HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #32Orozco, Norma
From:
Dale Helvig <
Sent:
Friday, June 16, 2023 6:33 AM
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; Orozco, Norma
Subject:
2023-06-20 Letter to City Council -Item 32
Attachments:
2023-06-20 Letter to City Council -Item 32.pdf
See attached file.
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706
June 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 32 — Resolutions To Exempt Properties from the Requirements of AB 2011 and SIB 6
This is not an issue about IF Santa Ana should provide additional housing, it is about following the
state approved General Plan to determine WHERE that housing should be built. The City of Santa Ana
should not give up its right to determine what is best for its residents, especially considering this city
is leading the way in housing development for all income levels. This is why I fully support the City of
Santa Ana in adopting this resolution.
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 to meet or exceed state requirements.
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
to other cities in the County, I would suggest that the City does not need the state or people from
other cities to tell it how to do its job providing housing in Santa Ana. Instead, given the City's current
track record of both residential development for all, and the creation of a General Plan housing
element already approved by the state, Santa Ana should be held up as a model for both the state
and other cities to follow.
Some may see this as a labor issue because the bills contain words like "skilled labor". However, I
have learned 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: The General Plan took many years of hard work by the City, its residents, and its
businesses to develop and pass. Do not let others dishonor that effort by making this into a NIMBY
issue for the sake of optics and politics when clearly it is 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.
Page 1 of 2
2023-06-20 Letter to City Council -Item 32
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana CA 92706
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Stay safe, stay healthy.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge,
City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho,
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Steven Mendoza,
Assist. City Manager, Santa Ana
Minh Thai,
Executive Director, Planning & Building
Page 2 of 2
2023-06-20 Letter to City Council -Item 32
Orozco, Norma
From: Diane Fradkin <
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 11:27 AM
To: eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza, David;
vphan@santa-ana.org; Vazquez, Benjamin; jhernandez@santa-ana.org
Subject: June 20, 2023 Agenda Item #32 - Please Approve
Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers:
As you know, AB2011 & S136 are set to take effect as of July 1, 2023. It would be ideal to have the proposed
resolution exempting certain parcels from AB2011 & S136, approved prior to July 1st.
I believe that it's in the best interest of our community to have local control of land uses directly affecting our
community. This resolution would allow for more individualized planning of areas, based on the nuisances of
our City, in order to achieve a better overall community development.
Please approve agenda item #32 so that we can keep control of the future vision of our City.
Sincerely,
Diane Fradkin
30-year resident of Santa Ana
1
Hall, Jennifer
Subject: RW:City of Santa Ana Letter ofTechnical Assistance
From: Pena'Lora,Gabhe|@HCD
Sent: Monday, June 19,ZUZ31:16PM
To: Amezcua,Valerie Lopez, Jessie ; Phan, Thai
a. Vazquez, Bacer��Phi|
Hernandez,]ohnathan �Pena|oza,David
Cc: Zisser, David@HCD �VVes�Shannan�DHCD ; Thai, K�inh
SotoRicardoSubject: City of Santa Ana - Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Councilmembers,
HCD understands that the City Council will be considering a resolution to exempt 806 parcels from Assembly Bill 2011 on
June ZU,ZUZ3.
VVeare writing toprovide the attached Letter ofTechnical Assistance.
Regards,
Gabriei Pena -Lora
Senior Housing Policy Specialist, Housing Policy Division
Housing and Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 1 Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone- 916.883.8022
�$ *I*!] [C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Q o'
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 19, 2023
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Dear Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Thai Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phill Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, and
David Penaloza:
RE: City of Santa Ana's Proposed Resolution to Exempt 806 Parcels from
Assembly Bill 2011 — Letter of Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands
that the City Council will hold a public hearing on June 20, 2023, to consider proposed
resolutions exempting certain parcels from Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 and Senate Bill (SB) 6
pursuant to Government Code sections 65912.114, 65912.124, and 65852.24, agendized as
item number 32 in its consent calendar. At the urging of the Attorney General, the City
Council declined to consider an earlier version of the proposed resolution so as to provide
more time and opportunity for interested parties and stakeholders to review the proposal.
