Laserfiche WebLink
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &Natsis LLP <br /> Attomeys at Law <br /> Santa Ana City Council <br /> May 16,2023 <br /> Page 4 <br /> made by City Planning, there is no way of"ensuring access and creation of residential units <br /> affordable to lower income households" under the City's local inclusionary housing ordinance. On <br /> the other hand,AB 2011 requires the affordable units to be provided on-site as part of the project. <br /> To illustrate, conservatively assuming that lower income units would be provided to meet AB 2011 <br /> requirements, and based on the seemingly low total development estimate provided by City <br /> Planning, the development of the qualifying AB 2011 parcels would result in at least 6,825 on-site <br /> lower income units constructed as part of those projects, whereas the development of the <br /> "replacement" parcels could result in zero affordable units unless and until the in-lieu fees are used <br /> by the City to separately develop affordable housing. <br /> Lack of CEQA Review <br /> We caution that the finding that the proposed resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA <br /> Guidelines section 15061(b)(3),(b)(5) is inaccurate. The cited"common sense exemption" under <br /> CEQA only applies where"it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity <br /> in question may have a significant effect on the environment." The second exemption cited only <br /> applies when project-specific CEQA findings are made for agricultural housing, affordable housing, <br /> and residential infill projects. <br /> CEQA case law is clear that an action by a local agency that sets in motion a chain of events that <br /> could result in a foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment qualifies as a project <br /> subject to CEQA. (See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm'n (2007) 41 <br /> Cal. 4th 383 [development restrictions in airport land use plan could result in changes to <br /> environment indirectly by causing development to be displaced to other areas].) <br /> Conclusion <br /> The City Council cannot act under AB 2011 until that law is operative on July 1, 2023 and based on <br /> the limited information provided by City Planning, the City Council cannot make the required <br /> findings under AB 2011, including a finding that the proposed resolution would result in the <br /> required "affirmative furthering of fair housing." Among other things, the City must calculate <br /> the actual number of net new housing units that could be approved by the City on or after July 1, <br /> 2023 to replace the market rate and affordable units that would otherwise be provided by qualifying <br /> AB 2011 housing development projects based on maximum (versus minimum) development <br /> density. <br /> We respectfully caution that the California Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the California <br /> Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)to notify the Attorney General if <br /> HCD finds that the City has taken an action in violation of AB 2011. <br />