December 10, 2024
City Council Meeting
Written Public Comments
Item 2.5
Dec 10, 2024
ByEmail: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Re:ProposedCodeAmendment-ObjectiveDesignStandards
DearOrangeCityCouncil,
TheCaliforniaHousingDefenseFund(“CalHDF”)submitsthislettertoremindtheCouncilofitsobligationtoabidebyallrelevantstateandfederallawswhenconsideringtheproposedObjectiveDesignStandards(“ODS”),24-0695,calendaredasagendaitem2.5forthemeetingofDecember10,2024. Specifically,theCouncilmustcomplywiththetermsofSB330.
WethoroughlyappreciatetheCity’sattentiontoandrobustrevisionofitsmunicipalcodetoimplementitsHousingElement.However,theproposedcode,ascurrentlydrafted,doesnotadheretostatelawsinsomeplaces.
ImpermissibleDownzoning
SB330prohibitsdownzoningbelowwhatwaspermittedonJanuary1,2018.GovernmentCodesection66300,subdivision(b)(1)(A)(emphasisadded):
Changingthegeneralplanlandusedesignation,specificplanlandusedesignation,orzoningofaparcelorparcelsofpropertytoalessintensiveuseorreducingtheintensityoflandusewithinanexistinggeneralplanlandusedesignation,specificplanlandusedesignation,orzoningdistrictineffectatthetimeoftheproposedchange,belowwhatwasallowedunderthelandusedesignationorzoningordinancesoftheaffectedcountyoraffectedcity,asapplicable,asineffectonJanuary1,2018,exceptasotherwiseprovidedinclause(ii)ofsubparagraph(B)orsubdivision(h).Forpurposesofthissubparagraph,“reducingtheintensityoflanduse”includes,butisnotlimitedto,reductionstoheight,density,orfloorarearatio,neworincreasedopenspaceorlotsizerequirements,neworincreasedsetback 360GrandAve#323,[email protected]
requirements,minimumfrontagerequirements,ormaximumlotcoveragelimitations,oranyotheractionthatwouldindividuallyorcumulativelyreducethesite’sresidentialdevelopmentcapacity.
TheproposedODSimposenewsetbackrequirementsinmultipleways.TheODSrequiresetbacksaboveacertainstorywhenfacingastreetoradjacentuses,andtheyalsorequirefacadeplanebreaksintheformofasetbackfromthestreet.Suchsetbacksdramaticallyincreaseconstructioncostswithoutclearbenefittothepublic,aseachsetbackrequiresextensivestructuralunderpinningtosupporttheweightoftheadditionalfacade.TheODSalsorequiresetbacksofparkingareas.Thisresultsinunusablesetbackspaceontheparcel.
Invariousforms,theODSimposesnewsetbackrequirementsonpages6,7,and14oftheMulti-FamilyObjectiveDesignStandards.TheODSalsoimposesnewsetbackrequirementsonpages6,7,9,and16oftheMixed-UseObjectiveDesignStandards.Noneoftheseincreasedsetbackrequirementsareallowedbystatelaw.
Additionally,theproposedODSimposeimpermissibledownzoningsonbuildingslocatedinhistoricdistricts.
Onpage17ofHistoricPreservationDesignStandardsUpdates,theODSincludesthefollowingrestrictions:
● Newbuildingsinfrontofahistoricbuildingareprohibited.● Newbuildingsalongthesideofaprimarybuildingareprohibited.
TheseareincreasedsetbackrequirementsprohibitedbySB330.
Page17ofHistoricPreservationDesignStandardsUpdatesalsoincludesthefollowingstandards:
● Newbuildingsthataretallerthansurroundingexistingbuildingsshallbreakuptheirmassintosmallercomponentsormodules.Stepdowntheheightofatallernewbuildingwhenlocatedadjacenttoanexistingshorterbuilding.● Theheightandroofformofanewbuildingshallmatchthesurroundinghistoricbuildings.● Theheight,massandscaleofnewsecondarybuildingsshallbesubordinatetotheprimaryhistoricbuildingand/ortoanadjacentcontributortoahistoricdistrict.● Theheightofsecondarybuildingsshallnotexceedtheheightoftheprimaryhistoricbuilding.