Since then, HCD has reviewed the resolutions and met with City of Santa Ana (City) staff to
discuss the City's proposed parcel exemptions and provide technical assistance regarding
implementation of the exemption provisions in AB 2011 and SB 6. The purpose of this letter
is to provide further technical assistance regarding the City's actions related to AB 2011 and
to advise the City that adoption of the resolutions may be inconsistent with AB 2011. Though
the focus of this letter is on AB 2011, HCD may provide additional technical assistance on
the proposed companion resolution exempting SB 6 parcels at a later date.
HCD recognizes the City's efforts and meaningful progress promoting housing production.
The City has met its 6th cycle regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for the lower -
income category with its pipeline and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects.' Table C-6 of
the 6th Cycle Housing Element demonstrates that the City was able to meet its RHNA
without the need for rezoning. HCD understands that the City completed the General Plan
update in April of 2022. The updated General Plan identified Five Focus Areas2 with land
1 The City of Santa Ana, 6th cycle housing element, page C-26, Table C-6 Summary of RHNA and
Housing Sites Table.
2 Ibid. at page LU-27, Figure LU-5.
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Page 2
use designations that allow for potential density ranging from 7 dwelling units per acre to
125 dwelling units per acre. The City has created opportunity for potential growth located
near existing and future transit in step with its Mobility Element. The City's growth
projections indicate the Five Focus Areas, Specific Plans, and Zoning Overlay Districts have
potential growth of 36,261 units.3 Based on the City's buildout methodology, the Specific
Plans and Zoning Overlay Districts would see growth like previous planning periods and
identified that the Adaptive Reuse Project Incentive Area could see growth during this
planning period.4 From HCD's review of these materials, it is clear the City intends to guide
residential growth within this planning period to specific areas while slowly increasing the
density over time in others.
Nevertheless, the City's laudable efforts to promote housing production do not exempt
the City from complying with state laws. HCD understands that new and changing state
housing laws require continuing adaptation and education, and HCD is available to
assist local jurisdictions with statutory interpretation and compliance.
Background
AB 2011, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, is codified at
Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section
65912.100) and becomes effective July 1, 2023. This law creates a new opportunity for
by -right streamlined development of multi -family residential projects compliant with a set
of eligibility requirements for affordable and mixed -income projects. HCD has authority
to enforce AB 2011 pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j)(13).
HCD understands that the City proposes to exempt 502 parcels (11,295 potential units)5
under the affordable exemption under the AB 2011 affordable parcel exemption (Gov.
Code, § 65912.114, subd. (i)) and 304 parcels (17,664 potential units)6 under the mixed
income exemption (Gov. Code § 65912.124, subdivision (i)).
On May 16, 2023, the City Council postponed hearing the resolutions to exempt parcels
from AB 2011 and SB 6 to June 20, 2023. Since then, HCD has been working with the
City to provide technical assistance focused on statutory compliance with the exemption
requirements pursuant to AB 2011, Government Code sections 65912.114, subdivision
(i), and 65912.124, subdivision (i), and SB 6, Government Code section 65852.24,
subdivision (e), in advance of the June 20, 2023 City Council hearing. On May 23, 2023,
HCD met with the City for an initial discussion regarding the proposed resolutions.
During a call on June 2, 2023, HCD identified to the City various inconsistencies with
