and any adopted specific plans are required to be consistent with the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente Zoning Ordinance set fo1th in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Clemente and the adopted Pier Bowl, Forster Ranch, Marblehead Coastal, Marblehead Inland, Rancho San Clemente, Talega, and West Pico Corridor Specific Plans (collectively, the "Specific Plans") implement the City's General Plan, establish zones and planning areas within which various land use;s are permitted, and incorporate an official zoning map and specific plan maps designating the permitted land uses for all such areas; and
WHEREAS, among the zones set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance are eight (8) zones for open space uses, designated OS 1 (Public Parks and Publicly Owned Open Space), OS S l (Publicly Owned Open Space-Shoreline), OS 2 (Privately Owned Open Space), OS S2 (Privately Owned Open Space-Shoreline), OS 3 (Privately Owned Open Space (Restricted by Easement), OSC (Golf Courses and Commercial Recreation), S-1 (Shoreline District, applicable within the North Beach Study Area), and O-A (Open Area and Recreation District, applicable within the North Beach Study Area), respectively (collectively, the "Open Space Zones"); and WHEREAS, each property in the City that is designated as being located within one of the General Plan Open Space Classifications has been placed \Vithin the corresponding Open Space Zone or has been designated within the applicable Specific Plan for similar open space uses (the "Specific Plan Open Space Areas"); and
WHEREAS, the properties within the City and the City's sphere of influence located within one or more of the designated General Plan Open Space Classifications, Open Space Zones, or Specific Plan Open Space Areas as of the date this Ordinance becomes effective are collectively referred to herein as the "Open Space Areas"; and . --- ------·· ... ,. , ______________ 458 _
459
460
Ordinance No. 1475 Page 4
Notw·ithstanding the foregoing, a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, Zoning Ordinance amendment, Specific Plan adoption, or zone change that authorizes or pennits Non-Open Space Uses in an Open Space Area shall not be subject to this Section V.Y and shall be permitted without City voter approval in the following circumstances only:
1. Upon the application of an affected landowner, if the City Council finds, based on substantial evidence, that the City's failure or refusal to reclassify the Open Space Area in question to a Non-Open Space Use would constitute an unconstitutional taking of the landowner's property; provided, however, that any such reclassification shall be made only to the extent necessary to avoid such an unconstitutional taking; or
2. Upon the application of an affected landowner to convert the Open Space Area to a residential use if the City Council determines that doing so is necessary to comply with federal or state law regarding the provision of housing.
The City Council may do so only if it first makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record: (a) a specific provision of federal or state law requires the City to accommodate the proposed housing; (b) the amount of land to be reclassified is no greater than necessary to accommodate the required housing; (c) no alternative site within the City that is not an Open Space Area could be used to satisfy the applicable federal or state housing law; and (d) the proposed housing will be located adjacent to already developed lands and roads, unless locating the development in such areas would result in greater environmental impacts, would conflict with federal .or state laws, or would not be feasible; or
3. To the extent not currently authorized in the applicable General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Ordinance provisions applicable to a particular Open Space Area as of the effective date of Resolution No. 07-68, an amendment or modification to the class of authorized and permitted uses that authorizes or permits the construction, maintenance, and use of public roadways, public utilities, interpretive centers, amphitheaters, museums, public art, public facilities (including but not limited to structures for police, fire, and marine safety), active or passive recreational facilities, and facilities ancillary to the permitted Open Space Uses, including but not limited to parking facilities, lighting, signage, and public restrooms; or
4. To the extent the City Council determines, based on substantial evidence, that such reclassification is reasonably related to and required for either (a) a project for the stabilization of public or private buildings or property on adjacent land situated outside the Open Space Area that is being so reclassified; or (b) a project for the repair or restoration of damage to public or private buildings or property on adjacent land situated outside the Open Space that is being so reclassified; or
5. Upon the application of an affected landowner, the reclassification of an area of no more than one ( 1) acre in size, to the extent the City Council 4 461
462
Exhibit D
463
Pico Plaza Shopping Mall Site –
Fully Developed, Unsuitable, and Unavailable for Residential Development
Source: Figure 4‐1 Source: ocgov.com/octaxmap
Source: maps.google.com
464
Orange County Mattress Site –
Fully Developed, Unsuitable, and Unavailable for Residential Development Source: Figure 4‐1 Source: ocgov.com/octaxmap
Source: maps.google.com
465
Plaza Pacifico Site –
Fully Developed, Unsuitable, and Unavailable for Residential Development Source: Figure 4‐1 Source: ocgov.com/octaxmap
Source: maps.google.com
466
Target/Tesla Supercharger Site –
Fully Developed, Unsuitable, and Unavailable for Residential Development
Source: Figure 4‐1 Source: ocgov.com/octaxmap
Source: maps.google.com
467
ESC Parcel Site – Vacant, Undeveloped, Suitable, and Available for Use
Source: Figure 4‐1 Source: ocgov.com/octaxmap
Source: maps.google.com
468
CONNOR, FLETCHER & HEDENKAMP LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2211 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 T: 949.622.2600
E-MAIL: [email protected]
December 6, 2021
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Housing Policy Analyst and Specialist California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) [email protected]
Mr. Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager
California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) [email protected]
VIA EMAIL
Re: City of San Clemente 2021-2029 Housing Element, Dated October 5, 2021 Dear Ms. Prasse and Mr. McDougall:
We thank you both for joining the Zoom meeting on November 15, 2021 that was organized by Kathy Esfahani of the San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition, with numerous attendees, including several of us participating on behalf of the Emergency Shelter Coalition (“ESC”) i.e., Ed Connor, Sue Whittaker, and me. As you indicated during the meeting, HCD sent a letter to the City of San Clemente on August 6, 2021, with an Appendix of necessary changes that the City would be required to make to its June 7, 2021 draft of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to fully comply with the State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
Two months after receiving HCD’s letter, on October 5, 2021 the City Council voted unanimously to adopt its 2021-2029 Housing Element. Regrettably, however, the City did little to address the designated changes in HCD’s letter concerning “Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints,” especially involving emergency shelters, or the proposed amendments in ESC’s two (2) letters dated June 28 and August 9, 2021, each of which requested that the City make important revisions for compliance purposes.
