For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the professionalism and dedication you and senior planner, Rose Rivera provided during our review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Marisa Prasse, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Enclosure
Senior Program Manager
604
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 October 18, 2021
APPENDIX
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The review requirement is one of the most important features of the element update. The review of past programs should analyze the City's accomplishments over the previous planning period. This information provides the basis for developing a more effective housing program.
A thorough program-by-program review is necessary to evaluate City's performance in addressing housing goals. As part of this analysis, the element should describe the actual results of the prior element’s programs, compare those results to the objectives projected or planned, and based on an evaluation of any differences between what was planned versus achieved, provide a description of how the objectives and programs of the updated element incorporate changes resulting from the evaluation. This information and analysis provides the basis for developing a more effective housing program.
Examples of programs that need information and evaluation include, but are not limited, to the following:
Program 2 (Affordable Housing In-Lieu Funds) – Describe and evaluate the recommendations of the in-lieu fund study that were adopted and their appropriateness moving forward.
Program 3 (Homeownership Assistance Programs) – Evaluate how the interest list of potential buyers for 58 affordable, owner-occupied units is created, maintained, and how the list has changed over the planning period.
Program 5 (OCHA Special Needs Groups Rental Assistance Program) – Describe how many referrals were made during the planning period and if the City was able to expand this program during the planning period.
605
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 October 18, 2021
Program 6 (City Grants for Special Needs Groups) – Analyze what percent of the Human & Social Services community assistance budget was allocated to special needs groups in the other years during the planning period besides 2020.
Program 7 (Code Enforcement) – Address if the City was successful in identifying and funneling resources into home rehabilitation.
In addition, as part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness). For more information, See HCD’s Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/getting-started/reviewrevise.shtml.
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) General: The element has some basic information and maps on segregation and access to opportunity map scores. However, the element generally does not address most components of this requirement. The element, among other things, must include outreach relevant to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), a full assessment of fair housing, identification, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity, as detailed below. For more information, please visit https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity: The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing. The element currently states that the City works with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing services. The analysis should describe what type of housing services are provided, as well as describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations, analyze any patterns in fair housing complaints (using data such as HUD’s FHEO Inquiries by City found on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer) and include a conclusion of summary of issues.
Integration and Segregation: The element includes data on non-white population at the local level; however, it should also evaluate segregation by race/ethnicity, providing detail for each race/ethnicity. In addition, the element should analyze patterns and trends of segregation and integration, include a comparison of the City to the region, and consider other data options. In addition, this section must address trends and patterns locally and regionally within the City for disability, familial status, 606
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 October 18, 2021
and income (local to regional comparison). Finally, the element should include a summary of integration and segregation fair housing issues.
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP): The element states that there aren’t any R/ECAPs in the City. In addition, the City should analyze the racial concentrations as it relates to areas of affluence. The combination in the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns and changes over time and consider other relevant factors, such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends.
Access to Opportunity: The element includes some general data from the overall indicator of access to opportunity from the TCAC/HCD maps, but if should analyze this data for differences across geographies, trends, other relevant factors and incorporate local data and knowledge. In addition, a complete analysis should include the local and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, and economic scores individually through local, federal, and/or state data.
Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement: The element does include some information on overcrowded households, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, and cost-burdened households, but it must also analyze the data including evaluating spatial trends, patterns, and other local knowledge, and conclude with a summary of issues. In addition, the element must include an analysis of displacement risk and must still provide data, analysis, and conclusions. One resource for the displacement analysis is the Urban Displacement Project’s Gentrification and Displacement maps: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/losangeles/los-angeles-gentrification-and-displacement.
Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The element does not address this requirement. The element must include local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates and service providers. Also, the element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. The element should analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.
Contributing Factors: The element must list and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. The element is missing this requirement. Contributing factors create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues and are fundamental to adequate goals and actions. Examples include community opposition to affordable housing, housing discrimination, land use and zoning laws, lack of regional cooperation, location and type or lack of affordable housing and lack of public or private investment in areas of opportunity or affordable housing choices.
The analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing. 607
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 October 18, 2021
Site Inventory: The element does not address the requirement for sites to AFFH. The analysis must address the components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation & integration, access to opportunity, R/ECAPs, disproportionate housing needs including displacement). In addition, the analysis should address the number of anticipated units by income group and how the sites identified improve conditions (or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a program can mitigate the impact), whether the sites are isolated by income group, and should be supported by local data and knowledge.
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and should address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. Given the history and nature of development patterns in the City, the element could focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing throughout the community. Given that most of the City is considered a high and highest resource community, the element should focus on programs that enhance housing mobility and encourage new opportunities throughout the community. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtm.
2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
Extremely Low-income Households (ELI): The element must quantify existing and projected ELI households and analyze their housing needs. The analysis should consider tenure, cost burden, overcrowding and other household characteristics then examine trends and the availability of resources to determine the magnitude of gaps in housing needs. The housing need for projected ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of very lowincome households qualify as ELI households. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.
3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Conditions: The element identifies the age of the housing stock. However, it must estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or 608
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 October 18, 2021
sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers/property managers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.
For additional information, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/housing-stock-characteristics.shtml.
Overpayment by Tenure: While the element identifies the total number of overpaying households, it must quantify and analyze the number of overpaying households by tenure (i.e., renter and owner) and the lower-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing by tenure. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Vacancy Rates and Housing Prices: The element should include a description and analysis of current housing stock characteristics. This information can be used to assist jurisdictions in identifying specific housing needs and tailoring housing programs to fit those needs. The element should identify and analyze the vacancy rates by tenure. In addition, the element must identify and analyze typical housing prices for rental and for-sale units.
4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Parcel Listing: The element must list sites, including candidate sites for rezoning, by parcel number or unique reference, parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, describing existing uses for any nonvacant sites and include a calculation of the realistic capacity of each site. The element should detail the capacity of each site (a range is unacceptable) and identify the affordability of units for each site. A description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis of the potential for additional development. For additional information and sample sites inventory, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/inventory-of-land-suitable.shtml.
In addition, Table CP-25 lists the Towers Planning Area, including 7 deed restricted units for very low-income households. The element should clearly describe whether this area is a project or site. If a site, the element should include all the information described above. If a project, the element must demonstrate affordability for the units anticipated to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Map of Sites: The element must include a general map of identified sites. The map and the identified sites should be clearly legible. For additional information, see the sites inventory analysis section of the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/inventory-of-land-suitable.shtml. 609
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 October 18, 2021
Aggregated Sites: Many sites listed in the sites inventory appear to be comprised of multiple parcels. While the element may aggregate parcels, it must also list each parcel-by-parcel number or unique reference, parcel size, zoning, general plan designation, describe any existing uses for any nonvacant sites, and include a calculation of the realistic capacity of each parcel. For additional information and sample sites inventory, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/inventory-of-land-suitable.shtml.
Realistic Capacity: The element must include an estimate of the number of units that can be accommodated on each site in the inventory. The estimate may rely on established minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units for each site was determined. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land-use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element should describe the methodology used for calculating realistic capacity and should provide support for those assumptions. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml#zoning.
For sites zoned for nonresidential uses (e.g. commercial and mixed-use zones), the element must describe how the estimated number of residential units for each site was determined. The estimate may rely on established minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units for each site was determined. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The estimate must also account for land-use controls such as allowing 100 percent nonresidential uses. To demonstrate the likelihood for residential development in nonresidential zones, the element could describe any performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential and any factors increasing the potential for residential development such as incentives for residential use, and residential development trends in the same nonresidential zoning districts. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#zoning.
Nonvacant Sites: While the element identifies nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, the description provided regarding potential for redevelopment is inadequate. The element must further describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s or County’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other 610
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 October 18, 2021
incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).)
For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#analysis.
In addition, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for lower-income households. For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Large Sites: Sites larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households. One of the sites to accommodate the City’s housing need for lowerincome household is a large parcel (The Commons at 21 acres). Since most developments utilizing state or federal financial resources include 50 to 150 units, the element must include analysis describing the feasibility of large parcel development of housing affordable to lower-income households. For example, the analysis could describe opportunities for specific-plan development and further subdivision or other methods to facilitate the development of housing affordable to lower-income households on large sites. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#realistic.
Infrastructure: The element must demonstrate sufficient existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply capacity, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) The element should describe whether each site already has infrastructure and utility access. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml#environmental.
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City, it must describe any known environmental constraints or other known conditions within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) For example, the element should analyze very high fire hazard severity zone risks and if any sites identified in the site inventory are subject to these environmental constraints. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventoryanalysis/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.shtml#environmental. 611
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 October 18, 2021
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element estimates an ADU potential for the planning period of 40 units without providing any justification for these estimates.
Specifically, in addition to other methods, HCD accepts the use of trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production. The City should provide data on the number of ADUs permitted each year in recent years to justify these 40 anticipated ADUs during the planning period. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within 6 months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.
Electronic Sites Inventory Form: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: The element should clarify whether shelter are permitted without discretionary action and describe the development standards of the zones that allow emergency shelters by-right, the capacity of these zones to accommodate the identified housing need for emergency shelters, the applicability of any spacing requirements, typical parcel sizes, whether the sites are nonvacant, and the potential capacity for adaptive reuse. In addition, the analysis should provide an analysis of proximity to transportation and services for these sites, hazardous conditions, and any conditions inappropriate for human habitability. Lastly, the element states that the City requires 0.3 parking spaces per bed, however this is not consistent with new emergency shelter parking requirements under AB 139 (Chapter 335, Statues of 2019). The element must include a program to adjust emergency shelter parking requirements to comply with this requirement.
• Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.) or include programs as appropriate. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 612
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 October 18, 2021
beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element indicates the City modifies its zoning code to ease barriers to the development of ADU’s. In addition, after a cursory review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered several areas which were not consistent with State ADU Law. This includes, but is not limited to, lot coverage requirements, bedroom restrictions, deed restrictions, permitting requirements, Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) requirements, and owneroccupancy requirements. In addition, ADUs need to be allowed in any residential zone, yet under the current code, they are not allowed in RH & RVH zones. HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU non-compliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should add a program to update the City’s ADU and zoning ordinances to comply with state law. For more information, please consult HCD’s ADU Guidebook, published in December 2020, which provides detailed information on new state ADU requirements.
5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures… (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land-use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land-use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities and cost and supply of housing. The analysis could also describe past or current efforts to remove identified governmental constraints. Examples include, but are not limited to, whether 100 percent residential developments are allowed in mixed-use areas, CBO overlay requirements, open area and landscaping requirements, and parking standards for studio and one-bedroom apartments (number of spaces and garage requirement).
The element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.
In particular, the element should include a program to revise parking standards to be more in line with standards found on HCD’s website:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/landuse-controls.shtml.
Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single-family and multifamily housing development, including planning fees (e.g., conditional use permits (CUP), rezones, and variances) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/fees-andexactions.shtml. 613
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 October 18, 2021
Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element describes the permit procedure at a general level, it must describe and analyze the City’s permit processing times and approval procedures by zone and housing type (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing). In addition, the element should analyze the approval findings for a Site Development Permit and the criteria for the Director to forward the application to the City Council. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis should consider processing and approval procedures and time for typical single- and multi-family developments, including type of permit, level of review, approval findings and any discretionary approval procedures. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/constraints/processing-permitting-procedures.shtml.
Inclusionary Requirements: The element must describe and analyze the inclusionary housing requirements and their impacts as potential constraints on the development of housing for all income levels, specifically on housing supply and affordability. The analysis must evaluate the inclusionary policy’s implementation framework, including levels of mandated affordability and the types of options and incentives offered to encourage and facilitate compliance with the inclusionary requirements. The City could engage the development community to facilitate this analysis. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks on HCD’s website and HCD’s letter regarding inclusionary housing ordinances at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/ab_1505_final.pdf.
Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe the City’s building and zoning code enforcement processes and procedures, including any local amendments to the building code, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/constraints/codes-and-enforcement-on-offsite-improvement-standards.shtml.
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Permit Procedures: The element should describe the City’s SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlined ministerial approval procedure and application and include programs if appropriate.
Zoning, Development Standards, and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards, and fees on the City’s website and include programs if appropriate.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include a description and analysis of potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, as follows:
• Reasonable Accommodations: The element must demonstrate the City has a reasonable accommodation procedure for providing exception in zoning and land use and should describe and evaluate the typical findings for a reasonable accommodation request.
614
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11 October 18, 2021
• Definition of Family: The element should describe any zoning code definition of a family and analyze as a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities.
• Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons: The element is unclear on how and where residential care facilities for seven or more persons are permitted. The element should analyze requirements for these types of housing, and if they do require a CUP or are excluded from residential zones, specifically analyze these constraints for impacts on housing choices, approval certainty and objectivity for housing for persons with disabilities and include programs as appropriate.
• Residential Care Facilities with Six or Fewer Persons: The element should provide an analysis of potential constraints associated with the City’s definitions of residential care facilities. On page CP-38, the element contains different definitions for ‘residential care facilities’, ‘health facilities’, and ‘alcohol or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities that are licensed by the State for up to six persons. However, the state does not license all community care facilities or group homes serving six or fewer persons. The element should describe where these definitions are found in municipal code, provide clarification on these definitions and include a program to address any constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, residential care facilities should be allowed in any zone where similar types are also allowed, yet Table CP-29 shows that these types of facilities are not permitted in the RH and RVH zones. The element should include a program to revise these standards that relate to residential care and other similar facilities.
6. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Land Prices and Cost of Construction: The element must be revised to include analysis of the price of land and cost of construction.
Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must analyze requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.
7. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, 615
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 12 October 18, 2021
including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
The element includes some general quantification; however, the element should include analysis of households with special housing needs. The analysis should include, but is not limited to, factors such as trends, household income, tenure, housing types, zoning, and available resources. In addition:
• Persons with Disabilities: While the element provided information on residents with different types of disabilities, the element must quantify the total number of persons with disabilities and analyze their special housing needs. • Farmworkers: The element indicates there are no farmworkers employed in fulltime farming occupations in Aliso Viejo. However, farmworkers from the broader area and those employed seasonally may have housing needs, including within the City’s boundaries. As a result, the element should at least acknowledge the housing needs of permanent and seasonal farmworkers at a county-level (e.g., using USDA county-level farmworker data) and include programs as appropriate.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised with specific commitment and definitive implementation timelines include but are not limited to 1 (Adequate Sites for New Housing), 2 (Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing), 3 (Homeownership Assistance Programs), and 7 (Code Enforcement).
In addition, programs to be revised with specific commitment and quantifiable outcomes include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Program 2 (Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing) – Provide quantifiable outcome of how many units will be assisted in the 6th cycle. 616
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 13 October 18, 2021
• Program 3 (Homeownership Assistance Programs) – Commit to how the City will make homeownership programs available.
• Program 4 (Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers) – Provide quantifiable outcomes regarding how much the program will expand voucher usage in the City.
• Program 5 (OCHA Special Needs Groups Rental Assistance Program) – Provide quantifiable outcomes regarding how many more households with special needs will be included in the expansion of the program. • Program 7 (Code Enforcement) – Provide quantifiable outcomes, describe how funds typically become available to assist with home rehabilitation and how the City will proactively pursue those funds.
• Program 9 (Streamlined Residential Permit Processing) – Provide quantifiable outcomes describing how much the program will reduce permit processing time and how many affordable housing development projects will be assisted. • Program 12 (Encourage Energy Conservation) – Provide quantifiable outcomes describing how many projects will be assisted by this program.
Lastly, as noted in Finding A, the element does not include a complete Review and Revision analysis. Based on the results of a complete Review & Revisions analysis, many of the programs carried over from the 5th Cycle element should be updated with further actions to ensure appropriateness and efficacy of the programs moving forward. Potential programs for revision include but are not limited to Programs 3 (Homeownership Assistance Programs), 4 (Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers), 5 (OCHA Special Needs Groups Rental Assistance Program), 6 (City Grants for Special Needs Groups), and 7 (Code Enforcement).
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factorybuilt housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in the Finding B4, the element does not include a complete sites inventory or analysis; as a result, the adequacy of sites and zoning has not been established.
Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, programs may need to be added, or revised, to address a shortfall of sites and zoning for a variety of housing types.
If the element does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it must include a program(s) to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h) and (i).)
617
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 14 October 18, 2021
The program must commit to:
• permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval; • accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
• require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and
• at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.
For additional information, see the Building Blocks’ at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/programrequirements/identify-adequate-sites.shtml.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element assumes 40 ADU and or JADU over the planning period. The element must add a program to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and commit to implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within 6 months).
Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) ELI and Special Needs Households and Individuals: While the element includes Program 2 (Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing), the element must include a program(s) to assist in the development of housing affordable to ELI households.
Programs must be revised or added to the element to assist in the development of housing for ELI households. In addition, the element should include specific actions to address the housing needs of special needs households. Program actions could include prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to ELI households or households with special needs and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, to address the identified housing needs for ELI households. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml. 618
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 15 October 18, 2021
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B5 and B6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.
5. Promote AFFH opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH.
Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs to have specific commitment, milestones, and metrics to overcome fair housing issues and to enhance housing mobility strategies, encourage development of new affordable housing in high resource areas, improve place-based strategies, and protect residents from displacement.
6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov.
Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
The element is required to include a program that incentivizes or promotes ADU development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Examples of actions include flexible zoning requirements, development standards, or processing and fee incentives that facilitate the creation of ADUs, such as reduced parking requirements, fee waivers and more. Other strategies could include targeted advertising of ADU development opportunities or establishing an ADU specialist within the planning department. In addition, as described in Finding B4, a program should be added to update the City’s ADU ordinance to comply with state law.
D. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
619
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 16 October 18, 2021
While the element includes quantified objectives for construction and conservation, it must also include quantified objectives for rehabilitation by income group.
E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(8).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, it must also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts to engage in conversations with low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. While the City made effort to include the public through City Council meetings, moving forward, the City should employ additional methods for public outreach efforts, particularly including lower-income and special needs households, language accessibility at meetings, and providing alternative formats and venues for public input besides City Council meetings. For example, the City could conduct targeted stakeholder interviews or establish a committee representative of lower-income and special needs households in future public outreach efforts. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/getting-started/public-participation.shtml.
In addition, based on a follow-up email in response to a question asked during our review call with City staff, HCD understands the City made the element available to the public only one week before its submittal to HCD. By not providing adequate time for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission, the City has not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment at least two weeks prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including revising the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.
F. Consistency with General Plan
The housing element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
620
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 17 October 18, 2021
While the element discusses how internal consistency within the general plan was achieved as part of the update of the housing element, it must also describe how consistency with the general plan is maintained. In addition, The City should consider an internal consistency review as part of its annual general plan implementation report required under Government Code section 65400.
G. Housing in the Coastal Zone
Coastal localities shall document the number of low- and moderate-income units converted or demolished, and the number of replacement units provided. (Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (d).)
If necessary, to determine whether the City’s affordable housing stock in the coastal zone is being protected and provided as required by Government Code section 65588, the element must be revised to include the following:
1. The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone since January 1982;
2. The number of housing units for persons and families of low- and moderate-income required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles;
3. The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by low- and moderateincome households either within the coastal zone or three miles of the coastal zone that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1982 and
4. The number of residential dwelling units for low- and moderate-income households that have been required for replacement.
621
1 November 29, 2021
Ms. Marisa Prasse, Housing Policy Analyst
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: Initial Comments to Draft Housing Element dated August 2021 Department of Housing and Community Development:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Aliso Viejo’s 2021-2029 initial draft Housing Element. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments.
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 new construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.
Public Engagement
Public engagement is a necessary component of the Housing Element process. As California Housing Element law states: “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element...” Broad participation and true engagement of the public increase the likelihood that the 1 community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments. Public engagement should include participation from residents of diverse communities, housing consumers, service providers, and advocates.
The City conducted two community workshops, and one survey, but did not provide alternative options or outreach for lower income residents to participate in the Housing Element process. This does not constitute adequate community engagements. The City should have hosted additional meetings intended to exclusively engage residents.The City did not provide information on how many of those participants were residents of Aliso Viejo, and, specifically, low-income residents.
The summary does not provide the number of respondents surveyed. The City needs to engage community stakeholders and residents in the evaluation and creation of policies, goals, programs and sites for affordable housing development, especially low income and special needs residents who are the most vulnerable to the housing crisis and document these efforts. 1 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9)
622
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
2 Moreover, the City does not provide a description of the respondents so it is unclear how many residents were from lower income communities. The City needs to properly engage community stakeholders and residents in the evaluation and creation of policies, goals, programs and sites for affordable housing development, especially low income and special needs residents who are the most vulnerable to the housing crisis and document these efforts.
In addition, the availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submission to HCD is essential to the public process. However, the City did not provide sufficient opportunity for the public to review the Housing Element draft. The updated draft was discussed to the public on August 18th, 2021, only one day before it was submitted to HCD for review on August 19, 2021. The city should proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate.
Community Needs
According to SCAG’s pre-certified housing data, there are a total of 7,373 renter households in Aliso Viejo, with 52% of those households spending thirty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. Additionally, 25% renter households are extremely rent burdened and are paying 2 fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. Furthermore, 12% of renters are in the extremely low income category . The median average income for the city is $128,050 . In light of 3 4 these figures it is not surprising that the low and extremely low income cannot afford housing. The Housing Element draft states a resident needs to earn an annual income of the moderate level ,respectively, to afford for-sale housing .
5 Employment:
At least two of the four primary employment sectors in the City provide a median salary that is below the City’s median income and that HCD defines as very low income: Education and Social Services, and retail. According to Table CP-3 of the draft, these sectors account for approximately 23% of jobs in the City . The City should take into account its local economy and offer healthy and 6 affordable housing options that the current market-rate housing development is not offering. The City could improve its analysis by describing employment trends by industry and how changes either recent or anticipated can affect the housing market and discuss opportunities for improving work-housing balance, such as mixed-use to facilitate housing near jobs.
Cost Burden and Overcrowding:
The Housing Element must “include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.” While the element includes some information on 7 7 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2)
6City of Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p.CP-3, August 2021 5City of Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p.CP-19, August 2021. 4City of Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p.CP-19, August 2021 3 SCAG Pre-certified Housing Data for the City of Aliso Viejo, p. 14 April 2021. 2 SCAG Pre-certified Housing Data for the City of Aliso Viejo, p. 14 April 2021. 623
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
3 housing stock conditions from American Community Survey (ACS) data, it must also estimate the number of units in need of replacement and rehabilitation. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.
5th Cycle RHNA Performance
During the current 5th cycle planning period the City had a total Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 39: 9 at very low-income, 7 at low-income, 7 at moderate and 16 at above moderate.
