CORRESPONDENCE - #37 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana Planning Commission November 9, 2020 Page 3 their effectiveness by applying these parkland dedication requirements to all new market- rate projects, including those smaller than 100 units. Most importantly, we urge the City to take up these Code revisions now. Implementation Actions OS-1.6 and OS-1.15 both defer the amendments until 2022, two years after the City's planned Update adoption. By deferring implementation for two years, the City would create an extended period of legal uncertainty for developers, City residents and other stakeholders. During this period, the "no net loss of parkland" and expanded parkland dedication requirements for large developments would constitute City policy but would not yet be reflected in the Municipal Code. Projects will need to be consistent with the General Plan policies, but without Code revisions, developers will not know how to comply. The General Plan serves as a "constitution" for the regulation of future development in the City. DeVita v County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. The City's land use regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek(1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 544. To avoid an extended period of inconsistency between the General Plan and the Code and the resultant uncertainty, the City should adopt the Update concurrently with the Municipal Code amendments implementing Actions 0S-1.6 and OS-1.15. The City should not take action on the Update until those code amendments are also ready for adoption. By adopting the Update on a rushed timeline, the City also risks creating unintended consequences inconsistent with the City's affordable housing goals. In our October 6, 2020 letter to the City, which is hereby incorporated by reference, we urged the City to provide for more affordable housing under the Update and avoid undermining the Housing Element and the City's HOO. As we explained in that letter, the Update would cause substantial population growth, but fails to provide for sufficient deeply affordable housing, increasing the risk of displacement. Moreover, the Update's upzonings would reduce the HOO's effectiveness because the HOO's inclusionary requirements would apply to fewer projects. The Update would therefore impede General Plan Housing Element Policy 2.6, which calls for the inclusion of affordable units in new residential developments via the HOO. The City should avoid this inconsistency by deferring the Update until next year so that it can be adopted concurrently with the City's new Housing Element, and should simultaneously amend the HOO to ensure sufficient affordable housing production, as discussed in our October 6 letter. 1 I LJ C Ll M I I n A 1—Y