Correspondence - #32 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Santa Ana City Council June 20, 2023 Page 3 • A hazardous waste site, as specified. • Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as specified. • Within a special flood hazard area, as specified. • Within a regulatory floodway, as specified. • Lands identified for conservation, as specified. Loss of Potential Residential Density in the City As explained above, the City Council must find that there would be "no net loss of the total potential residential density in the jurisdiction" due to the replacement of qualifying AB 2011 parcels. City Planning claims that the "replacement" parcels "can accommodate a total of 89,802 units, more than the 45,502 units that would otherwise be permissible on the parcels being exempted pursuant AB 201 L" It is our understanding that many of the "replacement" parcels have already been entitled or are currently under construction. Furthermore, we understand from the City Planning staff report that the development of the "replacement" parcels would be made possible by the recent rezoning of those parcel to allow residential density at or exceeding 30 dwelling units per acre, which did not occur as part of an AB 2011 parcel replacement effort (in part because AB 2011 is not yet operative). The density calculations made by City Planning for the qualifying AB 2011 parcels are misleading. City Planning explained in the staff report that the density is the "typical density of 30 dwelling units per acre assumed by SB 6 and AB 201 L" However, that assumption ignores the fact that minimum density under AB 2011 can be as high as 80 dwelling units per acre (for parcels within one-half mile of a major transit stop) and maximum density must also be determined on a project - specific basis. The calculations made by City Planning also appear to ignore the fact that the on -site affordable housing requirement under AB 2011 would in turn automatically provide for a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law, which is specifically authorized under AB 2011. For example, if an AB 2011 project includes the minimum number of lower income units required under AB 2011 (15%), that would in turn allow for a 27.5% density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law. Based on the foregoing, it is possible, if not likely, that the net new number of housing units allowed under AB 2011 would exceed the net new number of units that could be developed on the "replacement" parcels.