AB 2011 exemption requirements. Then, on June 6, 2023, HCD followed up with the
3 Ibid. at page LU-11, Table LU-2.
4 Appendix B-b Santa Ana Buildout Methodology, pages 6-7.
5 The City of Santa Ana City Council Agenda Package Item 32, page 32-34, dated June 20, 2023.
6 Ibid. at page 32-46.
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Page 3
City regarding the identified requirements with which the City's resolution did not comply
and scheduled a call to discuss the City's proposed SB 6 resolution and responses to
the inconsistencies HCD identified during the June 2, 2023 call. On June 8, 2023, HCD
provided the City with verbal technical assistance related to the processes and
requirements for exempting parcels from SB 6 and discussed the City's proposed
updates to the AB 2011 resolution. During this call, HCD confirmed that the City's
interpretation of the no net loss exemption requirement was fundamentally different than
what appears to be required by statute. On June 9, 2023, City staff confirmed that the
City's position on no net loss had not changed, and they would include language in their
updated material that would commit the identified sites with residential densities as AB
2011 and SB 6 sites. On June 13, 2023, the City released the agenda for the upcoming
June 20, 2023, City Council meeting to hear the AB 2011 and SB 6 parcel exemption
resolutions. The City has made substantial changes to the number of AB 2011 parcels
proposed for exemption and included additional alternative parcels that would not have
otherwise been eligible to be developed pursuant to AB 2011. On June 16, 2023, HCD
met with the City to discuss the updated resolutions and attachments.
AB 2011 Compliance
Under AB 2011 (Gov. Code, § 65912.114, subd. (i) and 65912.124, subd. (i)) "a local
government may exempt a parcel from [AB 2011] before a development proponent
submits a development application on a parcel pursuant to [AB 2011] if the local
government makes written findings...." This exemption allows local governments the
opportunity to guide the newly created AB 2011 residential density to alternative
compliant parcels within the jurisdiction.
As a threshold matter, HCD notes that the Legislature took care to use the singular, not
plural, forms of the word "parcel." This strongly suggests that the Legislature did not
intend for local governments to issue blanket exemptions as the City proposes to do by
resolution. But even if local governments were able to make adequate findings to permit
blanket exemptions, the following concerns remain.
Inadequate Findings
The City is utilizing the affordable exemption (Gov. Code, § 65912.114, subd. (i)) and
the mixed income exemption (Gov. Code, § 65912.124, subd. (i)). These exemptions
require a different set of criteria for establishing parcel eligibility and allowable density.
Both exemptions require parcel -specific details that were not present in the proposed
resolutions. The City's written findings must specifically demonstrate compliance with all
requirements for each exemption. This requires a level of detail and specificity that —
particularly given the scale of the proposed exemptions — is clearly not currently
present. To correct the deficiencies and allow HCD to make an accurate determination
about the City's compliance with AB 2011, the City must expand its written findings to
clearly discuss the City's compliance with each requirement, and the attached tables
should function as supplemental support for the written findings.
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Page 4
No Net Loss Requirement
The City has not shown that under Government Code sections 65912.114, subdivision
(i)(3)(A) and 65912.124 (i)(3)(A), the development of the alternative parcels will result in
a "[n]o net loss of the total potential residential density in the jurisdiction." (Emphasis
added.) The total potential residential density in the jurisdiction includes both the
existing potential density resulting from local land use designations and zoning, and the
potential density created by AB 2011. Therefore, to meet the no net loss requirement,
the City must accurately count the total amount of lost potential density — and the
resulting unit capacity — that will result from exempting the parcels from AB 2011 and
accurately count the total amount of potential residential capacity created through
alternative sites to offset that loss and maintain the total potential residential capacity in
the jurisdiction. The same analysis applies to the requirement under sections
65912.114, subdivision (i)(3)(B) and 65912.124 (i)(3)(B) that development of the
alternative parcels will result in "[n]o net loss of the potential residential density of
housing affordable to lower income households in the jurisdiction."
The AB 2011 parcel exemption allows for two options for compliance with this
requirement, as described in Government Code sections 65912.114, subdivision (i)(2)
and 65912.124, subdivision (i)(2):
1. A local government may allow alternative parcels to be developed under AB 2011
that "would not otherwise be eligible for development pursuant to this chapter"
(Gov. Code, §§ 65912.114, subd. (i)(2)(A) and 65912.124, subd. (i)(2)(A)), thereby
creating additional potential residential capacity in the jurisdiction.
2. A local government may allow for alternative parcels eligible for development
under AB 2011 to be developed at higher residential density than what is required
under the AB 2011 affordable density requirements (Gov. Code, § 65912.113,
subd. (b)) or mixed -income density requirements (Gov. Code, § 65912.123, subd.
