The city of Orange, California, had its sights on the finish regarding receiving acceptance of its state-mandated housing plan, but now it’s back to the drawing board after the state’s housing department rejected its latest submission.
Orange adopted its so-called “housing element” Feb. 14, which began a 90-day review by the state. Previously, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development indicated the city’s plan would likely be approved, after the city addressed state-requested revisions.
But state housing officials again requested more revisions to the plan in a letter dated April 14.
Updated every eight years, a housing element is a state-mandated affordable housing plan. For this cycle—which runs from 2021 to 2029—Orange is required to zone for 3,927 new homes, with nearly 60 percent of those set aside for low- or moderate-income residents.
The state’s request for further revisions came after receiving letters from a developer’s attorney and two pro-housing groups claiming some of the sites the city identified for residential development were non-viable, according to the letter sent to the city by state Housing Accountability Chief Melinda Coy.
Coy said in the letter that the city hadn’t included specific information on how development could occur at locations where existing use is already present.
If the sites the city zoned for aren’t feasible, then it “may need to amend the housing element,” to provide a buffer of sites accounting for possible constraints, or find new sites altogether, Coy wrote.
But city officials argued the state had no issues with its plan just a couple of months ago until they received complaints.
Issues were raised by an attorney representing a developer who has been seeking to build a three-story apartment building in the city for almost two years.
The location is currently zoned as open space and would have required a zone change to residential. According to Orange City Attorney Mary Binning, the city requested developers provide additional environmental analysis of the project, but as of last fall, they had not done so.
Instead, according to Binning, the developers “requested that their property be put on our housing element … that is somewhat where the battle between the developer and the city began.”
The developer has now filed what’s known as a “builder’s remedy” application for the project—increasing the building’s height to seven stories—which is allowable under state law if a city’s housing element is not approved. Orange’s plan was due 18 months ago.
Additionally, the developer’s attorney Allan Abshez, with Loeb and Loeb out of Los Angeles, said in letters to the state that 89 percent of the sites in Orange’s housing element were on 11 sites with deed restrictions, easements, alleged owners’ statements arguing against redevelopment, and other impediments.
But city officials disagree.
“I think the sites were adequate ... One of the developers doesn’t agree with that and their attorneys are the ones that changed [state officials] mind. That doesn’t sound like they’re playing fair,” Orange Mayor Dan Slater told The Epoch Times.
According to Abshez’s letter, the alleged problematic sites include the Ayres Hotel on Chapman Avenue, the Orange Town and Country shopping center, City Town Center, Promenade shopping center, Outlets at Orange, Orange County Classical Academy—a public charter school with over 500 students—and an Orange County Sheriff’s Training Center.
Other letters received by the state with concerns about Orange’s plan came from People for Housing Orange County—a pro-housing organization—and Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit that has sued 12 cities over their housing elements.
“The city has actively disregarded statements from property owners who do not intend to redevelop their sites, and whose sites are burdened by commitments that make redevelopment impossible,” attorney for Californians for Homeownership Matthew Gelfand wrote in a March 15 letter to the state housing department. “It is clear that the city does not have adequate sites to meet its [zoning requirements]. Instead, it is relying on multiple sites for which there is affirmative evidence that the sites will not be redeveloped.”
Elizabeth Hansburg, director of People for Housing Orange County, alleged similar claims in a letter to the state.
“Not every city is openly defying housing element law and policies as in Huntington Beach. Some are doing so quietly, hoping their violations go unnoticed,” she wrote.
Huntington Beach and the state filed dueling lawsuits against each other in March regarding the housing element and other housing issues.
But Orange officials said they have willfully followed every suggestion or requirement from the state and that the housing element has been a “moving target,” requiring constant adjustments.
Binning, the city attorney, said unlike Huntington Beach—who has willfully opposed some of the state’s housing mandates—Orange has gladly worked with the housing department over the last two years but despite the different approaches the two cities have found themselves “in the same boat.”
“The first thing that we need to do is speak with somebody at [the housing department] who is able to give us very clear and precise directions,” she said. “It’s been a moving target, and we’re told by [them] that the target can continue to move so long as there are complaints coming in.”