To date, the City has approved 386 units at moderate and 35 at above moderate. At very-low 8 income the City has approved 83 very low income units and 335 at low-income. Although the City has exceeded 5th Cycle targets for all income levels,the last year any housing permits were granted was in 2017. In a later section, the Kennedy Commission provides recommendations of policies the City can implement to increase its production of housing at the very low- and low-income levels. 5th Cycle Identified Opportunity Sites:
In the 5th Cycle, the City identified housing opportunity sites for very low and low income exclusively in the SP No. 1 – Vantis and SP No. 2 - Commons zones. Vacant lands on Liberty 4 and 2C Liberty were also identified to accommodate at least 249 lower-income units.The sites were identified based primarily on the minimum density requirement for affordable housing of 30 units to the acre. No affordable housing policy accompanied these higher density allowances, as is evident in the deficit of lower income housing in the City’s 5th Cycle. The higher density zoning has provided significant incentives for market rate multi-family development at the expense of curtailing affordable housing options on these higher density sites. As analyzed, higher density incentives and sites (30+du/acre) identified are not producing affordable housing units and circumvents the efforts of the State density bonus law to include affordable housing in exchange for development incentives and increases in density that are being given away. Since developers receive all the incentives and density increases by-right, they do not need to include affordable housing in their projects. This clearly shows the need for strong affordable housing policies, such as an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that can ensure that at least a 15% affordable housing requirement for lower-income households is set on sites identified for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (6th Cycle).
Although the City met its regional housing needs, the City is encouraged to implement an inclusionary housing ordinance to facilitate the development of affordable housing. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low- and low-income categories.. Without strong affordability requirements, the SP No. 1 – Vantis and SP No. 2 - Commons zoning circumvents the efforts of the State density bonus law to 8 Aliso Viejo 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Table B 624
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
4 include affordable housing in exchange for development incentives and increases in density because these sites provide market-rate developers the densities they need by-right.
Housing Policies to Increase Affordable Housing
Past Performance:
The City must “review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element.” While the element includes a program-by-program review of implementation in the prior planning period, the review of past programs should also analyze the cumulative effectiveness of programs on addressing special housing needs over the previous planning period.
Incentivizing Affordable Housing in the 6th Cycle Housing Element:
To ensure that affordable housing is incentivized on the sites identified in the 6th Cycle, the City needs to include policies and programs that will create affordable housing. The following policies and programs proposed in the 6th Cycle can be improved in the following ways:
● Program 1: Adequate Sites for Affordable Housing- Can reduce the cost of development for projects by assuming the cost of amending the General Plan and Zoning designations to allow for additional residential development. Given the urgent need of residents for low-income housing, we propose the study be completed within one year of the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Commission strongly recommends the City adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the first year after adoption to ensure that identified sites are truly feasible and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low- and low-income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should be implemented no later than one years from the adoption of the Housing Element.
● Program 2: Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing- Affordable Housing In-Lieu Funds- The city should continue to prioritize In-Lieu to create new affordable rental units to extremely low and very low income households.
● Program 8: Conservation of Existing and Future Affordable Units- The city did not receive any notifications in the year 2020 about potential unit conversions. The city should include incentives that would make more units available for conversion to affordable units.
Housing Element Opportunity Sites Inventory
As part of the analysis of adequate sites, the City has reviewed potential housing sites citywide and has identified opportunity sites for lower-income households in The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center – Towers Planning Area. The City does not currently have sufficient residential sites to accommodate for the RHNA,but to accommodate for the shortfall the City is relying on Program 1 Adequate Sites for New Housing and the Rezoning candidate parcels in table CP-26 of the 6th cycle. The sites identified for lower-income categories are identified based on default densities for lower income units. As evident from the City’s lack of affordable housing production in the 5th Cycle, relying solely on default densities without implementing specific affordable housing policies 625
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
5 will not produce affordable housing. Instead, it gives market-rate projects increased densities and land use incentives without incentivizing the inclusion of affordable units.
The Commission also strongly recommends that the City adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay that requires 15% of units be set aside for housing at the extremely-low,very low- and low-income level in the identified sites at The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center-Towers Planning Area. The Affordable Housing Overlay should be implemented no later than one year after the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
One of the affordable housing incentives proposed through this program is an affordable housing density bonus compliant with State law. The density bonus should aim to maximize affordable housing production in exchange for development incentive. By simply allowing higher density on the housing sites identified for the 6th Cycle the City would be allowing developers to circumvent the efforts of the State density bonus law. This is even more important on sites where rezones or the overlays create higher densities at a range of 45 to 60 units to the acre, because developers will be getting the density increases by-right and not use density bonus and incentives because they will already be getting these by-right through the zone change and overlay. This will ensure that identified sites are truly feasible and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner.
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites:
The City selected The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center – Towers Planning Area as the sites that will accomodate the most lower income housing units for the upcoming 6th Cycle. These sites are reused from the 5th Cycle. The City has failed to provide evidence of the actions they are taking to increase the probability these sites will be developed. The Commons has no inclusionary policy.
We highly recommend the City implement an By-Right Affordable Housing Development policy in The Commons that requires that at least 20% of units in all residential projects be set aside for extremely low, very-low, low income housing in exchange for incentives and concessions that these rezonings will create for market rate development.
Traditional Funding for Affordable Housing:
In addition, identified affordable housing sites should also be evaluated for their viability to compete for traditional funding to create affordable housing. These funding sources prioritize development sites that promote access to community resources and services, such as schools, public transportation, medical services and access to parks.
No Net Loss:
The City will also have to consider No Net Loss when it identifies opportunity sites. It is crucial that affordable housing moves along with market-rate housing given the limited sites that are available.
Considering the state's No Net Loss requirements, if the sites identified for affordable housing are developed for market-rate housing, the City will have to rezone new sites for the appropriate density.
9 9 Government Code § 65863
626
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
6 It is important that the City address the concerns we raised with the 6th Cycle Housing Element site inventory and further evaluate constraints to and the likelihood of the development of affordable housing on these sites. Moreover, the City needs to identify affordable housing policies and programs that will equitably facilitate and incorporate affordable housing at the extremely low, very low and low-income categories on these sites.
ADUs
The Commission questions the affordability of the 40 ADU units the City anticipates for the 6th Cycle. The City is assuming that 27 ADU units will be at the very low and low income level.
However, the City does not provide strong enough policies that will ensure these ADU units will be affordable at the lower income levels. The City needs to propose a better plan to ensure the affordability of ADUs.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The Housing Element has some basic information on demographics and overall scores for access to opportunity. However, the element generally does not address AFFH. The Housing Element needs to include outreach, an assessment of fair housing, identification, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. The element includes some data on racial characteristics at the local level and mentions that it is similar to that of the surrounding areas; however, the comparison of segregation at local and regional levels must include more thorough analysis of local knowledge and history that can explain patterns and trends in the city and in surrounding areas. The analysis should include patterns and trends by race and ethnicity, not just the percentage of non-white population in the city as shown in Figure CP-1. The City has failed to provide a thorough analysis of risk of displacement, gentrification, and exclusivity in the City or policies that address these issues. The City has also not provided adequate recommendations on how the City will address contributing factors to fair housing issues in the City.
Additionally, the City does not provide anti-displacement policies that adequately protect current residents. As the SCAG Aliso Viejo 2020 Data shows, a substantial portion of the City is considered low-income and susceptible to displacement, experiencing advanced gentrification, or at-risk of becoming exclusive. Of the 526 low income units in the jurisdiction, 100% of these assisted units are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year . Providing housing that is affordable to 10 low income residents also helps address concentration of poverty by helping rent-burdened residents. As established, the City has not provided policies that will effectively produce housing at the lower income levels.
As a reminder, AFFH requires the following:
● An assessment of Fair Housing in Aliso Viejo including a summary of issues and analysis of patterns, and trends
● The preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community. 10 SCAG Pre-certified Housing Data for the City of Aliso Viejo, p. 18 April 2021 627
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
7 ● Identification and prioritization of fair housing contributing factors ● Investment in low resource areas that will improve quality of living in those areas ● Programs with a schedule of actions with timelines and specific commitment to have a “beneficial impact” within the planning period to achieve the goals and objectives of addressing contributing factors to Fair housing issues.11 We ask that the City prioritize the housing needs of low, very low and extremely low-income residents, who encounter difficulties in finding decent, affordable housing.
As the City moves forward with the draft Housing Element update, the Commission urges the City to support the development of affordable homes. The Commission has provided the following recommendations for the City to incorporate:
1. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that sets a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely low, very low, and low-income categories of all residential projects.
In Program 1, The City must identify a timeframe to study the policy and a timeframe for adoption and implementation. We recommend that this be done in the first year of the 6th Cycle.
2. Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay, especially in areas being identified for new residential development. The Affordable Housing Overlay should set aside 15% of all units at the extremely low, very low-, and low-income levels. The City must identify a timeframe to study the policy and a timeframe for adoption and implementation. We recommend that this happens in the first year of the 6th Cycle.
3. Identify City-owned sites and prioritize these sites for the development of housing exclusively at the extremely low, very low- and low-income level.
4. Prioritize affordable housing funding and programs to increase affordable housing options for families of lower incomes, especially at very low and extremely low-income.
5. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the Housing Element draft are realistic and available during the planning period.
6. The City of Aliso Viejo should provide an adequate analysis and recommendations on how the City will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. For example, the City should include anti-displacement policies that protect low-income residents from rising rents and commit to reinvesting in low resource areas to improve the quality of living of residents in those areas.
7. The City needs to prioritize and expand affordable housing in new opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element inventory, where density and incentives will only promote market rate housing.
8. The city should describe in more detail how the In Lieu Fee Program will work with the proposed new opportunity sites to increase affordable housing opportunities.
9. The City must update its local Density Bonus to comply with recent State Density Bonus amendments. In updating the Density Bonus the City must consider its impact and effectiveness in promoting affordable housing development in the city initiated upzoning, 11 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)
628
Kennedy Commission Comments
August, 2021 Aliso Viejo Initial HE Draft
8 specific plans, general plan update areas and land use rezonings that give away higher development density, incentives and concessions without requiring the affordable units.
Thank you for taking the time to review the Commission’s comments. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
629
November 27, 2021
Regarding: Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Draft
Dear Mayor Ackley, Mayor Pro Tem Chun, Councilmembers Harrington, Hurt and Munzing, We write representing the Welcoming Neighbors Home (WNH) Initiative, a ministry of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation – which has members in South Orange County – including Aliso Viejo. The WNH initiative works to end homelessness and promote the development of more affordable housing – especially for those with extremely low and very low incomes.
We have reviewed Aliso Vejo’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Draft and discussed it with Mr.
Omar Dadabhoy, the city’s Community Development Director. We offer the following comments and questions.
But first, a request. We ask that any future revisions to the Housing Element Draft be posted with redlined tracked changes so we may easily monitor changes to the document.
Past Performance:
Though the 5th Cycle RHNA goals for Aliso Viejo were quite low, 9 Very Low Income (VLI) and 7 Low Income (LI), we were pleased to see the goals were exceeded. • Total Permits were issued for 83 Very Low Income units, 74 extra permits issued. • Total Permits were issued for 335 Low Income units, 328 extra permits issued.
We note from the 2013-2021 Housing Element and the Aliso Viejo Annual Progress Report for 2019, p.13, Table B that 3 of the projected properties were used to produce units for very-lowincome (VLI) and low-income (LI) income families/individuals. • Vantis Multi-Family Apartments – Projected: 20 LI units, permits issued: 20 LI Units • The Commons at AV Town Center – Projected: 7 VLI & 14 LI Units • 4 Liberty – Projected: 144 VLI & LI units, permits issued: none • 2C Liberty – Projected: 144 VLI & LI Units, permits issued: 33 VLI & 167 LI Units 630
That said, there were 534 moderate-income housing units built compared to 34 lower-income units – a ratio of 15 to 1. We would like to see an even more balanced approached to development in the 6th Cycle. We are especially interested in the city offering more lowerincome family rentals (3 and 4 bedroom apartments.) Comments Regarding Site Inventory:
We request a copy of the site inventory so we can analyze the planned affordability in the proposed sites for re-zoning.
We visited the sites listed as candidates for re-zoning (see Appendix for photos). In general we see a lot of potential in the sites proposed. While all of the sites have existing structures, several of the sites are unoccupied.