(b)), thereby creating additional potential residential capacity. The mixed income
exemption also imposes certain restrictions on height limits (Gov. Code, §
65912.123, subd. (c)).
The City's proposed AB 2011 resolution attempts to use a combination of both options to
meet this requirement. However, while the alternative parcels that could not have
previously been developed under AB 2011 would create new potential residential
capacity that can offset some of the loss, the City has not demonstrated that it has
increased the potential residential density on the alternative parcels already eligible
under AB 2011, instead relying erroneously on the fact that these sites already support
densities greater than what AB 2011 requires. Relying on existing densities does nothing
to create new residential capacity that can further offset the loss from the exemptions.
To be sure, the baseline to which a local government should measure its no net loss for
AB 2011 exemption purposes is, at present, not explicit. But statutes must be read to
give its intended effect, and the most reasonable interpretation of AB 2011, read in its
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Page 5
entire context, does not support the City's view that it can rely on its existing density
thresholds — even if recently increased — to offset the loss of AB 2011 exemptions.
As a result, the additional capacity created solely by the alternative parcels that were
not previously eligible under AB 2011 does not appear to be enough to offset the loss of
residential capacity resulting from the exemptions. Indeed, for the affordable
requirement, the difference appears to be several thousand units, while for the mixed
income requirement, the difference appears to be fewer than 1,000. To close these
gaps, the City must either identify more parcels that are not currently subject to AB 2011
or upzone parcels that are eligible under AB 2011 to allow greater densities than
currently permitted.
Parcel Exemptions by Resolution
The proposed resolution includes a conclusory finding that the resolution is not a CEQA
project because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in
direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.' It makes no other factual
findings to support its conclusion. HCD is skeptical that these findings can be factually
supported, as the resolution relates to the regulation of physical changes to the City's
land, i.e., exempting parcels from AB 2011 and allowing development on replacement
sites. To be sure, AB 2011 provides that if a City adopts an ordinance to implement the
provisions of AB 2011, including its exemptions, then such ordinance shall not be
considered a "project" under CEQA (Gov. Code, §§ 65912.114, subd. (o) and
65912.124, subd. (0)).8 But AB 2011 does not afford such consideration to city council
resolutions. Moreover, such local regulations are also typically enacted by way of
ordinance to allow for adequate public hearing and notice. (Gov. Code, § 65850 et seq.
[governing the scope of local legislative bodies to regulate land use by ordinance].)
Therefore, HCD is concerned that the City's proposed resolution — insofar as it is being
adopted as an effort to streamline certain residential development projects on certain
parcels, and to deem those to be suitable alternatives to AB 2011 sites — is at risk of
being invalid and ineffective.
Conclusion
HCD urges the City to refrain from adopting the proposed resolutions until it can correct
the issues identified in this letter and demonstrate through adequate written findings that
it fully complies with the exemption requirements in AB 2011 and SB 6. The adoption of
the proposed resolutions as -is would be inconsistent with AB 2011.
Ibid. at page 32-13.
8 Similar provisions exist for SB 6, and thus, the concerns raised here regarding the City's proposed
resolution for AB 2011 exemptions equally apply to its proposed resolution for SB 6 exemptions.
City of Santa Ana
Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers
Page 6
This letter identifies the specific issues that were discovered during HCD's initial
investigation. There may be other issues discovered through further analysis. HCD
remains committed to supporting the City in achieving compliance with the statutory
requirements in AB 2011 and SB 6. If you have any questions or needed additional
information or assistance, please contact Gabriel A. Pena -Lora, of our staff, at
gabriel. Dena-lora(a-),hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
cc: Minh Thai, Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency, City of Santa Ana
Ricardo Soto, Principal Planner, Planning and Building Agency, City of Santa Ana
Middleton, Samuel
From: Chase, Caroline <cchase@allenmatkins.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:49 AM
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. 32
Attachments: Letter to City Council Members re Agenda Item No. 32 4869-1639-7931 v.1.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
We write in opposition of the proposed City Council resolution to exempt qualifying parcels from Assembly Bill (AB)
2011. We are aware that the City Council will be discussing the proposed resolution with the City Attorney as part of
Closed Session Item No. 2 (Conference with Legal Counsel — SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)). We understand that both the California Attorney General and the California
Department of Housing and Community Development have intervened -- for good reason. The proposed resolution is
contrary to state law, for the reasons set forth in the attached letter, among others. We respectfully urge that the City
Council must pull this item off of the agenda 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.
