Nonprofit accuses Orange of using unrealistic parcels in its housing plan – Orange County Register

A pro-housing group is challenging the viability of the state-approved housing plan filed by the city of Orange, saying the plan fails to show how more than 3,000 needed housing units will be built on land that current housing restrictions of property deeds would be supposed to prohibit. development.

The dispute comes as the city deals with four “builder’s appeal” applications for the construction of 696 new homes on non-residential sites in the city. Under the 1990 builders’ appeal provision, developments do not need to comply with city zoning rules because the applications were filed before the state certified the city’s housing plan on January 2.

The Feb. 28 lawsuit, filed by the real estate agent-backed Californians for Homeownership, seeks a court order requiring Orange to revise its plan, or “housing element,” claiming the city is relying on the redevelopment of shopping center parking lots and other plots that have been abandoned. restrictions preventing such use.

“The City’s housing component relies on non-vacant sites to satisfy more than 50 percent of the City’s lowest income (housing goals),” the lawsuit states. “The city has not (provided) substantial evidence that the (existing) uses would be subject to disruption.”

See also: Developers offer 576 housing units in Orange, some at the shopping center, others at the hospital

In accordance with current state housing laws, Orange’s new housing plan must include a list of sites where 3,936 new homes can be built by the end of the decade. At least 1,671 of these units must be affordable to low-income residents.

State housing officials raised questions about the Orange plan over deed restrictions at some Orange sites last spring, but then approved the city’s plan after Orange officials provided ” additional outreach to property owners (and) updated analysis,” according to state records.

The lawsuit argues that the city must prove that these sites can actually be redeveloped before the current plan expires in October 2029.

“I don’t know if these sites are good or bad. What I do know is that the city has not produced the evidence…to demonstrate whether (the parcels are) good or bad,” said Matthew Gelfand, a California homeownership attorney. “And without that evidence, this housing element does not substantially comply with state law.”

See also: Realtor-affiliated group sues six cities for failing to adopt new housing plans

Californians for Homeownership, which has filed 21 lawsuits challenging local housing plans across California, accused the city of including nine encumbered parcels in its housing plan without evidence that existing uses will be discontinued this decade. These sites represent 3,211 of the 3,936 new housing units the city must include in its plan.

According to Californians for Homeownership, sites include:

— The car parks of the Outlets shopping center in Orange, subject to a registered declaration keeping them parked until 2047.

— Parcels at City Town Center on Chapman Avenue that a recorded declaration commits to retail sale for 65 years.

— Parcels at the Stadium Promenade and Century Stadium shopping centers on Katella Avenue which are subject to clauses prohibiting residential use until at least 2044.

Orange City Attorney Mike Vigliotta declined to comment on the pending litigation.

A spokeswoman said Monday, April 22, that the state Department of Housing and Community Development also cannot comment on pending litigation.

But in its Jan. 2 letter approving the Orange Housing Plan, the state Housing Department said the city’s updated plan showed that shopping center owners were interested in redeveloping sites included in the Orange Plan.

The state’s “finding of compliance was based on…additional homeowner outreach, updated analysis, and…modified programs necessary to demonstrate that (the city’s plan) has adequate (housing) sites,” indicates the letter. The letter adds that the city “will consult with developer groups to analyze the impact of land charges on the potential for new developments during the planning period.”

Gelfand believes, however, that the city needs to provide evidence beyond verbal assurances that the sites can be redeveloped during the current plan period. The lawsuit seeks to compel the city to produce this evidence.

“Our goal is … for the city to come forward and actually demonstrate that these sites are available (for housing),” Gelfand said. “Our primary focus is what evidence the city has that (existing uses on) these sites are likely to be abandoned by the end of the planning period. »

See also: Real estate developers win early ‘builder’s cure’ battles in fight to circumvent local zoning

Meanwhile, Orange has racked up four builder appeal requests filed before the Orange plan won state approval, meaning developers don’t have to comply with the general plan and state laws. zoning of the city.

Applications include:

— Integral communities: 209 townhouses and accessory dwelling units at the back of the Village d’Orange shopping center.

— Stonefield Development: 138 apartments in 11 three-story buildings plus a self-storage building on the “Chapman-Yorba” site along Santiago Creek.

— Milan REI

— Milan REI

“This is an SB 330/builder repair project,” Creekside Village’s application states. “Therefore, the city’s zoning ordinance for this site is not applicable.”

But city planners have drawn up long lists of corrections needed before any of these plans can move forward. In three of those plans, the city still requires developers to obtain a zoning change and general plan amendment despite the builder’s solution.

The city’s assertion is similar to those recently struck down by Los Angeles County judges in builders’ repair cases filed against the cities of Los Angeles and La Cañada Flintridge.

“Right now, they’re saying we still have to file a zone change and a general plan amendment,” said John Stanek, a partner at Integral Communities. “My legal team is preparing a response.”