Rather than taking 3 years to re-zone the sites, we urge the city to re-zone them within 1 year of the 6th Cycle Housing Element being adopted.
We also urge the city to rigorously pursue affordable housing developers, such as Jamboree, National CORE or others, and reduce constraints to incentivize them build affordable housing units in Aliso Viejo so the city can meet its 6th Cycle RHNA goals of 574 lower-income units.
1. We are especially excited about The Commons – where formerly Lowe’s was located. It is conveniently located near Trader Joe’s and other shopping. It is a huge property – but of course there are existing structures there. Does this site already have a housing overlay with affordable housing requirements? If so, could you please elaborate on the requirements and what exactly is planned for this area?
2. The Aliso Viejo Town Center is promising with its large parking lot. Again, does this site have an existing housing overlay and what are the affordable housing requirements?
3. For the Business Park on Aliso Viejo Parkway, we note there is a “Space Available” sign outside. This property seems to encompass 3 very large buildings and a huge parking lot, but we can’t tell what the potential is. How much space is available? Does the owner want to redevelop the property into housing? How long are the leases that are now in place? We think this would be a wonderful location for the city to encourage a partnership between the owner and affordable and permanent supportive housing developers such as Jamboree and National CORE to apply for Project HomeKey funding.
4. We note there is a “Space Available” sign outside 35 Journey and 41 Columbia. Again, please share your analysis of the potential here.
5. For 1 Columbia we did not see a “Space Available” sign outside. What is your analysis of this site? Why do you think it has potential to be re-developed? 631
6. We were interested to hear that there is vacant land by Liberty and that TransWestern already has an application to build there. We think that would have been a terrific location for permanent supportive housing since it would have been close to behavioral health providers.
Comments regarding Proposed Housing Programs:
1. ADUs – We note the projection of 40 ADUs to meet the RHNA goals. We would like to see more details on the plan to monitor to development and affordability of ADUs - including, as other cities have done, a plan to track ADU rents to measure if progress is being made on the production of affordable units.
In addition, we would like to see more incentives put in place to encourage the development of ADUs – such as expedited review of ADU permits, pre-approved ADU design plans and reduction of permit fees for deed restricted affordable ADUs.
2. Program 4: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers - We ask that the City be more specific and robust in their plans for educating residents about the Federal Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program. We especially urge the city to do outreach to landlords to encourage them to accept housing vouchers because we are hearing that even when people are approved for the vouchers, they cannot find landlords who will accept them. We also recommend that the City coordinate with United Way to bring informational sessions about their Welcome Home OC program to Aliso Viejo landlords. This program is a landlord incentive program that provides financial incentives such as double security deposits, sign-on bonus, holding fees, and other assurances for landlords who rent units in Orange County to individuals, Veterans, and families with a housing voucher. The program is a joint effort between the United to End Homelessness initiative, Orange County United Way, Public Housing Authorities, and rental property owners to reduce the time involved in the search for housing by increasing the availability of rental units.
Although the city has achieved a degree of success in encouraging affordable housing, given that all the proposed sites have buildings on them, we think that a much more robust set of programs are needed to affirmatively attract developers to build lower income housing in Aliso Viejo.
632
RECOMMENDED HOUSING PROGRAMS:
We have consulted with staff at the Kennedy Commission to learn what housing programs facilitate the production of affordable housing. Below is their advice. We are in agreement with their recommendations.
===========
The Kennedy Commission recommends the following affordable housing policies and programs to provide development incentives and collaborative opportunities for the production of affordable homes:
1. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Given the urgent need of residents for lowincome housing, the Commission strongly recommends the City adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the next year to ensure that identified sites are truly feasible and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The ordinance should be flexible to allow for the development of affordable housing onsite, off site, or provide for an appropriate in-lieu fee option. We recommend an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot, to go along with this policy. The in-lieu fee must be calculated to achieve the gap financing needed to create affordable housing and be used to leverage additional state and federal housing funds. We recommend the affordable units be deed restricted for at least 55 years. A feasibility study and implementation of the ordinance should be completed no later than one year from the adoption of the Housing Element.
2. Mixed-Use Zoning – We support the city’s planning for mixed-use developments that provide residential units along major corridors and can provide significant opportunities for affordable housing development. We understand that mixeduse zoning allows for the integration of housing with other uses on underutilized commercial or industrial sites while retaining existing commercial/industrial square footage usage to provide services to new residents and the surrounding community. We recommend that the City require 15% of housing to be affordable at the extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-income levels in the mixeduse zoned focus areas.
3. Affordable Housing Overlay – The Commission recommends that the City adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, especially over the mixed-use focus areas that are being rezoned and upzoned. A minimum of 15% of all units should be set aside for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income levels in exchange for 633
development and regulatory incentives. The City must identify a timeframe to study the policy and a timeframe for adoption and implementation. We recommend that this happen in the first year of the 6th Cycle as part of the Zoning Code update.
4. Congregational Housing Overlay - A Congregational Housing Overlay Zone provides an opportunity for the development of affordable housing on religious sites while retaining the existing religious use. The overlay would provide 100% affordable units on congregational sites, with a focus on extremely-low-, verylow- and low-income categories. Click here for a survey of how other cities are using congregational zoning.
5. Adaptive Reuse Ordinance - Certain building, fire code, and parking requirements add additional costs to building conversion projects and reduce the likelihood of developers converting commercial buildings to residential. The City should consider the adoption of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, such as Santa Ana’s ordinance, to provide alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible buildings in exchange for 15% of converted units dedicated to extremely low-, very low- and low-income categories.
6. Community Land Trust - The City should consider developing a Community Land Trust that would allow the City to retain ownership of land (either donated or purchased) and lease the land to the owner of the improvements for community benefit and the creation of 100% affordable housing.
7. Density Bonus - The City should analyze the effectiveness of the City’s density bonus ordinance to develop affordable housing for lower-income households.
The City’s 5th cycle RHNA progress demonstrates that moderate and above moderate-income housing production has outpaced lower-income housing development by a 15 to 1 ratio. The City should prioritize affordable housing for lower-income households in its update and implementation of density bonuses.
The review should include analysis as to how the density bonus is being implemented. This is especially important when analyzing its effectiveness in higher density specific plans and rezonings that give density and land use incentives and parking reductions, similar to the density bonus, but without requiring affordable housing. It is worth noting that rental developments can only use density bonuses to incentivize lower-income units.
8. Incentivizing 100% Affordable Housing - Regulatory, zoning and administrative requirements can contribute to high construction costs, and negatively affect the feasibility of producing affordable housing. The City should develop a program that incentivizes 100% affordable developments and reevaluate the current 634
zoning code to eliminate barriers and create incentives for affordable housing developments. Incentives could include reducing or eliminating permitting fees, offering additional by-right incentives beyond density bonus, reducing parking standards, and alternative development standards. The City should consult with for-profit and nonprofit developers to determine appropriate regulatory incentives.
9. City Owned Sites and Surplus Property - The city should prioritize city owned sites and surplus land to be developed exclusively for 100% affordable housing for low, very low and extremely low income families. The City must be proactive and implement a program that markets available surplus land to affordable housing developers.
===========
The need for more affordable housing for those earning less than $50,000 per year, especially families, is acute. We urge the city to take proactive steps, such as those outlined above, to promote the production of more affordable family housing in Aliso Viejo.
We also recommend that the city issue an RFP to actively solicit affordable housing developers to the city. We would like to see the city offer support from the fund of collected in-lieu fees in exchange for development of extremely-low-, very-low and low-income housing units as well as funding available from the State of California’s HomeKey funds (https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/NOFA_Homekey_0.pdf), and the federal government American Rescue Plan Act funds.
The Project Homekey deadline is January 31st. There is a source of funding, the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), that will be available in 2022. This PLHA funding is readily available to cites but only if they apply for it. Is our city tracking these program deadlines to bring these resources to our community? Are we aware of all funding opportunities? It is important for the city to take advantage of these funding sources NOW to make important strides in the provision of affordable housing.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments and questions. We look forward to hearing from Mr. Dadabhoy regarding the answers to our questions and to getting a copy of the site inventory. Please contact Rona Henry at [email protected] and Catherine Van Camp at [email protected] for questions, and to provide the information requested. 635
Sincerely,
Rona Henry, Chair Catherine Van Camp, Member
Welcoming Neighbors Home Welcoming Neighbors Home
Paul Bonfanti Dana Freeman
Aliso Viejo Resident Aliso Viejo Resident
Rev. Kent Doss, Minister
Tapestry, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation
Cc: Omar Dadabhoy, Community Development Director
David Doyle, Aliso Viejo City Manager
Cesar Covarrubias, Mildred Perez, Cythia Guerra and Daisy Cruz - Kennedy Commission Paul McDougall, Marisa Prasse - California State Housing and Community Development Office 636
APPENDIX
Sites in the Aliso Viejo Housing Element Draft Fall 2021 Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
1 Columbia Business Park BP-2 Office 2 60-100
637
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
41 Columbia Business Park BP-2 Office 2 60-100
Appears to be unoccupied. Next to Rt 73
638
Site Existing General
Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
26800 Aliso
Viejo Pkwy
Business Park BP-1 Office 7 210-350
Space Available sign outside
639
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
26840 Aliso
Viejo Pkwy
Business Park BP-1 Office 7 210-350
Space Available sign outside.
640
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
26880 Aliso
Veijo Pkwy
Business Park BP-1 Office 7 210-350
Space Available sign outside.
641
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
26800 to
26880 Aliso
Viejo Pkwy
Business Park BP-1 Office 7 210-350
Large Parking Lot
642
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
35 Journey Business Park BP-1 Office 2 60-100
Space Available sign outside.
643
Site Existing General Plan Existing
Zoning
Existing
Uses
Acreage Potential
Units
The Commons High Density Residential/
Community Commercial
SP-2 Parking
Lot
21 630-1,050
Site of Former Lowe’s store – large space available. Site of Trader Joe’s, Walgreens, Michaels, Taco Bell and other stores. Large parking lo
644
645
646
647
648
Site Existing
General Plan
Existing
Zoning
Existing Uses Acreage Potential
Units
AVTC
Gateway
Business Park CT Parking Lot 6 300
Site of Edwards Regal Theater – large parking lot
649
650
651
December 22, 2021
Ms. Prasse
Housing Policy Analyst
Land-Use and Planning Unit, Housing Policy Division
California Housing and Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 375
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: Comments to Revised Draft Housing Element dated August 2021 California Department of Housing and Community Development:
My name is Amir Baum and I am a proud resident of the City of Aliso Viejo of seven years.
As an environmental health and safety professional, I have seen firsthand how lack of affordable housing in our city has led to a huge increase in homelessness and lack of housing security for thousands of residents. Many of these people are like you and me who once lived in secure homes but due to circumstances largely out of their control were forced to live on the street due to their wages not being able to keep up with ever increasing costs of living in Orange County.
While I have not personally faced housing insecurity, I have friends and colleagues in the Orange County area who certainly have, including in the South Orange County area. Ensuring we have a stable affordable housing supply not only ensures that these people I have known personally who lived throughout the Southern California region have dignity and respect they deserve to be able to have a decent job, wages, and have a roof over their hoods where they can sleep every night.
Securing affordable housing for our region has been shown to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions because those who need affordable housing would live closer to their jobs thereby improving air quality & protecting public health and our children’s health. We need much more investment in place for affordable housing in order to revitalize the City of Aliso Viejo from the pandemic to provide critical assistance to thousands of people dealing with housing insecurity.
I am writing today to ask that you ensure the City of Aliso Viejo includes in their 6th Cycle Housing Element policies and programs that will effectively produce affordable housing at the extremely low-, very low-, and low-income level.
