HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #28 Orozco, Norma
From: Elizabeth Hansburg P41-1 <elizabeth@peopleforhousing.org>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 11:20 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item #28 OPPOSE: Resolutions of the City of Santa Ana City Council Exempting all
Eligible Properties in the City of Santa Ana from the Requirements of Assembly Bill
2011 and Senate Bill 6
Attachments: SNA AB2011 S136 Exemption.pdf
Please see attached.
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Director
714-872-1418
a c
0-p C-y
1
OQ�F,F OR yoG�2
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
peopleforhousing.org
Orange county
The Honorable Valerie Amezcua
City of Santa Ana
City Hall
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
May 15, 2023
RE: Item #28: OPPOSE: Proposal to exempt sites from SB 6 &AB 2011
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of People for Housing Orange County, I am writing to heartily protest the city's
efforts to exempt all eligible sites from AB 2011 and SB 6. This strategy undermines the
production of affordable housing and the turnover of underperforming commercial sites
into mixed use development.These bills are essential tools to help solve the housing
shortage and affordability crisis and undermining them sends the wrong message.
Perhaps even worse, it creates a terrible precedent for more NIMBY cities to declare
themselves exempt as well.
Santa Ana has been a leader in Orange County in making room for new housing. The city
has worked diligently to balance the need for deeply affordable housing with
development interests in revitalizing long under-invested neighborhoods. In contrast,
most OC cities have failed to be proactive in making room for new housing. Some have
been overtly hostile or deceptive in their efforts to rebuff or reject new housing and take
every opportunity to derail or deny policies and projects that would get more housing
built.These cities are also paying the price as both the courts and the Attorney General
work toward ensuring compliance with state laws aimed at increasing housing
production. This proposal to effectively exempt the city of Santa Ana from AB 2011 and
SB 6 opens the city to similar scrutiny and legal action from the state.
Additionally, the methodology used to identify alternative sites for housing development
is flawed, as it identifies sites that are already zoned for residential development or that
have recently completed construction or adopted specific development plans, which
goes against the clear reading of AB 2011.
Replacement properties require ALL the same requirements under AB 2011:
• Sites must be currently zoned for a use other than residential / housing, or if
zoned residential, they need to significantly increase the density.
• Replacement properties need to benefit from all the policies enabled under AB
2011, such as CEQA exemption, fair wage policies and a streamlined and
ministerial approval process.
The city has ignored these requirements and instead focused on RHNA numbers, which
are not pertinent to either SB 6 or AB 2011. In addition, it is highly likely these
replacement sites have been calculated with a theoretical zoned capacity that is not
feasible to build. Assessing the "realistic capacity" of a site is possible on a small scale,
but remains purely theoretical when applied to all the parcels across the entire city.
We urge you to change course. Your selection of sites is contrary to a plain reading of
both SB 6 and AB 2011 and opens the city to litigation from the AG and property owners,
whose rights to streamlined development process will be undermined by this resolution.
el.�Fy.o
I `Py Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
a �+
peopleforhousi ng.org
2
Orange County
Despite these flaws, your proposal will serve as a playbook to enable NIMBY cities to
neuter the very laws that can make housing possible within their boundaries.
For years, Santa Ana has called on neighboring cities to step up and do their fair share
to plan for the region's housing needs. Do not hand them the roadmap or the legal
percent to avoid these responsibilities.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-founder and Director
el.�Fy.o
I `Py Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County.
a �+
peopleforhousi ng.org
3
Orange County
Orozco, Norma
From: Diane Fradkin <dianefradkin@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 8:57 AM
To: Lopez, Jessie; eComment
Subject: 2525 N. Main Street &Agenda item #28 May 16, 2023 City Council mtg
Importance: High
Good morning Jessie:
I'm finally following up with you after you came to our Park Santiago neighborhood meeting back in March. So
sorry for the delay.
As you know, on July 1st both AB2011 & S136 will take effect and give the owner of 2525 N. Main Street an
approach to high density development via the state.
