My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 32 - Resolutions to Exempt Parcels from AB 2011 and SB 6
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
06/20/2023 Regular
>
Item 32 - Resolutions to Exempt Parcels from AB 2011 and SB 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2023 3:57:21 PM
Creation date
8/10/2023 2:27:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Item #
32
Date
6/20/2023
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
808
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The proposed resolutions are, moreover, subject to the California <br />Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA°). Reducing the allowed development in <br />Santa Ana pushes that growth into other jurisdictions, where housing is likely <br />to be further from jobs and schools, and closer to sensitive habitats and fire <br />zones. The resulting increases in vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas <br />emissions, habitat destruction, and wildfire danger are all reasonably <br />foreseeable significant adverse effects on the environment. The City must <br />undertake CEQA review before adopting these exemptions. <br />The damaging precedent of this policy choice cannot be understated. Though <br />Santa Ana has been a leader in the production of new and affordable housing, <br />history will remember you as the city council that undermined the most <br />significant housing production bills in a decade. The decision to exempt <br />yourself will incite NIMBY cities to attempt similar illegal moves in their quest <br />to delay building and avoid making room for denser and more affordable <br />housing. To what end? So you can say you pushed back against Sacramento <br />overreach and maintained local control? All you will have accomplished is <br />further limiting your current residents' future housing choices. <br />Sincerely, <br />Elizabeth Hansburg <br />01-4 <br />01-5 <br />yoG <br />Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. <br />peopleforhousing.org <br />a ono, ce.nq 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.