For the 2014-2021 planning period, the City had a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 9 very low- and 7 low-income units. To date, the City has built 83 of the 9 very lowincome units and 335 of the 7 low- income units. With a new RHNA of 390 at the very low- and 214 units at the low-income affordability levels, the City should continue to support the 652
production of affordable housing in the new cycle to meet the growing needs of hard working residents.
Of Aliso Viejo's 7,373 renter households, 3,860 (52.4%) spend thirty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. Additionally, 1,809 renter households in Aliso Viejo (24.5%) spend fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. Tables “Employment by Industry” and “Employment by Occupation” in the element shows a significant portion of job salaries in Aliso Viejo employment industries fall into the lower-income categories. The City should take into account its local economy and offer healthy and affordable housing options that the current market-rate housing development is not offering families and young professionals in Aliso Viejo.
To effectively produce housing at the extremely low-, very low-, and low-income levels, I recommend that the City:
Recommendations
As the City moves forward with the Housing Element update, I urges the City to support the development of affordable homes. The City needs to ensure opportunity sites are not simply upzoned or rezoned without including affordable housing policies that will capture the financial and land use incentives being given to property owners and market rate developers. I would like to provide the following recommendations to the City:
1. The City should implement the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance so that it requires that 5% of all units are affordable at the extremely low income level, 5% at very low, and 5% at low, for a total of 15% of all units set aside for affordable housing.
2. Identify city-owned sites and surplus land and prioritize these sites for the development of housing exclusively at the extremely-low, very low and low income level.
3. Prioritize affordable housing funding and programs to increase affordable housing options for families of lower incomes, especially at very low and extremely low-income.
4. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the initial draft are realistic and available during the planning period. Greater analysis is needed on the potential transition and feasibility of sites proposed to meet the lower income needs, especially on sites proposed for rezoning.
5. The city should also further analyze the City’s development patterns, zoning, housing policies and land use that have led to such a disparity in creating new housing opportunities. This disparity is demonstrated by the city’s RHNA process in the current planning period.
6. Ensure housing opportunity sites identified are not simply upzoned, rezoned or become part of overlays or specific plans that give away higher density and development incentives, without capturing the increase in financial gain and land use incentives being given to property owners and market rate developers. A 15% affordable housing inclusion at extremely low (5%), very low (5%) and low-income (5%) is necessary on these sites in exchange for these enhanced development opportunities and incentives.
7. The City should provide an adequate analysis and recommendations on how the City will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). Most of the affordable housing development opportunities have been identified and planned in the lower and moderate resource areas 653
of the City. AFFH requires that cities promote the creation of affordable housing in high resource areas that provide important amenities such as schools, grocery stores, and medical services while also encouraging investment and conservation in low resource areas. The City needs to provide better strategies to facilitate affordable housing in higher resource areas, especially on the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites identified in this area.
Furthermore, under AFFH, the City should also include anti-displacement policies that protect low income residents from rising rents and commit to reinvesting in low resource areas to improve the quality of living of residents in those areas.
I encourage you to consider my recommendations and to urge the City of Aliso Viejo to develop and implement policies that will effectively produce lower income housing. I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Amir Baum
654
From: Kate VC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Tiffany Ackley <[email protected]>; Ross Chun <[email protected]>; Richard Hurt <[email protected]>; Dave Harrington <[email protected]>; Mike Munzing <[email protected]>; David Doyle <[email protected]>; Omar Dadabhoy <[email protected]>
Cc: Rona Henry <[email protected]>; Dan Schmid <[email protected]>; Cesar Covarrubias <[email protected]>; [email protected]; McDougall, Paul@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Aliso Viejo Housing Element Draft dated Jan 5, 2022 January 10, 2022
Regarding: Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 2nd Housing Element Draft Dear Mayor Ackley, Mayor Pro Tem Chun, Councilmembers Harrington, Hurt and Munzing, City Manager David Doyle and Community Development Director Omar Dadabhoy:
Thank you for providing notice of the most recent Housing Element Draft. I also appreciated time spent today with Omar Dadabhoy who was able to clarify many aspects of the document for me.
The Aliso View 6th Cycle Housing Element has been materially improved in many aspects. Items I noticed as well drafted and meeting HCD requests, in my opinion, include:
• The review of the 5th cycle as been improved in several areas. Thank you for that detail. Some of the program goals originally lacked metrics and measurements which make a firm evaluation impossible. Programs for the 6th Cycle are acceptable in my view, even though programs could often be improved with stronger action words and metrics. I will look for very specific accomplishments in each annual report going forward.
• The new draft adds extensive discussion of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Thank you for this. I particularly appreciate Policy H-3.2 looking for best practices in other cities. • Population differences and trends in the city are better described in this draft. The needs of the lower income “Iglesias” neighborhood near my own home are well described. I appreciate the targeting of housing information for these particular neighbors and look forward to the Fair Housing Foundation’s work there (Policy H-3.17).
• The Site Inventory had many improvements including the required spreadsheet format. I understood that the spreadsheet should stand alone, rather than being embedded, so you might want to confirm with HCD.
Income level information for units, parcel numbers, density, and acreage were all improved, together with addressing infrastructure and transportation for the sites. • The HCD requests in Section A of their letter, parts 2, 3 and the first three parts of 4 are handled well.
Letter sections D, E, F and G seem to be addressed.
• The ADU section has been amended and I appreciate the more realistic approach. Thank you for the addition of Policy H-3.7.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
655
• Fees, zoning, and permit procedures are now well outlined. • Residential care facilities and ADU zoning, as well as other legal update items in the HCD letter, are now clearly identified for compliance.
There are some items, as I discussed with Omar today, that still seem to be missing. It appears that he may have drafted additional comments pertinent to these items that were omitted, either on purpose or inadvertently, by the consultant. It is my understanding Omar will review these items prior to submission to the Council. These items are included below.
The site inventory has been improved in providing parcel numbers, income levels and specificity on units - but the reasons and the context for selecting these sites and their specific practical potential is just not in the Housing Element. On page 6 of the letter, HCD discusses Realistic Capacity and non vacant sites. I had also addressed this concern in my letter of August 18th. This is the area that I find most problematic in the second draft.
I have the impression that considerable background work has been done relative to each site — such as talking with owners, and the long standing planning related to Gateway Center. But such work remains missing. There is no discussion of “realistic capacity.” Such background might be obvious to the staff and Council, and even those of us present during presentations, but this supportive information is not necessarily clear to other readers and it is specifically requested by HCD. Since the sites are not vacant, there is supposed to be a robust discussion of impediments to development including past city experience. Aliso Viejo has had development success in the past, so those projects may be helpful in this context. Since sites are occupied, current uses must be discussed and I believe there are vacancies that are pertinent to why these properties were selected. Discussions were held with some owners which should be described. I can imagine that developers actually read Housing Elements with an eye to the selected sites. Without these explanations, the sites don’t appear as viable as they probably are. See page 11 of HCD letter.
In my talk with Omar today, I mentioned my concern on page H-14. The first bullet says “sites will be selected from … CP26” The city must rezone ALL the sites identified since the units exactly meet the RHNA requirement. This wording should be changed even though it is often used in other housing elements.
It is problematic that there is no buffer, that is additional units exceeding the RHNA number, should any sites be eliminated over the course of the cycle. If sites must drop off the selection list, the city will have to revisit site selection to meet the “no net loss” requirement. I understand we don’t have other excellent prospects at this time. Perhaps HCD allows the city to visit this problem if and when it arises. I am unsure. I would suggest Aliso Viejo begin assessing congregational structures, and any other buildings with a high vacancy rate, in case there is potential with those buildings.
I suggest the city strive to accomplish zoning changes within two years if the HE deadline is met.
I would like to see Homeownership Assistance section bolstered slightly. As I’ve mentioned before, a website display is not sufficient for needy citizens. Direct communication is powerful in preventing Aliso Viejo residents from becoming unhoused. I understand that the Fair Housing Foundation does community education. A quarterly meeting and opportunities in Spanish would be wonderful. Some programs are mentioned in the Element. Programs for individuals and families can include OC Housing is Key, OC Housing Emergency Housing Voucher program, OCHA Homeownership down payment assistance, OCHA programs for veterans and foster youth growing up, the OC Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), CalHFA ADU program, and more! Let’s make sure education is easily accessed and draws people in with strong participation. Please track the sessions held, the number of participants, and report results very specifically in every annual report.
Aliso Viejo should look for opportunities as each annual report progresses to find ways to be specific. Our housing goals should be practical, specific, and enthusiastic. Results should contain metrics and measurements.
Thank you for all the sincere efforts made towards a sound housing program and the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Kate
Catherine (Kate) Van Camp
Cc: Welcoming Neighbors Home, Kennedy Commission, HCD
656
Comments & Responses
Aliso Viejo 2021 - 2029 Housing Element
January 2022 Page 1
Comment Response
1. In the 2013-2021 planning period there were 534 moderateincome housing units built compared to 34 lower-income units – a ratio of 15 to 1. We would like to see an even more balanced approached to development in the 6th Cycle. We are especially interested in the city offering more lower-income family rentals (3 and 4 bedroom apartments.)
While the City will advocate with developers to construct large bedroom units, it is important to note that cities do not build housing. Cities have little control over the number of affordable housing units (including affordable units) that are built. City plans and regulations create opportunities and incentives for development, but private property owners, developers and builders decide if and when to build based on many factors outside cities’ control including general economic and housing market conditions, individual business plans, state and federal policies, interest rates, private lender policies, the cost of materials, labor cost and availability, other investment opportunities, available public subsidies for affordable housing, etc.
It is also very important to know that large public subsidies are typically necessary to produce deed-restricted low-income housing.
In the urban coastal areas of Southern California, required subsidies can be in excess of $300,000 per unit. For the SCAG region alone, this translates into a total cost of over $167 billion based on the lower-income RHNA of 558,000 units for the 8-year planning period.
For comparison, the total cost of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program for the entire nation is about $11 billion per year.
With regard to 3- and 4-bedroom apartments, the City does not control unit sizes. However, some affordable housing subsidy programs such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits program include priority or incentives for large units.
657
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 2
Comment Response
2. Sites listed as candidates for re-zoning have a lot of potential.
While all of the sites have existing structures, several of the sites are unoccupied. Rather than taking 3 years to re-zone the sites, we urge the city to re-zone them within 1 year of the 6th Cycle Housing Element being adopted.
The City intends to start the rezoning process as soon as there is confirmation from HCD that the proposed sites are acceptable. with the understanding that large-scale rezoning is a very complex process due to extensive State legal requirements including CEQA compliance and public participation. The City is an advocate for the State legislature adopting CEQA amendments or exemptions that would streamline the rezoning and housing development process, as they have for some other types of developments such as sports stadiums. If an EIR is necessary, the required time to process zoning amendments could easily take more than a year.
In addition, the City has a very small staff and a large work effort such as a Housing Element update or major rezoning requires an extensive amount of time and money. While the State has made some grant funds available to assist cities in these efforts, consultant costs often exceed available grant funds.
Further, when the State Legislature adopts new housing laws imposing additional administrative burdens on cities, there is typically no State funding provided to cover cities’ costs in implementing the new requirements. Instead, the Legislature typically justifies this lack of funding by allowing cities to charge fees on new development to cover the additional cost. At the same time, the State criticizes cities for high development fees, which exacerbate the cost of housing.
3. We also urge the city to rigorously pursue affordable housing developers, such as Jamboree, National CORE or others, and reduce constraints to incentivize them build affordable housing units in Aliso Viejo so the city can meet its 6th Cycle RHNA goals of 574 lower-income units.
The City works cooperatively with affordable housing developers.
For example, the City has worked with USA properties to construct two senior affordable housing developments with 398 affordable units. City Staff also has relationships with local affordable housing developers and will work with them to develop the proposed sites.
