Dear Council, Item G-6 asks you to approve Resolution 6510 approving MP joining the California Community Housing Agency. The Staff Report needs more details and then the matter fully discussed as part of a *Regular Business* item. Joining a JPA is a serious step. MP's doing so would also signal endorsement of CCHA to other Cities considering joining. Before doing so, the matter needs a complete discussion based on full details. At minimum, I would like the report to include: - *Background correspondence* between the MP Community Development (and other) Staff and employees at Catalyst and CCHA that gives context. How did this agreement originate? - CCHA's History, Funding Sources, Outcomes and Beneficiary Impact, Independent Audit Report, size of their organization, current membership, properties currently owned and MP's expected yearly dues. I'd also like to see a few letters from other cities endorsing the organization and/or at least details pertaining to reference checks. - CCHA's business strategy. I'm also concerned about CCHA's plans to buy 777 Hamilton Avenue *for a rental property. *The Staff Report needed to better detail CCHA's business strategy. How does this fit with the City's affordable housing strategy, especially as it pertains to helping residents achieve home ownersihp. I consider 777 Hamilton suitable for condo conversion. The Staff Report also needs more details as to *why CCHA plans to try to buy 777 Hamilton Avenue* as its first MP property. Why this particular property, which was completed in (I believe) only 2016? The City used to own the 777, 785, 787, 791, 801, 811 and 821 properties that collectively became most of what became 777 Hamilton. The City most surely used public funds to make those purchases which it was forced to sell in 2012 when the State dissolved Community Development Agencies and the City was forced to sell the properties. Public Funds may also have been used to help Greenhart develop the property that became 777 Hamilton. If they were used, the report should include the amount and what the City got back in return. The public needs full transparency here. Other questions/comments: - Why does the current owner of 777 Hamilton Avenue want to sell to CCHA? Who currently owns it? - As part of a prior development agreement, Facebook was subsidizing 22 apartments for teachers. How many of the 22 live at 777 Hamilton Avenue? These arrangments were to end in five years. When will they end? What is Facebook's involvement, if any, with the proposal to join the CCHA JPA? - Turning 777 Hamilton into affordable housing for the middle and moderate income levels would only add to City's current concentration of affordable housing in District 1. Residents have expressed concerns about this imbalance and asked for this kind of housing to be fairly distributed across all of MP. I'm concerned about Staff Reports coming to Council that perpetuate a known problem. This contributes to the perception that Staff is not listening to residents' concerns. Can the Housing Element goals be updated to include the idea of adhering to the Fair Housing Act? As I understand it, concentrating affordable housing in one particular area violates the Fair Housing Act. The City's own website shows the concentration. What is the City's strategy on this topic? I also note that this particular deal seems hastily arranged with too few details. The proposal is also not directly tied to a clear Housing Element goal. Approving Resolution 6510 also seems to be turning over the City's responsibility to provide middle/moderate afforable housing to an outside group. While this might seem like a "quick fix" solution to MP's current jobs/housing imbalance, I think a better strategy is needed. Lynne Bramlett Received on Tue Jul 16 2019 - 17:57:35 PDT
