Memorandum - #32 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response A I I com me nts regarding the findings provided by HCDin its emai I communication with City staff on June 6, 2023, have been addressed. The comment assertsthat the findings lack detail and specificity, but the comment itself does not clearly state what findings are lacking and what additional information is needed as it reIate stospecific findings or state law, as would be expected in a Letter of Technical Assistance that HCD would normaIIyofferajurisdiction orappIicant for housing -related matters. A1-3 This com me nt states that the City has not demonstrated that the cleve I opment of the alternative parcels will result in a no net loss of the total potential residential density in the jurisdiction. No net loss can be achieved by counting the total amount of potential residential capacity created through alternative sites to offset the loss and maintain the total potential residential capacity in the jurisdiction. Offsetting the loss could be done through identifying parcels that are not currently subjectto AB 2011 or upzone parcels that are eligible under AB 2011 to allow greater densities than currently permitted. Response The City demonstrated that no netlosswould be achieved through countingthe total amount of potential residential capacity permitted by AB 2011 on the propertiesthat the City proposes to exempt and offsettingthe lossthrough its surpluscapacity on the alternative development parcels. The alternative parcels include parcels that are subjectto AB 2011 and others that are not. Forthose that are subjectto AB 2011 that the City currently permits higher residential density than what is required by state law, the capacity in excess of the baseline is categorized as surplus capacityforcalculating no net loss and offsetting the loss. Forthose parcels on the alternative development parcel list that are not subject to AB 2011, the City currently permits residential development by -right in excess of the densities required to construct affordable housing and the City proposes making them eligible forAB 2011 streamlining. Tototal capacity ofthese parcels are also counted toward surpluscapacityto be used to offset the loss of potential units on the exempted parcels. Taken together, as detailed in the staff report and resolutions, there is sufficient surplus capacity on the alternative deve lopme nt sites to offset the lost potential densities on the exempt parcels. The comment also asserts that the City's interpretation of no net loss is inaccurate. However, the comment also states that the baseline to which a local government should measure its no net loss for AB 2011 exemption purposes is, at present, not explicit inthe Iaw.The law does not define no net loss nordoes it provide a mechanism or methodology bywhich tocount it. Moreover, the time based baseline densitythat the comment states is their interpretation of no net loss is not supported by the text of the law. There is no reference to a point in time by which to establish a baseline, as is the case in other recent, similar housing laws (e.g., Senate Bill 330). the only reference to a point in time to establish a definition in the law is in its definition of industrial uses. A1-4 This comment states that the City's position outlined in the resolutions that the actions are not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project because they are an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in director indirect physical changes in the environment is at risk of being invalid and ineffective, considering AB 2011 only exempts ordinances from CEQA not resolutions and resolutions relate to regulation of physical changes to the City's land.