Correspondence - #34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 17, 2023 Page 2 AB 2011 was enacted on September 28, 2022, and became effective on July 1, 2023. Had the City sought to implement it through an ordinance, it had nine months to consider and adopt an implementing ordinance without resorting to an urgency ordinance. The City's own conduct shows that there is no emergency threat. The ordinance that the City adopted on June 20, 2023 (after public notice stating that the City Council would be considering a resolution)identifies no threat to public health, safety, or welfare, let alone an immediate threat. The City's conclusory statement about potential uncertainty in implementation of a nine-month old state law is not a reasonable, credible, or sound factual finding relevant to the existence of an imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Further, an urgency ordinance—like this one—that"has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing," may only be extended beyond the initial 45 days upon written legislative findings, supported by substantial evidence on the record, of a"specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety," which is defined as "a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions" existing at the time that the urgency ordinance is adopted. (§ 65858, subd. (c)(1)). The findings must further demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative that would mitigate or avoid the adverse impact "as well or better, with a less burdensome or restrictive effect," than the urgency ordinance. (§ 65858, subd (c)(3).)In addition, a city must"issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance" at least ten days before its extension. (§ 65858, subd. (d).) Finally, as HCD has advised in its letters dated June 19, 2023 and dated July 11, 2023, both the urgency ordinance adopted June 20 and the proposed regular ordinance scheduled for a second reading at the July 18 City Council meeting, conflict with AB 2011,particularly as amended on July 10 by SB 129. AB 2011 allows a local government to exempt parcels only if it makes specific written findings, including that the exemption would result in no net loss of residential capacity in the City relative to the total capacity in light of both AB 2011 and local law. (Gov. Code, § 65912.114, subd. (i)(3).) The City has not made those findings. The City must implement AB 2011 according to its terms. We welcome the City's reconciliation of its municipal ordinances with state law and we would be happy to meet to discuss this matter. Sincerely, /s/Christina Bull Arndt CHRISTINA BULL ARNDT Supervising Deputy Attorney General For ROB BONTA Attorney General