With regard to meeting the RHNA, it is important to note that State law does not require cities to achieve the RHNA allocations. Rather, cities must provide sufficient opportunities for housing 658
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 3
Comment Response
development through their plans and zoning regulations
commensurate with the RHNA.
While some cities have been able to actually achieve their RHNA allocations in previous housing cycles, the RHNA allocations were more than tripled for the 6th planning cycle – to over 1.3 million units for the SCAG region compared to about 400,000 units in the previous cycle. The primary reason for the huge RHNA increase is the State’s change in the RHNA methodology to include existing households who are overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) or are overpaying (more than 30% of gross income for housing) in addition to projected population growth. The RHNA is a planning goal based on the amount of new housing that would need to be built in the next 8 years to accommodate every new household while also completely eliminating overcrowding and overpayment for every existing household in the region.
“Existing need” was not included in any previous RHNA cycle during the past 40 years. Almost half of the total RHNA in the SCAG region for this cycle is due to existing need rather than projected growth.
For Aliso Viejo, the assigned housing need due to population growth is 48 units while the city’s assigned share of the region’s existing need due to existing overcrowding and overpayment throughout the region is 1,144 units.
Regional growth forecasts are based on a variety of factors including land available for development. Aliso Viejo is almost fully developed, and the only opportunities for new housing are through the redevelopment of existing properties. Unlike older areas like northern Orange County and Los Angeles County, there are no blighted areas in Aliso Viejo that are obvious candidates for redevelopment. Property owners will only demolish and redevelop existing properties if the economics “pencil out” and from a financial perspective, it seems unlikely that redevelopment equal to the City’s 659
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 4
Comment Response
RHNA allocation will occur in the next 8 years, no matter what policies the City adopts to encourage housing development.
Given all these facts, it does not seem reasonable to expect that Aliso Viejo will “meet its RHNA” if that phrase is interpreted to mean “achieve its RHNA.”
4. We are especially excited about The Commons – where formerly Lowe’s was located. It is conveniently located near Trader Joe’s and other shopping. It is a huge property – but of course there are existing structures there. Does this site already have a housing overlay with affordable housing requirements? If so, could you please elaborate on the requirements and what exactly is planned for this area?
The Aliso Viejo Town Center is promising with its large parking lot.
Again, does this site have an existing housing overlay and what are the affordable housing requirements?
For the Business Park on Aliso Viejo Parkway, we note there is a “Space Available” sign outside. This property seems to encompass 3 very large buildings and a huge parking lot, but we can’t tell what the potential is. How much space is available? Does the owner want to redevelop the property into housing? How long are the leases that are now in place? We think this would be a wonderful location for the city to encourage a partnership between the owner and affordable and permanent supportive housing developers such as Jamboree and National CORE to apply for Project HomeKey funding.
We note there is a “Space Available” sign outside 35 Journey and 41 Columbia. Again, please share your analysis of the potential here.
For 1 Columbia we did not see a “Space Available” sign outside. What is your analysis of this site? Why do you think it has potential to be re-developed?
The City has discussed the potential of an affordable housing overlay with the owners of the proposed sites. All of the owners welcomed the overlay and many had already started to investigate the possibility of redeveloping their properties.
Due to the time constraints State law imposes on cities for preparing Housing Element updates, the analysis of rezoning strategies for the candidate sites is preliminary and conceptual. State law identifies a 2-step process, with step 1 being identification of candidate sites in the Housing Element, and step 2 being subsequent detailed studies (including CEQA analysis and public hearings) leading to rezoning.
Accordingly, detailed analysis of specific development parameters for the candidate sites will be conducted after final adoption of the Housing Element, along with additional public review and discussion. The identification of candidate sites is based primarily on staff’s knowledge and development inquiries from property owners.
660
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 5
Comment Response
We were interested to hear that there is vacant land by Liberty and that TransWestern already has an application to build there. We think that would have been a terrific location for permanent supportive housing since it would have been close to behavioral health providers.
5. ADUs – We note the projection of 40 ADUs to meet the RHNA goals. We would like to see more details on the plan to monitor to development and affordability of ADUs - including, as other cities have done, a plan to track ADU rents to measure if progress is being made on the production of affordable units. In addition, we would like to see more incentives put in place to encourage the development of ADUs – such as expedited review of ADU permits, pre-approved ADU design plans and reduction of permit fees for deed restricted affordable ADUs.
The City’s current ADU requirements in the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code require annual reporting of ADU rents.
The City intends to incentivize ADU production through the creation of a guidebook for the creation and design of ADU’s if grant funds can be obtained. The City will also work with interested parties to identify any obstacles to the development of ADU’s and proposed Zoning Code changes based on the feedback received. However, it should also be recognized that the cost of building an ADU can be quite high - $250,000 would not be unusual for a 800-sq-ft ADU assuming a cost of about $300 per square foot.
6. Program 4: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers - We ask that the City be more specific and robust in their plans for educating residents about the Federal Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program. We especially urge the city to do outreach to landlords to encourage them to accept housing vouchers because we are hearing that even when people are approved for the vouchers, they cannot find landlords who will accept them. We also recommend that the City coordinate with United Way to bring informational sessions about their Welcome Home OC program to Aliso Viejo landlords. This program is a landlord incentive program that provides financial incentives such as double security deposits, sign-on bonus, holding fees, and other assurances for landlords who rent units in Orange County to individuals, Veterans, and families with a housing voucher. The program is a joint effort between the United to End Homelessness initiative, Orange County United Way, Public Housing Authorities, and rental property owners to reduce The Orange County Housing Authority operates the Housing Choice Voucher program. The City will request that the Housing Authority provide additional educational opportunities for landlords and residents.
The City has promoted the Welcome Home OC program via the City’s social media outlets, and will continue to coordinate with the United Way to disseminate program information to landlords in Aliso Viejo.
661
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 6
Comment Response
the time involved in the search for housing by increasing the availability of rental units.
7. Although the city has achieved a degree of success in encouraging affordable housing, given that all the proposed sites have buildings on them, we think that a much more robust set of programs are needed to affirmatively attract developers to build lower income housing in Aliso Viejo.
As discussed in No. 4 above, the City has discussed the potential for an housing overlay with many of the property owners and there is widespread interest. The City also welcomes suggestions on potential programs that can be deployed to attract developers.
8. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Given the urgent need of residents for low-income housing, the Kennedy Commission strongly recommends the City adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the next year to ensure that identified sites are truly feasible and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The ordinance should be flexible to allow for the development of affordable housing onsite, off site, or provide for an appropriate in-lieu fee option. We recommend an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot, to go along with this policy. The in-lieu fee must be calculated to achieve the gap financing needed to create affordable housing and be used to leverage additional state and federal housing funds. We recommend the affordable units be deed restricted for at least 55 years. A feasibility study and implementation of the ordinance should be completed no later than one year from the adoption of the Housing Element.
While the City agrees that there can be benefits to inclusionary housing ordinances, practically speaking, the City has been more successful in their absence. In the City’s experience, with inclusionary housing ordinances, which generally require 15% affordability, developers design their projects to meet that minimum requirement. With the developments at 2 Liberty and 100 Freedom Lane, the City was able to obtain 100% affordability (excluding manager’s units).
In addition, inclusionary housing, and variations such as housing overlay zones, are techniques used by many cities to require the production of affordable housing as part of development projects.
However, these techniques are not universally supported because they impose an additional cost on property owners and developers.
As the saying goes, “There is no free lunch.” Selling or renting some housing units at below-market rates must be offset by higher prices for other units, or lower revenues for the property owner or developer. Another argument against such techniques is that they discourage development or steer development into other areas without such requirements. The State has taken a neutral position on inclusionary requirements, and a recent law established a threshold of 15% lower-income inclusionary requirement above which the State requires a financial analysis to evaluate whether the requirement acts as an unreasonable constraint on housing development.
662
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 7
Comment Response
Even absent a formal inclusionary requirement, the City has been successful in negotiating affordable housing production as part of the development entitlement process – for example:
9. Mixed-Use Zoning – We support the city’s planning for mixed-use developments that provide residential units along major corridors and can provide significant opportunities for affordable housing development. We understand that mixed-use zoning allows for the integration of housing with other uses on underutilized commercial or industrial sites while retaining existing commercial/industrial square footage usage to provide services to new residents and the surrounding community. We recommend that the City require 15% of housing to be affordable at the extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-income levels in the mixed-use zoned focus areas.
See #8 above
10. Affordable Housing Overlay – The City should adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, especially over the mixed-use focus areas that are being rezoned and upzoned. A minimum of 15% of all units should be set aside for extremely low-, very low-, and lowincome levels in exchange for development and regulatory incentives. The City must identify a timeframe to study the policy and a timeframe for adoption and implementation. We recommend that this happen in the first year of the 6th Cycle as part of the Zoning Code update.
See #8 above
11. Congregational Housing Overlay - A Congregational Housing Overlay Zone provides an opportunity for the development of affordable housing on religious sites while retaining the existing religious use. The overlay would provide 100% affordable units on congregational sites, with a focus on extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income categories.
This idea was proposed to the City by a local housing advocacy group. There is merit to this idea and the City continues to investigate the possibility.
12. Adaptive Reuse Ordinance - Certain building, fire code, and parking requirements add costs to building conversion projects and reduce the likelihood of developers converting commercial buildings to residential. The City should consider the adoption of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, such as Santa Ana’s ordinance, to provide alternative building and fire standards for the conversion of eligible While the ordinance referenced is specific to the needs of Santa Ana, there is the possibility that one or more of the proposed sites could adaptively reuse the existing structures on site. The City will investigate the reference ordinance further and include provisions as appropriate during the rezoning process.
663
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 8
Comment Response
buildings in exchange for 15% of converted units dedicated to extremely low-, very low- and low-income categories.
13. Community Land Trust - The City should consider developing a Community Land Trust that would allow the City to retain ownership of land (either donated or purchased) and lease the land to the owner of the improvements for community benefit and the creation of 100% affordable housing.
The City will investigate this proposal further.
14. Density Bonus - The City should analyze the effectiveness of the City’s density bonus ordinance to develop affordable housing for lower-income households. The City’s 5th cycle RHNA progress demonstrates that moderate and above moderate-income housing production has outpaced lower-income housing development by a 15 to 1 ratio. The City should prioritize affordable housing for lowerincome households in its update and implementation of density bonuses. The review should include analysis as to how the density bonus is being implemented. This is especially important when analyzing its effectiveness in higher density specific plans and rezonings that give density and land use incentives and parking reductions, similar to the density bonus, but without requiring affordable housing. It is worth noting that rental developments can only use density bonuses to incentivize lower-income units.
The City most recently evaluated its density bonus provisions with the two developments at 2 Liberty and 100 Freedom Lane. However, the City believes that there is merit in continual reevaluation of all of its Municipal Code provisions and will reevaluate the density bonus section of the Code.
15. Incentivizing 100% Affordable Housing - Regulatory, zoning and administrative requirements can contribute to high construction costs, and negatively affect the feasibility of producing affordable housing. The City should develop a program that incentivizes 100% affordable developments and reevaluate the current zoning code to eliminate barriers and create incentives for affordable housing developments. Incentives could include reducing or eliminating permitting fees, offering additional by-right incentives beyond density bonus, reducing parking standards, and alternative development standards. The City should consult with for-profit and nonprofit developers to determine appropriate regulatory incentives.
Recent changes to State density bonus law already provide the incentive of at least 80% density bonus in addition to other incentives and concessions for 100% affordable projects. 664
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 9
Comment Response
16. City Owned Sites and Surplus Property - The city should prioritize city owned sites and surplus land to be developed exclusively for 100% affordable housing for low, very low and extremely low income families. The City must be proactive and implement a program that markets available surplus land to affordable housing developers.