I see that you have on the agenda tonight an ordinance to thwart this and retain City control of planning
policies.
As a citizen of Santa Ana and given our history with this property, I am strongly opposed to any high-density
development on 2525 N. Main Street.
As you may or may not be aware, there is a Settlement Agreement between 2525 N. Main St and Santa Ana
Citizens for Responsible Development agreeing to the development of medium density (15/DUA) at the 2525
N. Main site. (Please call me to discuss this further).
Also, on another matter, I have included the link below for the article from Sunday's OC Register about the
City using State grant monies to acquire green spaces. I still believe that this property would be better suited
for a park/public art/community garden/open space in association with the Discovery Center (Discovery
Center owns approximately 2 acres of 2525 N. Main as a parking lot) along with grant money available to both
the City and the Discovery Center. Also, I understand that Supervisor Sarmiento would like to build a Musuem
of History and display the artifacts that are being stored elsewhere. This too would be a good use for the
property.
In closing, I support the ordinance (agenda item #28) as I understand it will give the City control over
planning policies rather than the State, but I am still opposed to high density for the 2525 N. Main Street
property. Medium density (15/DUA) would be acceptable; however, I think the better vision for the City
and this property would be some type of park or museum use.
Sincerely,
Diane Fradkin
714-914-8047
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/09/vacant-lot-on-bristol-street-to-become-newest-santa-ana-park/
1
Vacant lot on Bristol Street to become
i newest Santa Ana park
The city got $3.5 million in state funding for the park
project, which will include a skate park, fitness equipment
and a stormwater treatment system.
www.ocregister.com
z
Orozco, Norma
From: Dale Helvig <helvig_denny@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2:14 PM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra,
Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Mendoza, Steven; Thai, Minh
Subject: 2023-05-16 Letter to City Council-Item 28
Attachments: 2023-05-16 Letter to City Council-Item 28.pdf
See attached file.
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
1
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706
May 16, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and Santa Ana City Councilmembers
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, 81' Floor
Santa Ana CA 92702
Subject: ITEM 28 —Resolutions To Exempt Properties from the Requirements of AB 2011 and SIB 6
1 fully support the City of Santa Ana in adopting this resolution. The City knows best what it should be
doing, and it has been doing quite well. Santa Ana has been a leader in addressing new housing and
should have the opportunity to be a leader again by identifying where and what it needs to build.
City housing development far exceeded RHNA requirements for all housing types in the last cycle and
is well on the way to exceeding the new cycle's requirements. With this track record, and compared
against other cities in the County, I would suggest that we do not need the state or people from other
cities to tell us how to do ourjob providing housing in Santa Ana.
The General Plan took many years of hard work by the City, its residents, and its businesses to
develop and pass. It is the highest-level document driving building within the city and, unlike some of
our neighboring cities, its housing element has been approved by the State.
Some may see this as a labor issue because the bills contain words like "skilled labor". However, I
have heard that developers have and may address the potential increased cost of using skilled labor
by constructing as much as possible offsite with non-union labor before trucking those parts to the
site for union labor assembly. This practice may not break the rules, but it certainly goes against their
intention.
One last note: do not let others make this into a NIMBY issue for the sake of optics and politics when
it is clearly not. No one is saying "Do not build at all"... merely build according to the State approved
General Plan and Housing Element.
