May 20,2024
Planning Commission
M eeting
Public Comment
Item 5.2
Appeal of a letter deeming incomplete the
"Village District at Orange" Application
designated as Tentative Tract No. 0053-23,
Major Site Plan Review No. 1140-23, and
Design Review No. 5123-23 ("Application")
located at22OO N. Tustin Stree! Appeal No.
0565-24
DF
Moy17,2024
City of Oronge Plonning Commission
3OO E. Chopmon Ave
Oronge, Cl.92866
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project ot 22OO N. Tustin Street Dear City of Orange Planning Commission,
Specifically, CaIHDF would like to remind the Commission that the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, S 65589.5; the "HAA") specificaily and expressly prohibits requiring a rezoning and general plan amendment for builder's remedy projects. (Id. at subd. (d(s).) Gov. Code, S 65589.5 (dxs) prohibits a non-compiiant local agency (such as the City of Orange) from denying a qualifying application to build a mixed-or low-income project on the basis of an inconsistency with the agenry's zoning or general plan. Of course a local agency cannot require that these very same zoning or general plan documents be amended as a condition of approving such a project; that is legally and practically identical to a denial on the basis of an inconsistenry with those documents.
Given that the City's Housing Element was not in compliance as of the date that the application was submitted, the City may not deny the application or require that the applicant submit a rezoning and/or general plan amendment application. 35O Grond Ave #323, Ooklond 94610
rrww.colhdf.org
By emoil : <d infoGrcityoforon ge.org
CC: ottyinfoocityoforonge.oro; [email protected]; clerkinfoGrcityoforqnge.org; pcolemonGrcityoforonge.org; mvi gliottoracityoforo nge.org
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CalHDF") submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 210-unit housing development project at 2200 North TUstin Street, inciuding 42 affordable ADUs.
The recent court ruling in Calforn[a Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cafiada Flintridge, L.A.S.C. Case No. 23STCP02614 (attached to this Ietter) confirms this. In that case, the City of La Caflada Flintridge argued that it was entitled to deem a developer's application "incomplete" because there were discretionary processes (such as a rezoning application) that the Citywished to force the application to complete prior to approving or disapproving the underlying entitlements application. The court ruled in favor ofthe Petitioners, holding that the City's "incomplete" determination constituted a denial of the project, and that the City could not rule the project incomplete because the applicant had not submitted an application to rezone the parcel. Precisely the same reasoning applies here.
The City of Orange's position is also at odds with the decision in Ruegg 6 Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG18930003, which was later affirmed by the Court ofAppeal. See Ruegg 6 Ellsworthv. City of Berkeley (2023) 89 Cal.App.Sth 258. There, the City of Berkeley argued that it had not "denied" an application within the meaning ofthe LIAA because an alternative discretionary pathway remained available for the applicant. The trial court rejected Berkeley's argument, holding that the City denied the project when it attempted to coerce the applicant into filing a different, discretionary application.
If the Commission denies this appeal and requires the applicant to submit an application for a rezoning and general plan amendment, then it risks litigation. Furthermore, the HAA allows nonprofit organizations, such as CalHDF, to bring suit to enforce the act. If the City loses such a lawsuit, then it is Iiable for attorney's fees and cost of suit. Of course, the applicant is also entitled to judicial remedies.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, and it will reduce displacement ofexisting residents into homelessness. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CaIHDF urges the Commission to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CaIHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Caiifornians at all income Ievels, including low-income households.
You may leam more about CaIHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Dylan Casey
CaIHDF Executive Director
2of3
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
CaIHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
fu,t w