ThesearenewheightlimitsprohibitedbySB330.Furthermore,thesearenon-objectivestandardsprohibitedbyCodesection66300,subdivision(b)(1)(C). 2of4
Page17ofHistoricPreservationDesignStandardsUpdatesalsoincludesthefollowingstandards:
Newbuildingsshallmatchinmassing,scale,andformtosurroundingcontributingbuildingsinthehistoricdistrictonthesameblock. a.PropertieswithnewconstructionshallusetheaverageFloorAreaRatioofhistoricpropertiesonthesurroundingstreetasamodelforcompatiblenewdevelopment.
Thisisanewfloorarearatiolimit,prohibitedbySB330.Furthermore,thisisanon-objectivestandardprohibitedbyCodesection66300,subdivision(b)(1)(C).
TheCitymayenacttheserulesonlyif,atthesamemeetingoftheCityCouncil,“changesthedevelopmentstandards,policies,andconditionsapplicabletootherparcelswithinthejurisdictiontoensurethatthereisnonetlossinresidentialcapacity.”(Gov.Code,§66300,subd.(h).)IftheproposedchangesarecrucialtotheCity’sapproachtodesignstandards,thenitmustcompensateforthemelsewhereinitsordinances.
HousingElementInconsistency
TheCity’sadoptedHousingElementcontainsthefollowingprogramsrelevanttothiszoningproposedcodechange:
HousingPolicyAction2E:FacilitateInfillConstruction● Within12monthsofadoptionoftheHousingElement,theCityshallevaluateandamendtheexistingprovisionsintheZoningCodetoprovideadditionalregulatoryrelief(i.e.,streamlinedreview,reducedandobjectivedevelopmentstandards,lotconsolidation,andothermethodsdeemedappropriate)tofurtherencourageinfillhousingdevelopment.
Theproposedcodechangeistheoppositeofregulatoryrelief.Instead,itdramaticallyincreasescostsformultifamilyhousingforunclearpublicbenefit.
Furthermore,theaboveidentifiedsetbackrequirements,heightconstraints,andfloorarearatiolimitsareallconstraintsnotanalyzedintheCity’sHousingElement.
PleasenotethatHCDretainsauthoritytoreviewtheCity’sactionsforconsistencywithitshousingelement.(Gov.Code,§65585,subd.(i).) IfHCDfindsanactioninconsistentwiththeCity’shousingelement,itmayissueadeterminationthattheCityhasfallenoutofcompliancewiththeHousingElementLaw,exposingittopossiblelegalpenaltiesandthe 3of4
builder’sremedy.(Id.)HCDmayalsoreferthemattertotheAttorneyGeneralforlegalaction.(Id.atsubd.(j).) ⧫
⧫
⧫
CalHDFappreciatestheCity’sefforttochangeitszoningtoimplementitsHousingElement.WeremindtheCity,however,thatitmusttakecaretofollowthelawindoingso.Thecurrentproposalneedsrevisionsbeforeitcanbefinalizedandimplementedinaccordancewithstatelaw.
CalHDFisa501(c)3non-profitcorporationwhosemissionincludesadvocatingforincreasedaccesstohousingforCaliforniansatallincomelevels,includinglow-incomehouseholds.YoumaylearnmoreaboutCalHDFatwww.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
DylanCaseyCalHDFExecutiveDirector
JamesM.LloydCalHDFDirectorofPlanningandInvestigations
4of4
City Council
Meeting Time: 12-10-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council 12-10-24
18:00
22 6 6 0 0
City Council
12-10-24 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
2.5. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting Objective Design Standards by reference in Title 17 for qualified housing projects. Ordinance No. 31-24. 6 6 0 0
Agenda Item: eComments for 2.5. Second Reading and adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting Objective Design Standards by reference in Title 17 for qualified housing projects. Ordinance No. 31-24.
Overall Sentiment
Jeannette McClain
Location:
Submitted At: 10:51am 12-09-24
Please approve this ordinance.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 3:50pm 12-06-24
I support Staff and OTPA's recommendation to approve the Objective Design Standards as they have been presented.
Collette Rowley
Location:
Submitted At: 6:24am 12-06-24
I support Staff and OTPA's recommendation to approve the Objective Design Standards as they have been presented.
Guest User
Location:
Submitted At: 8:35pm 12-05-24
I request you approve Agenda item 2.5 as is. Thank you.
Christine Richters
Location:
Submitted At: 5:01pm 12-05-24
I support Staff and OTPA’s recommendation to approve the Objective Design Standards as they have been presented.
Ben Kendall
Location:
Submitted At: 4:26pm 12-05-24
I fully support the adoption of these Objective Design Standards as an ordinance by the City of Orange. Thank you.