Cair 1l iii ie C h ase
1::1 ii
Allen IVla k.iirns Il....eck. Gamble Mallory & Natsis Il....11....f::�
.Il.lh free Emlbarcadero Center, °12fln Il:::::lr..:or, "E;ai n Il:::::iraincisco, CAA 941 °1 °I...4.CJ74
6;; aC.e.°�..I..I..IC:S.!:::1, :Uki,Irl,�ro.:.cr�.l:�::1
Allen Matkins
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachments) 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.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Allen Mat ins Thromeys at Law
hree Fmbarcadero Censer, 12' Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
Telephone: 415.837.1515 I Facsimile: 415.837.1516
www.allenmatkins.com
Caroline Chase
E-mail: cchase(a allenmatkins.com
Direct Dial: 415.273.7455 File Number: 376502.00007/4869-1639-7931.1
June 20, 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. 32
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. As you are aware, 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
Attorneys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
June 20, 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 Proposed Action is Contrary to State Law
We are aware that the City Council will be discussing the proposed resolution with the City
Attorney as part of Closed Session Item No. 2 (Conference with Legal Counsel — SIGNIFICANT
EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)). We
understand that both the California Attorney General and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HCD") have intervened -- for good reason. The proposed resolution is
contrary to state law, for the reasons set forth below, among others.
The Proposed Action 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.
0 Within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone, as specified.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
June 20, 2023
Page 3
• 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.
• 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 201 L" 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 201 L" 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.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
June 20, 2023
Page 4
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
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,
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Santa Ana City Council
June 20, 2023
Page 5
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.
Regards,
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
Middleton, Samuel
From: Adam Wood <awood@biasc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:00 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Comment Letter - File Item 32
Attachments: BIA BILD Comment Letter - File Item 32.pdf
Please see the attached comment letter from BIA/OC and BILD.
Thank you.
-Adam
Adam S. Wood
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
gbiasc„orcl
h: (949) 777-3860 :,._b sc...mq
Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623
June 20, 2023
Mayor Valerie Amezcua
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: File Item 432 — Exempting Parcels from AB 2011 and SB 6
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Council Members,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California — Orange County Chapter
(BIA/OC) and the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation (BILD), I write to request
clarification on the renewed consideration of File Item 32.
As noted in the Staff Report, consideration of this matter was continued from the meeting on May
16, 2023 as a result of a comment letter received from the State Attorney General's Office. As
further noted, based on "input from the discussions with State staff, City staff has refined the
recommended scope of the proposed resolutions."
BIA/OC and BIL,D are interested in clarification of what was discussed and what refinements were
made in relation to those conversations. AB 2011 and SB 6 are powerful tools that are still not
available for use. Understanding the position of the city, the state, and how those two intend to
interpret this proposal is of paramount interest.
Upon reading the plain language of AB 2011 and SB 6, it would appear there is disagreement
between the city and statute as to what is meant by "no net loss." It seems this term would freeze
the total unit count of Santa Ana's residential opportunity areas and then add additional housing
on top of that to accommodate any AB 2011/SB 6 parcel exemption. Understanding the position
of Santa Ana, the State and the implications of both approaches would be well served by a council
study session or special hearing.
Clarifying the changes made since the last hearing and how all interested parties define "no net
loss" would be greatly appreciated prior to further action. Housing policy remains a crisis -level
problem for California and ensuring opportunity in Santa Ana, and across the region, is a
fundamental goal of BIA/OC and BIL,D.
