Correspondence - #34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is 6s}yF A N A ROB BONTA State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET,SUITE 1702 LOS ANGELES,CA 90013-1230 Public: (213)269-6000 Telephone: (213)269-6383 Facsimile: (916)731-2121 E-Mail: Christina.Amdt@doj.ca.gov July 17, 2023 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attn: Sonia Carvalho Re: Urgency Ordinances Adopted on June 20, 2023 Dear Ms. Carvalho: We have reviewed the urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. NS-3045, that the City Council passed on June 20, 2023, purporting to exempt certain parcels from AB 2011. We were aware that the Council had previously been considering a resolution concerning this subject matter but were surprised to learn it was converted into an urgency ordinance, particularly since the published June 20 meeting agenda did not identify it as such. State law provides that urgency ordinances can only be adopted in specific emergency circumstances supported by legislative findings of an immediate threat to public welfare. Because the urgency ordinance did not make such findings, the ordinance is void as a matter of law. As set forth in detail in statewide guidance our office issued today, to be valid,urgency ordinances amending zoning regulations must be supported by written legislative findings that "there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions,use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare." (Gov. Code, § 65858, subd. (c); 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County ofSutter(1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 86.) Failure to make the showings required by Section 65858 renders an urgency ordinance invalid as a matter of law. (California Charter Schools Assn. v. City of Huntington Park(2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 362, 365.) Ordinance No. NS-3045 states that"there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare based on the passage of AB 2011, and an absence of a local ordinance adopting AB 2011 and the exemption of parcels described therein..., leading to uncertainty of implementation of the local land use plan in a consistent and equitable manner that may also be otherwise consistent with the General Plan." This conclusory recital is insufficient to support the use of an urgency ordinance.