As detailed below, rather than respond to the specific issues in each of these letters, the City, instead, used a series of circular arguments by which it basically claimed that the ES Overlay Zone is suitable simply because we say so (e.g., “[t]he vacant and underutilized parcels within the ES Overlay provide realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter, and the services within and adjacent to the ES Overlay provide suitable capacity”). In making such assertions, the City made no attempt to provide adequate zoning for emergency shelters, and it continued to promote unrealistic land use controls of only 35-beds per shelter and a 300-foot separation that will needlessly deter any development of the three (3) emergency shelters necessary to meet the City’s population of 96 unhoused residents (which is likely much higher now due to the Covid-19 pandemic, rising inflation, and rapidly increasing residential leasing and housing prices).
469
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
Sadly, however, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Here, the City has not changed its behavior over the past many years involving the development of emergency shelters.
In fact, the City appears to have become only more entrenched in making sure that there are never any homeless shelters developed in the area. The City’s latest approval of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element is no different. The City made no mention whatsoever of any efforts to get this done, and simply added a few sentences here and there to make it appear the City was still seeking compliance. But, with such a lackluster response, ESC can only conclude that the City will continue to just spin its wheels doing nothing -- unless and until it is truly forced to start making changes.
As detailed below, ESC respectfully requests that HCD take a firm stance to ensure that, if the City continues to circumvent the list of revisions identified by HCD for the development of emergency shelters, and does not take immediate action to cause positive changes, there will be serious consequences. ESC submits that the delay game by the City must be brought to a halt by HCD. The City cannot be allowed to continue obstructing the development of emergency shelters for yet another eight (8) years, while the unhoused residents of the City are left to fend for themselves on the streets of San Clemente.
ESC further submits that, with a few key changes to the Housing Element, and HCD holding fast to its position that the City must adopt such revisions, positive changes will occur.
The City will modify its behavior because it will make a difference for the City to do so. Most importantly, however, we will finally see the development of emergency shelters and supportive housing for those most in need.
A. HCD’s August 6, 2021 Letter Provided a List of Specific Revisions to the City’s Draft Housing Element, Including Elements for Emergency Shelters In its August 6, 2021 letter, HCD called for the City to step up and make revisions under the elements specified in Section “A. Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints,” and Finding 4, which states:
“An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)…
“Sites and Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types – Emergency Shelters: The element must describe the characteristics and suitability of the zone(s) for emergency shelters. In particular, the element should analyze the limit of 35 beds per shelter as a constraint, the lack of interest in developing an emergency shelter in the last planning period, and the efficacy of the ride share program. In addition, as per public comments, given any past or current litigation involving the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, the element should analyze the suitability of the sites identified, challenges, and constraints, and if deemed unsuitable, identify additional sites where emergency shelters can be accommodated by-right.”
Unfortunately, in its Housing Element dated October 5, 2021, the City made little effort to address the factors outlined in HCD’s letter, as detailed below. 470
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
B. The City Failed to Adequately Describe the Characteristics and Suitability of the Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters
1. Failure to Adequately Describe the Characteristics of the ES Overlay Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters:
With respect to the characteristics of the Emergency Shelter Overlay (“ES Overlay”) Zone, the City described its location within a portion of the Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (“RSC Business Park” or “Business Park”), and attached a Figure 3-1 showing that the General Plan Land Use was “LI – Light Industrial.” However, the City did not describe the characteristics of the Business Park, or explain that it principally consists of office complexes and industrial buildings typically ranging from 9,000 sq. ft. to 43,000 sq. ft. in size, and with prices between $188 to $264 or more per square foot. The City also did not explain that the smaller spaces are typically in multi-tenant buildings, making it unlikely that a landlord would rent to an emergency shelter, or that the building would have the required fire exits needed for an overnight shelter.