Please retain local control and support this resolution.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge, Sonia Carvalho, Steven Mendoza, Minh Thai,
City Manager, City Attorney, Assist. City Manager, Executive Director
Santa Ana Santa Ana Santa Ana Planning
Page 1 of 1
2023-05-16 Letter to City Council-Item 28
Orozco, Norma
From: Chase, Caroline <cchase@allenmatkins.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Hernandez, Johnathan;
Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD)
Cc: Thai, Minh; Ridge, Kristine; !City Clerk
Subject: Opposition Letter re AB 2011 Resolution /Santa Ana City Council Agenda Item No. 28
Attachments: Letter to City Council Members re Agenda Item No. 28.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
We write in opposition of the proposed City Council resolution to exempt qualifying parcels from Assembly Bill (AB)
2011. The proposed resolution is contrary to state law,for the reasons set forth in the attached letter. We respectfully
urge that the City Council must pull this item off of the consent calendar today. The City Council cannot act under AB
2011 until that law is operative on July 1, 2023 and based on the limited information provided by the City Planning and
Building Agency,the City Council cannot make the required findings under AB 2011, including a finding that the
proposed resolution would result in the required "affirmative furthering of fair housing." Among other things,the City
must calculate the actual number of net new housing units that could be approved by the City on or after July 1, 2023 to
replace the market rate and affordable units that would otherwise be provided by qualifying AB 2011 housing
development projects based on maximum (versus minimum) development density. We respectfully caution that the
California Planning and Zoning Law authorizes HCD to notify the Attorney General if HCD finds that the City has taken an
action in violation of AB 2011.
Caroline Chase
Partner
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory& Natsis LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-4074
(415) 837-1515 (main)
(415) 837-1516 (fax)
cchase allenmatkins.com
Allen Matkins
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If
any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is
strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately
notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you.
1
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
Allen Matkins Attorneys at Law
Three Embarcadero Center,12m Floor I San Francisco,CA 94 1 1 1-4074
Telephone:415.837.1515 1 Facsimile:415.837.1516
www.aUmmatkms.com
Caroline Chase
E-mail:cchase@allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial:415.273.7455 File Number:376502.00007/4861-9523-1076.1
May 16, 2023
Santa Ana City Council Members
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Proposed Resolution to Exempt Qualifying Parcels from AB 2011
City Council Agenda Item No. 28
Dear City Council Members,
We write in opposition of the proposed City Council resolution to exempt qualifying parcels from
Assembly Bill (AB) 2011, which is known as the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of
2022. The proposed resolution is contrary to state law, for the reasons set forth below, among
others. AB 2011 (Government Code § 65912.124)provides:
(i) A local government may exempt a parcel from this section before a
development proponent submits a development application on a parcel
pursuant to this article if the local government makes written findings
establishing all of the following:
(1) The local government has identified a parcel or parcels that meet the
criteria described in subdivisions (b) and (e) to (h), inclusive, of Section
65912.121.
(2)(A)If a parcel identified in paragraph(1)would not otherwise be eligible
for development pursuant to this chapter, the local government has
permitted the parcel to be developed pursuant to the requirements of this
chapter.
(B) If a parcel identified in paragraph (1) would otherwise be eligible for
development pursuant to this chapter, the local government has permitted
residential densities above the residential density required in subdivision(b)
of Section 65912.123 and heights required in subdivision (c) of Section
65912.123.
(3)The development of the parcel or parcels pursuant to paragraph (3) will
result in all of the following:
(A)No net loss of the total potential residential density in the jurisdiction.
Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
May 16,2023
Page 2
(B)No net loss of the potential residential density of housing affordable to
lower income households in the jurisdiction.
(C) Affirmative furthering of fair housing.
The Resolution is Premature
As acknowledged in the staff report prepared by the City Planning and Building Agency ("City
Planning"), AB 2011 is not yet operative. AB 2011 clearly states: "This act shall become operative
July 1, 2023." Therefore, any attempt by the City Council to exempt parcels pursuant to the cited
non-operative Government Code provisions will be legally ineffective.
A Detailed Site Analysis is Required
There is no evidence that City Planning has confirmed that the proposed "replacement"parcels
meet the criteria described in subdivisions (b) and (e)to (h), inclusive, of Section 65912.121, as
required. These include specific siting requirements for housing development projects under AB
2011, including but not limited to the requirement that the project site"satisfies the requirements in
subparagraphs (B)to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4." (Gov.
Code § 65912.121(g).) That Government Code section, which was added by SB 35 (2017) and is
cross referenced in multiple state housing laws, includes extensive site requirements. For example,
we question whether City Planning has confirmed that none of the"replacement" parcels are habitat
for protected species. AB 2011 (pursuant to SB 35)provides that the housing development project
cannot be located on a site that is any of the following:
• Habitat for protected species, including candidate species, as specified.
• Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as specified.
• Wetlands, as specified.
• Within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as specified.
• A hazardous waste site, as specified.
• Within a delineated earthquake fault zone, as specified.
• Within a special flood hazard area, as specified.
• Within a regulatory floodway, as specified.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
May 16,2023
Page 3
• Lands identified for conservation, as specified.
Loss of Potential Residential Density in the City
As explained above, the City Council must find that there would be "no net loss of the total
potential residential density in the jurisdiction" due to the replacement of qualifying AB 2011
parcels.
City Planning claims that the "replacement" parcels "can accommodate a total of 89,802 units, more
than the 45,502 units that would otherwise be permissible on the parcels being exempted pursuant
AB 2011." It is our understanding that many of the "replacement" parcels have already been
entitled or are currently under construction. Furthermore, we understand from the City Planning
staff report that the development of the "replacement" parcels would be made possible by the recent
rezoning of those parcel to allow residential density at or exceeding 30 dwelling units per acre,
which did not occur as part of an AB 2011 parcel replacement effort(in part because AB 2011 is
not yet operative).
The density calculations made by City Planning for the qualifying AB 2011 parcels are misleading.
City Planning explained in the staff report that the density is the"typical density of 30 dwelling
units per acre assumed by SB 6 and AB 2011." However,that assumption ignores the fact that
minimum density under AB 2011 can be as high as 80 dwelling units per acre (for parcels within
one-half mile of a major transit stop) and maximum density must also be determined on a project-
specific basis. The calculations made by City Planning also appear to ignore the fact that the on-site
affordable housing requirement under AB 2011 would in turn automatically provide for a density
bonus under the State Density Bonus Law, which is specifically authorized under AB 2011. For
example, if an AB 2011 project includes the minimum number of lower income units required
under AB 2011 (15%), that would in turn allow for a 27.5% density bonus under the State Density
Bonus Law.
Based on the foregoing, it is possible, if not likely,that the net new number of housing units
allowed under AB 2011 would exceed the net new number of units that could be developed on the
"replacement" parcels.
Loss of Potential Affordable Housing in the City
As explained above, the City Council must find that there would be "no net loss of the total
potential residential density of affordable housing to lower income households in the jurisdiction"
due to the replacement of qualifying AB 2011 parcels.
As you are aware, the City's local inclusionary housing ordinance allows project sponsors to pay a
fee in-lieu of constructing some or all of the required affordable units. Contrary to the assertion
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
May 16,2023
Page 4
made by City Planning, there is no way of"ensuring access and creation of residential units
affordable to lower income households" under the City's local inclusionary housing ordinance. On
the other hand,AB 2011 requires the affordable units to be provided on-site as part of the project.
To illustrate, conservatively assuming that lower income units would be provided to meet AB 2011
requirements, and based on the seemingly low total development estimate provided by City
Planning, the development of the qualifying AB 2011 parcels would result in at least 6,825 on-site
lower income units constructed as part of those projects, whereas the development of the
"replacement" parcels could result in zero affordable units unless and until the in-lieu fees are used
by the City to separately develop affordable housing.
Lack of CEQA Review
We caution that the finding that the proposed resolution is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3),(b)(5) is inaccurate. The cited"common sense exemption" under
CEQA only applies where"it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment." The second exemption cited only
applies when project-specific CEQA findings are made for agricultural housing, affordable housing,
and residential infill projects.
CEQA case law is clear that an action by a local agency that sets in motion a chain of events that
could result in a foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment qualifies as a project
subject to CEQA. (See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Comm'n (2007) 41
Cal. 4th 383 [development restrictions in airport land use plan could result in changes to
environment indirectly by causing development to be displaced to other areas].)