The City currently owns no surplus property. It owns the property in which City Hall is located and three park properties all of which it intends to retain.
17. We also recommend that the city issue an RFP to actively solicit affordable housing developers to the city. We would like to see the city offer support from the fund of collected in-lieu fees in exchange for development of extremely-low-, very-low and low-income housing units as well as funding available from the State of California’s HomeKey funds, and the federal government American Rescue Plan Act funds.
The Project Homekey deadline is January 31st. There is a source of funding, the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), that will be available in 2022. This PLHA funding is readily available to cites but only if they apply for it. Is our city tracking these program deadlines to bring these resources to our community? Are we aware of all funding opportunities? It is important for the city to take advantage of these funding sources NOW to make important strides in the provision of affordable housing.
Affordable housing RFPs are typically issued when a city controls the property. Currently, the City does not own any surplus property that is available for affordable housing.
18. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the initial draft are realistic and available during the planning period.
Greater analysis is needed on the potential transition and feasibility of sites proposed to meet the lower income needs, especially on sites proposed for rezoning.
See #4 above
19. The city should also further analyze the City’s development patterns, zoning, housing policies and land use that have led to such a disparity in creating new housing opportunities. This disparity is demonstrated by the city’s RHNA process in the current planning period.
See #1 above
20. Ensure housing opportunity sites identified are not simply upzoned, rezoned or become part of overlays or specific plans that give away higher density and development incentives, without capturing the increase in financial gain and land use incentives See #8 above
665
Aliso Viejo 2021-2029 Housing Element Q&A
January 2022 Page 10
Comment Response
being given to property owners and market rate developers. A 15% affordable housing inclusion at extremely low (5%), very low (5%) and low-income (5%) is necessary on these sites in exchange for these enhanced development opportunities and incentives.
21. The City should provide an adequate analysis and
recommendations on how the City will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). Most of the affordable housing development opportunities have been identified and planned in the lower and moderate resource areas of the City. AFFH requires that cities promote the creation of affordable housing in high resource areas that provide important amenities such as schools, grocery stores, and medical services while also encouraging investment and conservation in low resource areas. The City needs to provide better strategies to facilitate affordable housing in higher resource areas, especially on the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites identified in this area. Furthermore, under AFFH, the City should also include antidisplacement policies that protect low income residents from rising rents and commit to reinvesting in low resource areas to improve the quality of living of residents in those areas.
Appendix C.7 of the revised draft Housing Element includes additional extensive analysis of fair housing issues.
666
City of Aliso Viejo
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 19, 2022
1 667
Aliso Viejo General Plan
Land Use
Housing
Circulation
Conservation/Open Space
Safety
Noise
2 Overview
Housing Element update required for 2021-2029 period
668
• May 19, 2021 City Council study session
• August 18, 2021 City Council public meeting
• August – October, 2021 HCD review
• January 12, 2022 public workshop
• January 19, 2022 City Council public hearing
3 Public Review
Process to Date
669
• Conducted additional public outreach
• Significantly amended the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section
• Provided additional information regarding properties included in site inventory
• Enhanced Government and Non-Government Constraints
sections
4 Response to HCD Review
670
• Limitations on local land use control
• Housing is a “matter of statewide importance”
• State Legislature has delegated HCD authority to review Housing Elements for compliance (“certification”)
• Potential legal consequences for non-compliance
• Certification supports the legal validity of the Housing Element and General Plan
• City Council must consider HCD comments & adopt findings 5 Housing Element
Certification
671
• Housing Plan
Goals, Policies, Programs, Objectives
• Community Profile
Demographics & Housing Needs
Resources & Constraints
Evaluation of the Prior Housing Element
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
6 Housing Element
Content
672
Housing regulations consistent with State law
Persons with special needs
Fair housing
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Adequate sites to accommodate assigned need
7 Key Requirements
673
•Regional housing need assigned to SCAG by HCD
•RHNA Plan prepared by SCAG
•Each city & county assigned a share of total need based on projected growth, existing need & access to jobs & transit •RHNA allocation distributed among income categories
•RHNA is a planning target, not a development quota
•Cities must provide realistic development opportunities with zoning to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels
8 RHNA
674
6th Planning Cycle (2021-2029)
SCAG region: 1,341,827 units
Orange County: 183,861 units
Aliso Viejo: 1,195 units
9 RHNA
675
Aliso Viejo RHNA (2021-2029)
Income
Category Units
Very low 390
Low 214
Moderate 205
Above mod 386
Total 1,195
10 RHNA
676
Site Current
Zoning
Total
Acreage
Potential Density
(du/ac) Potential Units
Towers/The Commons SP-2 4.1 acres 34 140
ADUs na na na 5
1 Columbia BP-2 2 acres 30-50 60
41 Columbia BP-2 2 acres 30-50 60
35 Journey BP-1 2 acres 30-50 60
26800-26880 AV Pkwy BP-1 7 acres 30-50 210
The Commons SP-2 10 acres 30-50 497
AV TC Gateway CT 7 acres 30-50 210
TOTAL UNITS 1,242
RHNA 1,195
11 Site Inventory Summary
Legend: Existing capacity
Candidate sites for rezoning
677
12 1 Columbia
Site Size: 2 acres
Info: Office building at the
Corner of Columbia and Aliso
Creek Road
Zoning: BP-2
Site Inventory – Potential Sites
678
13 41 Columbia
Site Size: 2 acres
Info: Office building formerly
occupied by Benny Hinn
Ministries and Love World.
Zoning: BP-2
Site Inventory – Potential Sites
679
14 Site Inventory – Potential Sites
680
15 35 Journey
Site Size: 2 acres
Info: Office building located
at corner of Journey and
Aliso Creek Rd.
Zoning: BP-1
Unit Potential: 60-100 units
Site Inventory – Potential Sites
681
16 The Commons
Site Size: 9.9 acres
Info: Potential to add mixeduse component to parking
lot area adjacent to building
previously occupied by
Lowe’s
Zoning: SP-2
Pacific Park Dr
Aliso Viejo Pkwy
Site Inventory – Potential Sites
682
17 AVTC Gateway District
Site Size: 7.2 acres
Info: Mixed-use potential.
Community Design Process
anticipated 300 housing
units.
Zoning: CT
Site Inventory – Potential Sites
683
Date Milestone
January 2022 City Council review & approval – Housing Element Feb-March 2022 HCD review #2 – adopted Housing Element
April-October 2022 Zoning amendments
Detailed site analysis & CEQA review
Public outreach
City Council review & approval
18 Next Steps
684
For more information:
19 Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
[email protected]
(949) 425-2528
Omar Dadabhoy, Community
Development Director
[email protected]
(949) 425-2527
https://avcity.org/371/Housing-Element
Questions & comments?
685
City of Aliso Viejo
AGENDA ITEM
DATE: January 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Doyle, City Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED SCULPTURE FROM ARTIST JON
SEEMAN FOR PLACEMENT AT ALISO VIEJO RANCH
______________________________________________________________________ Recommended Actions:
1. Accept donation of sculpture from artist Jon Seeman for placement at Aliso Viejo Ranch; and
2. Appropriate funds from General Fund Reserves and authorize City Manager to approve expenditures not to exceed $2,000 for related installation costs.
Fiscal Impact:
The sculpture, comprised of material from Aliso Viejo Ranch, is being donated by local artist Jon Seeman so there is no cost for the art piece itself. However, the City will likely incur incidental costs for all or some of the following:
1. Creation of a concrete mounting pad.
2. Installation of lighting specific to the art piece.
3. Moving the art piece from its current location to the site and placing it on the concrete pad.
Discussion:
Jon Seeman was born in Laguna Beach. He and his wife have been residents of Aliso Viejo for many years, even pre-dating the City’s incorporation. Jon is an internationally recognized artist with public art pieces throughout California and various other states including Arizona, Nevada, and Illinois as well as Mexico and Japan. Mr. Seeman’s work history, education and professional information can be found on his website at https://jonseeman.com/.
Mr. Seeman approached the City several months ago inquiring about the possibility of donating an art piece to be placed at Aliso Viejo Ranch. Staff has been working with Mr. Seeman since that time and provided him access to the numerous historical items 686
currently in storage onsite. Mr. Seeman, working with the City’s historical consultant, selected several items to create the proposed sculpture.
If approved, staff will work with the artist to select the appropriate location for the art piece and coordinate the delivery and installation.
Attachment:
1. Proposed Sculpture
687
688
City of Aliso Viejo
AGENDA ITEM
DATE: January 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Doyle, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY EMPLOYEE SALARY SCHEDULE TO
MODIFY EXISTING POSITION AND ADD NEW HUMAN RESOURCES
ANALYST POSITION
Recommended Action:
Adopt a Resolution amending City employee salary schedule to modify existing position and add new Human Resources Analyst position.
Fiscal Impact:
As a result of the proposed position modifications, first year cost savings will be approximately $10,000. Annual cost savings after the first year is anticipated to be $43,510.
Discussion:
Earlier this year the Human Resources Manager (HR Manager) position became vacant.
Since that time, the City utilized an interim, part time HR Manager (15 hours a week) and in-house City staff to fill the void. For the past two years the City staff member has been assisting the HR Manager performing many of the day-to-day tasks as a collateral duty.
Since the vacancy approximately 6 months ago, the City staff member has assumed nearly all the required duties and responsibilities. At this time, the individual is more than capable of performing the Human Resources function.
The City staff member has a strong interest in pursuing a career in human resources and has shown a competency in all areas. However, at this time, the staff member doesn’t have the experience or expertise to assume the role of HR Manager. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council approve the creation of the Human Resources Analyst position. This would provide an opportunity for professional growth for the employee and benefit the City by having a current employee with a strong work ethic who is familiar with the City’s policies and procedures providing the Human Resources services. 689
To provide additional services and specialty work, it is proposed the part-time HR Manager position continue to assist for the next 12 months. After the first year, it is expected the part-time HR Manager services will no longer be needed, or the need would be substantially reduced. The City also has historically utilized the City Attorney’s Office for certain personnel issues, and it is expected this would continue as would the City’s membership in the Law Offices of Leibert Cassidy & Whitmore Labor Relations Consortium.
Specifically, the proposed modifications to the City Salary Schedule for City Employees are as follows:
1. Move the existing Human Resources Manager position to the Part Time Employee Salary Schedule ($51.78 per hr. - $71.20 per hr.).
2. Add Human Resources Analyst position ($76,068 - $104,594) to Full Time Employee Salary Schedule.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Salary Schedule
3. HR Analyst Job Description
690
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO
VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR CITY
OF ALISO VIEJO EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021 the City Council approved an updated Classification and Compensation Plan which included adjusting salary ranges on July 1st of each year based on the Annual Consumer Price Index, Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (“CPI”); and
WHEREAS, a new position titled, Human Resources Analyst, shall be created and added to the full-time classification list; and
WHEREAS, the Human Resources Manager position shall be removed from the full-time classification list and added to the part-time classification list.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Effective January 19, 2022, the position of Human Resources Analyst shall be created and included in the salary schedule, full time classification and position shall receive either a cell phone allowance of $75.00 per month or a City issued cell phone.
Section 2. Effective January 19, 2022, the position of Human Resources Manager shall be removed from the full-time classification list and placed on the part-time classification list.
Section 3. Effective January 19, 2022, salary ranges and base salaries for all classifications shall be as shown on Exhibit B, Salary Schedule.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January 2022.