The City identified a few criteria that it used to select the ES Overlay Zone, but failed to fully explain or adequately describe them, including the last one (i.e., “Realistic potential for development,” presumably because the City knew it was untrue), as follows:
Close to public transit
Near public services
Near job centers
Free from environmental constraints
Realistic potential for development
2. Failure to Adequately Describe the Suitability of the ES Overlay Zone(s) for Emergency Shelters:
For the suitability element, the City carefully avoided addressing the relevant issues. For example, under the heading of “Capacity of the ES Overlay,” the City opened with statements about its estimates of the amount of square feet needed per each shelter bed, and surmised that “a 35-bed shelter would require a building of about 5,250 feet.” In the post-pandemic environment, this undetailed estimate begs the question as to how possibly such a small shelter could feasibly provide shower, laundry, kitchen dining, intake, and other facilities, as well as hygienic sleeping quarters that were not just beds stacked on top of each other. The City must be required to provide a floorplan to support this patently unreasonable estimate.
The City also alleged that an “[a]dequate number of parcels/buildings in the ES Overlay can accommodate shelters of about 5,000 square feet.” Finally, to address HCD’s questions, it made the unsupported statement, that “The vacant and underutilized parcels within the ES Overlay provide realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter, and the services within and adjacent to the ES Overlay provide suitable capacity.” (See, HE-44.) As discussed in greater detail below, the City’s statements about the RSC Business Park having an adequate number of parcels and buildings to accommodate emergency shelters, and the purported claims that there is a realistic capacity for development of same, are simply untrue.
Not only did the City fail to include any evidence to support such misleading statements, but the examples offered by the City showed the opposite. In the end, it is clear that the ES Overlay Zone must be expanded to include other areas, and the City’s unreasonable land use constraints must be lifted to achieve full compliance with the State Housing Element Law. 471
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021
3. Failure To Analyze The Limit Of 35 Beds Per Shelter as a Constraint:
The City’s adopted Housing Element, dated October 5, 2021, failed to accurately describe the characteristics and suitability of the ES Overlay, as required by HCD’s Finding 4.
For example, on page HE-44, the Housing Element stated that a 35-bed shelter would require a building of about 5,250 square feet. It further indicated that, as of March 2021, there are four (4) vacant parcels in the ES Overlay. Two (2) of the parcels are large (over five (5) acres) but the other two (2) are smaller at 1.4 to 1.9 acres, and each of them “can easily accommodate shelters.” (HE-44; emphasis added.)
In making this assertion, the City failed to mention that none of these parcels is for sale, and three (3) of the parcels are located within 300 feet of each other, meaning that the development of three (3) separate 35-bed shelters to meet the needs of the 96 unhoused City residents could not be accommodated in the ES Overlay Zone (unless one shelter operator had excess millions of funds and resources to purchase or lease, build, and operate all of them).
Indeed, the City’s land use constraint of 35-bed maximum per shelter significantly prohibits the development of a shelter. Using the City’s example of the smallest vacant parcel of 1.4 acres, the current zoning would actually allow the development of a building consisting of 30,492 square feet at the allowable .5 FAR. Thus, the cost to purchase the 1.4-acre parcel, coupled with the restriction of being allowed to only host a maximum 35-bed emergency shelter in a building of 5,250 square feet, would be an enormous economic disadvantage and entirely cost prohibitive.
This constraint alone has, to date, precluded the development of any shelters in the ES Overlay Zone, and undoubtedly will continue to do so as long as it remains on the books.
The City is fully aware of this, but true to form, the City asserted otherwise. The City’s Housing Element described the ES Overlay area as having 25 parcels with building sizes of less than 10,000 square feet, as well as numerous other buildings of over 10,000 to 30,000 square feet, to suggest that the City was offering a plausible area for the ES Overlay Zone. As the attorney for the RSC Business Park, Mr. Tom Mauriello, however, admitted in an October 2019 informational meeting about the sale of the 10 acres of land across from the Business Park to ESC, it is unlikely a shelter will ever be built in the RSC Business Park because of economy of scale. He explained that “They’ve been tough parcels to get people interested in. We’ve talked to various buyers over the years and those efforts were unsuccessful.” In other words, the buildings and parcels are too large and too expensive for even one 35-bed shelter, let alone three (3) of them. (See attached Kidder Mathews report of the October 2019 meeting, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, p. 6.)
The City’s Housing Element also concluded that the RSC Business Park typically has some vacancies in its office buildings, with a range of sizes, to accommodate the development of a shelter, and this allegedly provided a “realistic capacity for development of an emergency shelter.” Based on a recent Commercial Office Space search dated November 18, 2021, however, even now with the over-supply of commercial office space in Southern California due to the Covid 19 pandemic, there are absolutely no sites in the RSC Business Park suitable for an emergency shelter. Using the City’s own estimated 5,250 square foot building size for a 35-bed maximum shelter, the list of available spaces are either way too small, and located adjacent to other commercial business office spaces in multi-unit business buildings, or are way too big for a 35-bed shelter since they constitute an entire building. Please see examples below and the attached example of available properties attached hereto as Exhibit 2:
472
Ms. Marisa Prasse
Mr. Paul McDougall
December 6, 2021