Conclusion
The City Council cannot act under AB 2011 until that law is operative on July 1, 2023 and based on
the limited information provided by City Planning, the City Council cannot make the required
findings under AB 2011, including a finding that the proposed resolution would result in the
required "affirmative furthering of fair housing." Among other things, the City must calculate
the actual number of net new housing units that could be approved by the City on or after July 1,
2023 to replace the market rate and affordable units that would otherwise be provided by qualifying
AB 2011 housing development projects based on maximum (versus minimum) development
density.
We respectfully caution that the California Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the California
Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)to notify the Attorney General if
HCD finds that the City has taken an action in violation of AB 2011.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory &Natsis LLP
Attomeys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
May 16,2023
Page 5
Regards,
Olc�
Caroline Chase
Copies to:
California Attorney General Rob Bonta
Gustavo Velasquez, Director, California Department of Housing and Community Development
Corey Smith, Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition
Mayor Valerie Amezcua
Minh Thai, Executive Director, City Planning and Building Agency
Kristine Ridge, City Manager
Orozco, Norma
From: John Hanna <jhanna@swmscarpenters.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2:44 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item 28--Oppose or Continue this Flawed Resolution
Madame Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is John Hanna, a 58 year resident of Orange County,former
Santa Ana Planning Commissioner and a government affairs representative I am asking that the Council oppose the
resolutions in Item 28 or, in the alternative continue the matter until your June 20 meeting so the two carpenters you
know best, Rich Gomez and myself, can attend and we can get you a better informed opinion then you've received in
your agenda.
Ab 2011 and SIB 6 were signed into law over 7% months ago,to take effect July 1, 2023. City staff has waited until this
late date to attempt to challenge these laws. Worse,they have ignored your Planning Commission, ignored
councilmembers and ignored the residents and ignored those of us who had worked hard and were visibly engaged in
passing these bills. I had spoken to your Director of Planning and Building safety about 2011 and many of you about
working together to exempt certain areas as provided under 2011 while at the same time setting aside other
comparable areas that would be covered by Ab 2011 provisions. Never once was I informed that the City was planning
to engage to a nullification campaign,twisting the legislative intent and gutting the statute.
AB 202112 in particular provides opportunities to get around barriers to development in certain areas. In order to utilize
this statute, developers must agree to pay their workers the prevailing wage and if over 50 units, provide a health care
plan for their workers and use apprentices. Your staff makes it clear they do not care what construction workers on
private projects will make and essentially are willing to have city taxpayers continue to subsidize developers who refuse
to pay a living wage or have a health insurance plan. It's like, hey, Santa Ana has other mechanisms to expedite housing
so even though state law gives us a tool to expedite housing AND help our local workforce get a living wage with health
insurance,we want to strip away that tool, notwithstanding we haven't bothered to get a legal opinion from the
Attorney general's office permitting this nullification attempt.
Please either dispose of this misguided effort now or at the very least continue this to the June 20 meeting.
John Hanna
suffitSi Governmental Affairs/Special Counsel
P: 714.766.7140
M: 213.999.6190
o o�� Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
° swcarpenters.or2
T(a(0*
Download our app:
Goo2le Play I iTunes App Store
i
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
2
Orozco, Norma
From: jbspottedbull@mail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 2:59 PM
To: eComment; Reid.Miller@hcd.ca.gov; elizabeth@peopleforhousing.org
Subject: Item 28, 5.16 City Council agenda
Mayor and Council,
I wrtie to you regarding Item 28 - the Resolutions of the City of Santa Ana City Council Exempting all Eligible
Properties in the City of Santa Ana from the Requirements of Assembly Bill 2011 and Senate Bill 6 Pursuant to
California Government Code Sections 65912.114, 65912.124, and 65852.24. Your proposed resolutions are illegal.
If you want to "exempt" any properties, you need a zoning ordinance, which needs a Planning Commission meeting
and proper notice to all the properties that will be affected, with two City Council hearings. You can't take away
someone's rights under state law to develop their property and give it to someone else without an
ordinance. AB2011 and S136 specifically state that you need an "ordinance to implement the provisions of this
article." Should you follow through with this action, you will be in violation of state law.
