NS-3075 - Uncodified Local AB 2011 Implementing Ordinance Revision

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT 3 Identification of Alternative Sites State law permits local governments to adopt a local AB 2011 implementing ordinance to exempt parcels of land from the streamlining provisions provided certain findings are made. A local government must identify one or more alternative sites for residential development and make findings that the alternative development would result in no net loss of the total potential residential density permitted in the jurisdiction, no net loss of the potential residential density of housing affordable to lower income households in the jurisdiction, and will affirmatively further fair housing. Further, Government Code sections 65912.114(i)(2)(A) and 65912.124(i)(2)(A) require that a local implementing ordinance that identifies an alternative site to accommodate the lost potential units from exempt sites that is not otherwise eligible for development pursuant to AB 2011, be "suitable for residential development" as defined in Government Code Sec. 65583.2 of State Housing Element law. The analysis below will demonstrate how all parcels identified as alternative sites by the City of Santa Ana's implementing ordinance which are not otherwise eligible for development pursuant to AB 2011 meet the Housing Element law definition for land suitable for residential development as defined in Gov. Code Sec. 65583.2. AB 2011 Potential Housing Units Lost from Exempted Sites Santa Ana's local implementing ordinance exempts 569 parcels from AB 2011—Affordable and 281 parcels from AB 2011— Mixed -Income permit streamlining, respectively. Table 1 below provides the total number of lost potential units for AB 2011 — Affordable and AB 2011— Mixed -Income streamlining provisions. The City of Santa Ana's local implementing ordinance utilizes a multifaceted approach in achieving no net loss of total potential density in the jurisdiction by upzoning (i.e., increasing the permitted General Plan permitted density/intensity) certain parcels that are otherwise eligible for AB 2011 streamlining (Upzoned Sites) and identifying alternative parcels that are not eligible for AB 2011 and designating them as eligible for AB 2011 streamlining and also upzoning them (Alternative Sites). A combination of the upzoned capacity on Upzoned Sites and the capacity permitted on the Alternative Sites demonstrate that no net loss of the total potential residential density is achieved. Table 1 (Affordable) and Table 1.5 (Mixed - Income) provide the total unit capacity of Upzoned and Alternative sites, respectively, and also provide the total surplus capacity created between the two categories. In both cases, Affordable and Mixed - Income, the total Surplus Capacity is greater than the Lost Potential capacity from the exempt parcels — demonstrating that no net loss will be achieved. While detailed no net loss calculations and methodology are provided separately on tables provided to HCD staff, this analysis will focus on demonstrating that the Alternative Sites are suitable for residential development and complywith Gov. Code Sec. 65583.2 of State Housing Element law. Table 1(Affordable) Fvcmnt AltarnntivP_ and Un7nnPd Site Unit Canacities Total Total Total Lost Number Total Surplus Surplus Potential/Exempted Total of Acreage Alternative Upzoned Capacity Surplus Parcels Capacity Capacity p y (Less Existing Capacity to Capacity Remain) Exempt 569 380.75 10,932 Parcels 1 Ordinance No. NS-3075