Sincerely,
_x4vx-
Adam Wood
BIA/OC & BIL,D
Hall, Jennifer
From: Boris Gresely <bgresely@quadc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:02 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Public Comment
Attachments: PARCELS TO REMOVE FROM EXEMPT TABLE.docx; AB 2011 Letter to Santa Ana.docx
Hello,
See our organization's written comments attached.
Best,
Boris
Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
Representing Carpenters in Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico,
Colorado, Eastern Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
Frank Hawk Pete Rodriguez Sean Hartranft
President
June 20, 2023
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. BOX 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Executive Secretary-Treasurer/CEo
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
Vice President
As a proud co-sponsor of AB 2011, the Affordable Housing & High Road Jobs Act of 2022, the Southwest
Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC) remains deeply committed to safeguarding the
beneficial impacts of this legislation. AB 2011 stands as a vital measure to expedite the construction of roughly 2
million units of affordable and mixed -income housing and create strong labor protections to ensure that all workers
on these jobs earn high wages and comprehensive healthcare benefits.
After carefully reviewing the City of Santa Ana's proposed resolution to exempt certain parcels from AB 2011, we
acknowledge and understand the City's urgency of meeting the July I" deadline. As such, we have no objection to
staff s recommendation to approve the resolution at this time.
However, we would like to recommend some additional actions for the City Council to consider:
1. Remove the parcels attached to this letter from the exempt table and establish a sunset date for the exempted
parcels.
2. Create a land -use map that clearly indicates the location of new AB 2011 alternative parcels
3. Codify the AB 2011 alternative parcels through an ordinance, rather than a resolution. We believe that
rezoning hundreds of parcels without CEQA consideration through a resolution could potentially expose the
City to litigation. By codifying the changes via an ordinance, the City can invoke the provisions of
65912.114(o) and 65912.124(o) and exempt itself from CEQA requirements.
Implementing these recommendations will not only address some of the concerns raised by California's Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD), but it will also allow the City to protect commercial spaces near
residential neighborhoods while maximizing the benefits of AB 2011.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working together to create additional housing
opportunities and promote the well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
John Hanna
Government Affairs
Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
533 S. Fremont Ave., 10th FI. Los Angeles, CA 90D71
[2131385-1457 Fax: [2131385-3759
PARCELS TO REMOVE FROM EXEMPT TABLE
MIXED INCOME TABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TABLE
51
402
W
17TH
77
5111
W
EDINGER
84
1212
S
B R I STO L
4%`
86
2735
N
BRISTOL
135
1975
E
17TH
139
19
E
17TH
'7
218
1725
N
COLLEGE
Sri
222
1311
W
17TH
223
1441
W
17TH
224
1421
W
17TH
�4
225
1601
W
17TH
226
1545
W
17TH
`4
227
1523
W
17TH
%a
239
1710
E
17TH
243
2000
E
17TH
247
2262
E
17TH
%7
252
1200
N
TUSTIN
ri
267
2000
E
1ST
294
1350
W
EDINGER
295
1308
W
EDINGER
298
1622
S
BRISTOL
r�
300
2120
S
BRISTOL
304
1421
W
MACARTH U R
dd ,,,,, „ ,,,,,,, „
94
801
W
CIVIC CENTER
141
445
W
CIVIC CENTER
170
5111
W
EDINGER
179
2735
N
BRISTOL
243
1975
E
17TH
247
1945
E
17TH
371
1725
W
17TH
372
1901
N
COLLEGE
„a
373
1725
N
COLLEGE
0
377
1535
W
17TH
378
1311
W
17TH
2 %
379
1441
W
17TH
"
395
1710
E
17TH
404
2000
E
17TH
"
408
2262
E
17TH
409
1404
N
TUSTI N
438
2000
E
1ST
490
1350
W
EDINGER
,
498
2120
S
BRISTOL
Hall, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please see attached.