Ross Chun
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Scott C. Smith Mitzi Ortiz, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
691
Exhibit A
Full-Time Classifications
Annual Range
Minimum
Annual Control
Point
Annual Range
Maximum
Accountant $67,427 $77,264 $92,716
Accountant/Payroll $64,217 $73,584 $88,301
Accounting Technician $48,247 $55,285 $66,342
Accounting Supervisor $92,711 $106,235 $127,478
Administrative Secretary $51,992 $64,531 $77,437
Assistant Planner $63,372 $72,616 $87,139
Associate Engineer $86,671 $99,314 $119,177
Associate Planner $74,357 $85,203 $102,244
City Clerk $113,460 $130,005 $156,007
City Manager (Contract) $296,214
Director of Administrative Services $148,194 $174,147 $208,977 Director of Community Development $148,194 $174,147 $208,977 Director of Financial Services/City Treasurer $148,194 $174,147 $208,977 Director of Government Services $148,194 $174,147 $208,977 Director of Public Works $148,194 $174,147 $208,977
Director of Recreation and Community Services $148,194 $174,147 $208,977 Executive Assistant $64,124 $73,478 $88,174
Facilities Supervisor $76,068 $87,162 $104,594
Financial Analyst $67,427 $77,264 $92,716
Financial Services Manager $107,875 $123,611 $148,333
Human Resources Analyst $76,068 $87,162 $104,594
IT Analyst $58,973 $67,583 $81,100
IT Manager $110,727 $131,027 $157,232
Junior Accountant $58,379 $66,895 $80,274
Management Analyst $69,585 $79,736 $95,683
Office Assistant $39,658 $45,443 $54,533
Office Specialist $43,625 $53,349 $64,019
Permit Technician $57,735 $66,337 $79,605
Planning Technician $53,422 $61,215 $73,458
Recreation Coordinator $61,548 $70,525 $84,631
Recreation and Community Services Manager $102,720 $117,704 $141,244 Recreation and Community Services Supervisor $70,780 $81,104 $97,325 Recreation Specialist $43,170 $49,467 $59,360
Secretary to the City Manager $64,124 $78,080 $93,696
Senior Accountant $77,542 $88,853 $106,623
Senior Planner $86,525 $99,146 $118,975
Senior Planner I $86,525 $108,722 $130,466
Systems Administrator $80,845 $94,618 $113,541
City of Aliso Viejo
Salary Schedule
Effective January 19, 2022
Exhibit A
City of Aliso Viejo
Salary Schedule
Effective January 19, 2022
Elected Officials
Monthly
Compensation
Council Members (Municipal Code) $520
Mayor (Municipal Code) $520
Part-Time Classifications
Hourly Range
Minimum
Hourly Control
Point
Hourly Range
Maximum
Accountant $32.42 $37.15 $44.57
Crime Prevention Specialist $30.01 $34.39 $41.27
Human Resources Manager $51.78 $61.49 $71.20
IT Analyst $28.35 $32.49 $38.99
Office Assistant $19.07 $21.85 $26.22
Planning Aide $15.74 $18.04 $21.65
Recreation Coordinator (PT) $29.60 $33.90 $40.69
Recreation Leader* $14.24 $15.82 $18.98
Senior Recreation Leader* $16.37 $18.19 $21.83
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022
Part-Time Classifications
Hourly Range
Minimum
Hourly Control
Point
Hourly Range
Maximum
Recreation Leader $15.00 $16.66 $20.00
Senior Recreation Leader $17.25 $19.16 $23.00
*Recreation Leader and Senior Recreation Leader to be adjusted as follows effective January 1, 2022 to meet State of California Minimum Wage requirements:
55136.00210\34615571.1
ALISO VIEJO
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
DESCRIPTION:
FLSA: Exempt
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Administrative Services/Human Resources
DEFINITION
Under general supervision, performs technical and professional, detailed, and confidential work required to administer Human Resources programs including recruitment, classification, compensation, safety programs, employee benefits administration, workers' compensation coordination, leaves of absences, human resources information systems, and employee relations; performs research and analysis; provides consulting services to City departments related to all aspects of human resources activities; performs related work as required.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general supervision from the City Manager. May exercise technical and functional supervision over administrative support staff.
Class Characteristics
This is professional-level classification within the human resources division. Incumbent performs a variety of Human Resources functions and analytical studies for City departments. Responsibilities include coordinating the activities of the division with those of other departments and providing the complex and varied services of the division. Incumbents work independently in the completion of assigned tasks and are expected to exercise considerable judgment in working within scope authority.
EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES:
Management reserves the right to add, modify, change or rescind the work assignments of different positions and to make reasonable accommodations so that qualified employees can perform the essential functions of the job.
Assists in designing employee training modules and orientation programs; develops and utilizes specialized training aids.
Gathers, assembles, preserves, and reports information connected with employee discipline cases. Plans, participates in, and evaluates special projects requiring coordination of activities across departmental and functional lines.
Analyzes the effect of new laws or administrative regulations on Human Resources programs and recommends policies, procedures for implementation.
Assists and participate in the development and administration of the Human Resources annual budget; recommends goals and objectives.
Develops and revises human resources documents, procedures, and forms; assists in the development of policies, regulations, and procedures.
Conducts special research assignments, analyzing data and preparing conclusions and recommendations for consideration by management or special committees. Consults with supervisors regarding personnel related issues, needs and services; counsels employees on personnel programs, policies and processes; explains program provisions, procedures and eligibility requirements; and assists employees with forms and personnel documents.
Coordinate the employee recognition program.
694
55136.00210\34615571.1
Assists in developing goals, objectives, policies, procedures, work standards and administrative control systems.
Conducts surveys and performs research and statistical analyses on administrative, fiscal, personnel, and operational problems or issues.
Reviews at-will part-time and seasonal employee performance evaluations. Performs other duties as assigned.
Recruitment
Coordinates the recruitment process for City departments; confers with departmental representatives on positions requirements; posts job openings; screens resumes and applications; identifies qualified applicants; develops, administers, and evaluates oral and written examinations and their results; maintains and certifies employment lists in accordance with Personnel Policies and practices; monitors hiring process to assure adherence to human resource policies and applicable personnel policies, coordinates and/or conducts oral interviews, extends job offers and negotiates salaries. Coordinates and attends job fairs and other events to publicize City job opportunities. Monitors and maintains position control system; verifies recruitment requisition requests against position control system.
Analyzes requests and assignments related to organizational structure, salary levels, classification and examining procedures.
Conducts organizational studies; researches personnel issues and regulations; conducts surveys of comparable organizations; recommends classification and compensation for new or revised positions; analyzes results, proposes solutions; and calculates implementation costs. Assists employees and management with the interpretation and correct application of City policies, procedures, and programs; provides advice and assistance regarding employment issues; investigates employee complaints.
Workplace Safety:
Coordinates City-wide safety policies and procedures; coordinates the development and implementation of new safety programs in response to regulatory changes and case law; serves on the City's Safety Committee; serves as a resource for safety related questions and issues. Strives to stay informed of and share current OSHA and Cal-OSHA requirements with departmental safety representatives.
Develops, conducts, or coordinates with consultants to provide occupational health and safety educational programs for staff. Ensures annual health and safety training is scheduled to meet compliance guidelines.
Benefits:
Performs administrative work related to multi-tiered employee benefits programs that include such plans as retirement, short- and long-term disability, health, life, dental, vision, deferred compensation, and employee assistance.
Coordinates the employee eligibility and payment computation for employee and retiree benefit and insurance programs with the payroll and accounting divisions. Research, analyze and recommend changes in benefit program design and contract provisions. Schedule and conduct new employee orientations; inform new employees of benefit program and policies and related deadlines.
Responds to employee and retiree questions and complaints; interfaces with third-party administrator and carriers to resolve claims appeals and provides guidance in policy interpretation and plan documents.
Coordinates retirement plan applications and terminations; provides information to employees to increase their awareness of City sponsored benefit programs when selecting their post-service benefit elections.
695
55136.00210\34615571.1
Monitors the leave of absence program, ensuring legal compliance; reviews and analyzes FMLA/CFRA applications; makes recommendations and develops employer response; interprets human resources policies and procedures with regards to benefit, paid and un-paid time off options for employees; educates employees and managers on policy and legal compliance regarding leave of absences.
Conducts citywide open enrollment for benefits; prepares open enrollment benefit materials and literature; coordinates annual benefit fair.
Workers' Compensation:
Handles day-to-day administration of workers' compensation program by setting up new claims, communicating with injured employees, supervisors, third party administrator and medical care providers to provide direction, facilitate and schedule injured workers' return to duty.
Coordinates lost time days with payroll and third-party administrator to ensure injured worker receives correct salary and workers compensation benefits. Completes and posts required OSHA logs and reports.
JOB RELATED AND ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
Knowledge of:
Principles, practices and techniques of human resources in a public agency setting, including workers compensation; recruitment, selection, equal employment opportunity and employee orientation; job analysis and classification; compensation and benefit analysis and administration; employee relations, including negotiations and the interpretation of laws, regulations, policies and procedures.
Organizational and management practices as applied to the analysis and evaluation of programs, policies and operational needs.
Applicable laws, codes and regulations.
Standard office support practices and procedures, including the use of standard office equipment. Computer applications related to the work, including word processing, spreadsheet and database applications.
Records management principles and practices.
Techniques for providing a high level of customer service to public and City staff, in person and over the telephone.
Survey and data presentation techniques.
Safe driving principles and practices.
Safe work practices.
Skill in:
Interpreting, applying and explaining complex laws, codes, regulations and ordinances. Effectively representing the department and the City in meetings with governmental agencies, contractors, vendors, and various businesses, professional, regulatory and legislative organizations.
Preparing clear and concise reports, correspondence, policies, procedures and other written materials.
Managing multiple projects and deadlines and prioritizing multiple tasks and demands. Maintaining accurate files and records.
Maintaining confidentiality of sensitive personal information of applicants, employees, former employees and other matters affecting employee relations. Using English effectively to communicate in person, over the telephone and in writing. 696
55136.00210\34615571.1
Using tact, initiative, prudence and independent judgment within general policy, procedural and legal guidelines.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with employees and those contacted in the course of the work.
Operating modern office equipment including computer equipment and software programs. Operating a motor vehicle safely.
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING AND LICENSE/CERTIFICATE:
Any combination of training and experience that would provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required qualifications would be:
Equivalent to graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major course work in business or public administration, human resources, or a field related to the work and two (2) years of administrative experience in designing, developing and implementing human resources and risk management programs. Additional years of experience and/or possession of IPMA-CP may be substituted for the education requirement.
Incumbent must possess IPMA-CP certification within 12 months of hire to offset education requirement.
License:
Must possess and maintain a valid California class C driver's license and have a satisfactory driving record.
PHYSICAL STANDARDS:
Physical Demands
Must possess mobility to work in a standard office setting and use standard office equipment, including a computer; vision to read printed materials and a computer screen; and hearing and speech to communicate in person, before groups and over the telephone. This is primarily a sedentary office classification although standing in work areas and walking between work areas may be required.
Finger dexterity is needed to access, enter and retrieve data using a computer keyboard, typewriter keyboard or calculator and to operate standard office equipment. Positions in this classification occasionally bend, stoop, kneel, reach, push and pull drawers open and closed to retrieve and file information. Positions in this classification occasionally lift and carry reports and records that typically weigh less than 20 pounds.
Environmental Elements
Employees work in an office environment with moderate noise levels, controlled temperature conditions and no direct exposure to hazardous physical substances. Employees may interact with upset staff and/or public and private representatives in interpreting and enforcing departmental policies and procedures.
Working conditions
May be required to work on evenings, weekends and holidays.
Note: All employees of the City of Aliso Viejo are designated by both State law and City ordinance to be "Disaster Service Workers." In the event of a declared emergency or any undeclared emergency or natural disaster that threatens the life, health and/or safety of the public, employees may be assigned to assist rescue and relief workers. Such assignments may be in locations, during hours and performing work significantly different from the employees' normal work assignments and may continue through the recovery phase of the emergency. 697