Memorandum - #32 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

choice voucher assistance, but receive neither. These residents are forced to compete with higher income residents in the unsubsidized market. Santa Ana has done admirable work in improving its ability to help meet the region's and state's housing needs. We were therefore surprised to see that it is illegally attempting to exempt itself entirely from these important laws. The Staff Report prepared for the May 16th, 2023 city council meeting for the proposed exemptions misunderstands what "no net loss" means. It states that the AB2011 exemption would remove the potential for 18,454 units, while alternate sites, which are already eligible for AS2011, provide for 89,802 potential units. This means that absent the proposed exemption, there would be a total of 108,256 potential units on this collection of lots. Going from 108,256 to 89,802 is clearly a net loss. To avoid a net loss, the City would need to take action to keep the development potential at 108,256 units, either by upzoning alternative lots and/or making them newly eligible for AB2011. By simply removing parcels from AB2011 coverage with no compensating increase in development elsewhere, the City is violating both the letter and spirit of an important statute intended to increase housing supply. Similarly, in discussing the SB6 exemption, the Staff Report claims that there will be no "no loss of residential density by exempting these parcels." The arithmetic is the same. If those parcels were subject to SB6 they could provide 18,582 units. The "alternate" parcels can yield 89,802. Without the exemption, these parcels in total could provide 108,384. The 89,802 units that would remain after exemption would be a net loss. The Staff Report is misleading. t0 R yoG 4 sc Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org Orenp Cony 01-1 cont. 0 1 - 2 01-3