Correspondence - #32 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers Page 5 entire context, does not support the City's view that it can rely on its existing density thresholds — even if recently increased — to offset the loss of AB 2011 exemptions. As a result, the additional capacity created solely by the alternative parcels that were not previously eligible under AB 2011 does not appear to be enough to offset the loss of residential capacity resulting from the exemptions. Indeed, for the affordable requirement, the difference appears to be several thousand units, while for the mixed income requirement, the difference appears to be fewer than 1,000. To close these gaps, the City must either identify more parcels that are not currently subject to AB 2011 or upzone parcels that are eligible under AB 2011 to allow greater densities than currently permitted. Parcel Exemptions by Resolution The proposed resolution includes a conclusory finding that the resolution is not a CEQA project because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.' It makes no other factual findings to support its conclusion. HCD is skeptical that these findings can be factually supported, as the resolution relates to the regulation of physical changes to the City's land, i.e., exempting parcels from AB 2011 and allowing development on replacement sites. To be sure, AB 2011 provides that if a City adopts an ordinance to implement the provisions of AB 2011, including its exemptions, then such ordinance shall not be considered a "project" under CEQA (Gov. Code, §§ 65912.114, subd. (o) and 65912.124, subd. (0)).8 But AB 2011 does not afford such consideration to city council resolutions. Moreover, such local regulations are also typically enacted by way of ordinance to allow for adequate public hearing and notice. (Gov. Code, § 65850 et seq. [governing the scope of local legislative bodies to regulate land use by ordinance].) Therefore, HCD is concerned that the City's proposed resolution — insofar as it is being adopted as an effort to streamline certain residential development projects on certain parcels, and to deem those to be suitable alternatives to AB 2011 sites — is at risk of being invalid and ineffective. Conclusion HCD urges the City to refrain from adopting the proposed resolutions until it can correct the issues identified in this letter and demonstrate through adequate written findings that it fully complies with the exemption requirements in AB 2011 and SB 6. The adoption of the proposed resolutions as -is would be inconsistent with AB 2011. Ibid. at page 32-13. 8 Similar provisions exist for SB 6, and thus, the concerns raised here regarding the City's proposed resolution for AB 2011 exemptions equally apply to its proposed resolution for SB 6 exemptions.