HCD and other are already watching what you are up to.
JB
3
Hall, Jennifer
From:Thomas Kinzinger <Thomas.Kinzinger@doj.ca.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4:16 PM
To:eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra,
Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Cc:Carvalho, Sonia R.; Ridge, Kristine; David Pai
Subject:Item 28 on May 16, 2023 City Council Agenda
Attachments:AG Letter to Mayor and City Council of Santa Ana.pdf
Importance:High
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Santa Ana City Council:
Please see attached correspondence sent on behalf of Supervising Deputy Attorney General David Pai.
Thomas P. Kinzinger
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Land Use and Conservation Section
Public Rights Division
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
300 S. Spring Street, Ste. 12214
Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 269-6230
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review,
use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
1
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1515 CLAY STREET, 20TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 70550 OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550 Public: (510) 879-1300 Telephone: (510) 879-0816 Facsimile: (510) 622-2270 E-Mail: David.Pai@doj.ca.gov
May 16, 2023
VIA EMAIL (ecomment@santa-ana.org, vamezcua@santa-ana.org; jessielopez@santa-ana.org;
tphan@santa-ana.org; bvazquez@santa-ana.org; pbacerra@santa-ana.org;
jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org; dpenaloza@santa-ana.org)
Mayor and City Council
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92648
RE: Item #28 on May 16, 2023 City Council Agenda - Resolution Exempting All Eligible
Properties in the City of Santa Ana from AB 2011 and SB 6
Dear Honorable Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers:
This afternoon, the Office of the Attorney General was made aware of a proposed
resolution on tonight’s City Council agenda that purports to exempt all eligible properties within
the City of Santa Ana from the permit streamlining provisions set forth under AB 2011 and SB 6.
(See Action Item 28 on City’s Consent Calendar Agenda for May 16, 2023.) The Department of
Housing and Community Development is also aware of this proposed resolution and is currently
reviewing the issue(s) it raises. We urge you to continue this item to a later date so that affected
and interested parties will have an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposal.
Sincerely,
/s/ David Pai
DAVID PAI
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
CC: City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho (scarvalho@santa-ana.org)
City Manager Kristine Ridge (KRidge@santa-ana.org)
DP:
SA2019300088
Santa Ana Continuance Letter-5-16-23.docx
Orozco, Norma
From: Karissa Distefano <kdistefano@biasc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3:50 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Adam Wood BILD
Subject: Consent Item #28 - AB 2011 and SB 6
Attachments: BILD Letter to Santa Ana City Council_5.16.23.pdf
Importance: High
Dear City Clerk Jennifer Clark—
Please see attached for a letter from the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD) regarding Consent Item#28-
AB 2011 and SIB 6.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
BI5 Karissa Willette DiStefano
8nc&sum Director of Public Affairs
BIR ICy Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
W kdistefano(dbiasc.org
2023 ph: (949)777-3859 w: biasc.org
BUILDING INDUSTRY SHOW Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave.,#14445,Irvine,CA 92623
61sc'"9 oa s S. Los Angeles/Ventura•Orange County•San Bernardino County•Riverside County
1
BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
BILD
May 16, 2023
Santa Ana Mayor Valerie Amezcua and City Council
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Consent Item #28 -AB 2011 and SB 6
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Council Members—
On behalf of the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, I write to express significant
concerns with Consent Item 28.
By way of background, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation ("BILD") has been the
premier legal advocate for the building and construction industry in California since 1987.
BILD writes to express concerns with the approach proposed by Item 28 as it broadly expands
what might be a narrow exception listed in existing state law. An exponential expansion, as
proposed by the city's interpretation, undermines the intent of the enacted legislation and
stands to create a standard deeply harmful to housing opportunity in the state.
BILD asks the city of Santa Ana to remove Item 28 from consideration tonight and conduct
further legal review on the implications of your proposed approach. We appreciate your
thoughtful consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Adam Wood
BILD Chief Administrator
BUILDING INDUSTRY LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
biIdfoundation . orR