Cithlalli S Ramirez (she/her)
Community Organizer
Cithlalli Ramirez<cithlallir@ken nedycommission.org>
Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:48 PM
eComment
Cesar C
Item 32 Resolutions to Exempt Properties from the Requirements of AB 2011 and SB
6
KC Letter to Santa Ana -Item 32.pdf
June 20, 2023
Mayor Amezcua
City Councilmembers
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Cente Plaza, 8th Floor
Santa Ana CA 92707
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
Subject: Item 32 Resolutions to Exempt Properties from the Requirements of AB 2011 and
SB 6
Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad -based coalition of residents and
community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families
earning less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been
successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing
and land -use policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower -income
working families.
As a part of the AB 2011 and SB 6 implementation process we continue to encourage the City of
Santa Ana to use land use and planning to ensure a balance of housing development that
addresses the true needs for affordable housing for its residents. Additionally, we encourage the
city's efforts to ensure development and planning efforts do not cause the displacement and are
providing housing opportunities for vulnerable residents.
The implementation of state housing laws, the Housing Element and development incentives
should aim to create equitable housing opportunities, specially for low income and extremely
low income residents in Santa Ana. This is important because the majority of Santa Ana
residents are predominantly lower income households.
The median household income in Santa Ana is one of the lowest amongst all other Orange
County cities. Most residents in Santa Ana do not earn enough income to pay rising housing
costs. According to the City of Santa Ana's certified Housing Element, about two-thirds of
households earn lower incomes. Approximately 80% of renters and 50% of homeowners earn
low income. Meanwhile, 96% of lower income renters experience the highest rate of
overpayment. Roughly 60% of jobs for Santa Ana residents earn between $30,000 and $34,000
yearly. Approximately 48% of households experience cost burden where 30% or more of their
gross income is used for rent or mortgage payments'.
The City of Santa Ana has moved forward with supporting growth by recently adopting the
General Plan Update and has identifies housing opportunities on sites for all income segments in
the recent Housing Element update. This comprehensive planning will lead to balance housing
1 The City of Santa Ana 2021-2029 Housing Element
development and not just production of housing that is not affordable to resident who are
struggling to remain housed in Santa Ana.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
Southwest Fountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
Ha111eseuting Carpenters in Southern California. Nevada. Arizona, Utah, New Mexico.
Colorado. Eastern Washington. Idaho. Montana. and Wyoming
Frank Hawk Pete Rodriguez Scan Hartrantt
President ResutiveSeeretary Treasurer/CEC Vice Pres JO
June 20, 2023
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 1988
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
�, sdCih'rwli:51 ��
As a proud co-sponsor of AB 2011, the Affordable Housing & High Road Jobs Act of 2022, the Southwest
Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC) remains deeply committed to safeguarding the
beneficial impacts of this legislation. AB 2011 stands as a vital measure to expedite the construction of roughly 2
million units of affordable and mixed -income housing and create strong labor protections to ensure that all workers
on these jobs earn high wages and comprehensive healthcare benefits.
After carefully reviewing the City of Santa Ana's proposed resolution to exempt certain parcels from AB 2011, we
acknowledge and understand the City's urgency of meeting the July 15L deadline. As such, we have no objection to
staffs recommendation to approve the resolution at this time.
However, we would like to recommend some additional actions for the City Council to consider:
Remove the parcels attached to this letter from the exempt table and establish a sunset date for the exempted
parcels.
2. Create a land -use map that clearly indicates the location of new AB 2011 alternative parcels
3. Codify the AB 2011 alternative parcels through an ordinance, rather than a resolution. We believe that
rezoning hundreds of parcels without CEQA consideration through a resolution could potentially expose the
City to litigation. By codifying the changes via an ordinance, the City can invoke the provisions of
65912.114(o) and 65912.124(o) and exempt itself from CEQA requirements.
Implementing these recommendations will not only address some of the concerns raised by California's Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD), but it will also allow the City to protect commercial spaces near
residential neighborhoods while maximizing the benefits of AB 2011.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working together to create additional housing
opportunities and promote the well-being of our community.
Sincerely,
�i�a :7Grrir�zra
John Hanna
Government Affairs
Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
533 S. Frr'mnnt Ave.. 101h FI. [us Angeles. CA 90071
[2131385-1457 Fax; [2t31385-3759