Yorba Linda City Council
July 18, 2023

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
ENERGY SERVICES AGREEMENT – SOLAR
Black Gold Golf Club
This Energy Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of this ____ day of ______, 2023 (or, if later, the latest date of a Party’s execution and delivery to the other Party of this Agreement, the “Effective Date”), between FFP BTM SOLAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Provider”), and City of Yorba Linda (“Purchaser”; and, together with Provider, each, a “Party” and together, the “Parties”).

RECITALS
A. Purchaser desires that Provider install and operate a solar photovoltaic system at the Premises (as hereafter defined) for the purpose of providing Energy Services (as hereafter defined), and Provider is willing to have the Installation Work performed by using one or more qualified contractors holding the appropriate licenses required in the jurisdiction where the System will be installed; B. Provider is in the business of designing, constructing, owning, financing, and operating solar photovoltaic systems for the purpose of selling power generated by the systems to its purchasers; C. California Government Code sections 4217.10 et seq. authorizes a public entity to enter into energy service contracts, facility financing contracts, and related agreements to implement the State’s conservation and alternative energy supply source policy;
D. Purchaser’s governing body has made those findings required by Government Code section 4217.12 that the anticipated cost to the Purchaser for Energy Services provided by the System under this Agreement is expected to be less than the anticipated marginal cost to the Purchaser of electrical energy that would have been consumed by Purchaser in the absence of its purchase of the Energy Services; E. Provider and Purchaser acknowledged those certain General Terms and Conditions of Energy Services Agreement between FFP BTM Solar, LLC and Purchaser dated as of _____, 2023 (“General Terms and Conditions”), which are incorporated by reference as set forth herein; and F. The terms and conditions of this Energy Services Agreement, excluding the General Terms and Conditions incorporated herein, constitute the “Special Conditions” referred to in the General Terms and Conditions.

In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Incorporation of General Terms and Conditions. The General Terms and Conditions are incorporated herein as if set forth in their entirety.

2. Initial Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for Twenty (20) years from the Commercial Operation Date (as defined in the General Terms and Conditions), unless and until extended or terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement (the “Initial Term”). After the Initial Term, this Agreement may be renewed for an additional five (5) year term (a “Renewal Term”). At least one hundred and eighty (180) days, but no more than three hundred and sixtyfive (365) days, prior to the expiration of the Initial Term, Provider shall give written notice to Purchaser of the availability of the Renewal Term. Purchaser shall have sixty (60) days to agree to continuation of this Agreement for the Renewal Term. Absent agreement to the Renewal Term this Agreement shall expire on the Expiration Date. The Initial Term and the subsequent Renewal Term, if any, are referred to collectively as the “Term”.

3. Schedules. The following Schedules hereto are hereby incorporated into this Agreement:

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
2 Schedule 1 Description of the Premises, System and Subsidy Schedule 2 Energy Services Payment
Schedule 3 Early Termination Fee
Schedule 4 Estimated Annual Production
Schedule 5 Notice Information
Schedule 6 Reserved
Schedule 7 Specific Items for Scope of Work
Schedule 8 Site Diagram
Schedule 9 Acknowledgment of Upgrades, Schedule or Scope Change

4. Privacy. Purchaser acknowledges that the System may collect certain information about Purchaser’s electricity usage and the System performance. Such information may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Provider or its third-party service providers, or its or their respective affiliates, subsidiaries, or service providers, maintain facilities. Purchaser consents to any such transfer of information outside of Purchaser’s country.

5. Milestone Dates.

5.1 The Guaranteed Construction Start Date is 730 days from Effective Date provided that the Local Electric Utility is prepared to begin its construction on any required utility, (distribution or transmission), upgrades, if any. In the event that the Local Electric Utility is not prepared to commence construction on required upgrades, if any are required, Provider will be allowed a day for day extension to the Guaranteed Construction Start Date, as defined in the General Terms and Conditions between the Parties.

5.2 The Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date is: (i) 60 days from the date on which the Local Electric Utility authorizes Provider to schedule an inspection to energize the System after confirming completion of installation, and testing, or (ii) April 14, 2026, whichever occurs later.

6. Purchase Requirement; Energy Services Payment. “Energy Services” means the supply of electrical energy output from the System and any associated reductions in Purchaser’s peak demand from its Local Electric Utility. Purchaser agrees to purchase one hundred percent (100%) of the Energy Services generated by the System and made available by Provider to Purchaser during each relevant month of the Term, up to a maximum of one hundred and ten percent (110%) of Estimated Annual Production, as defined in Schedule

4. While the Energy Services are calculated and billed on a per kWh basis as set forth in Schedule 2 of these Special Conditions, they represent a package of services and benefits.

7. Net Energy Metering.

7.1 The Parties acknowledge that the pricing assumes Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 for the Initial Term. If (i) Provider fails to submit interconnection applications by 4/14/2023, or (ii) prior to the Commercial Operation Date, (A) Provider fails to keep such interconnection applications in good standing such that the System would not be eligible for NEM 2.0, or (B) the CPUC issues a decision such that the System would not be eligible for NEM 2.0 grandfathering for at least twenty (20) years, Purchaser may terminate this Agreement with no liability whatsoever, including, but not limited to the Early Termination Fee. The foregoing shall not apply to the extent Provider’s failure is caused by an act or omission by Purchaser in connection with Provider’s submittal of interconnection applications.

Provided, however, that in the event of a change in Applicable Law that occurs after the Commercial Operation Date and results in a loss of NEM 2.0 grandfathering, Purchaser shall have no such termination right. Provided further that Purchaser shall ensure any correspondence with the Local Electric Utility regarding the tariff and changes to the interconnection agreement are promptly shared with Provider.

8. Estimated Annual Production. The annual estimate of electricity generated by the system for each year of the initial term is set as forth in Schedule 4 of the Special Conditions (“Estimated Annual Production”).

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
3 Within sixty (60) days of each annual anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date, Provider will provide a statement to Purchaser that shows the actual annual kWh production from the System for the Term Year, the Estimated Annual Production, and the Minimum Guaranteed Output (defined below).

9. Minimum Guaranteed Output. If the System fails to generate at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the Estimated Annual Production for a full Term Year (such amount, the “Minimum Guaranteed Output”), other than as a result of the acts or omissions of Purchaser or the Local Electric Utility (including a Disruption Period), or an Event of Force Majeure, Provider shall credit Purchaser an amount equal to Purchaser’s Lost Savings on the next invoice or invoices during the following Term Year. The formula for calculating Lost Savings for the applicable Term Year is as follows:

Lost Savings = (MGO*WPR - AE) x RV
MGO = Minimum Guaranteed Output, as measured in total kWh, for the System for the applicable Term Year.

WPR = Weather Performance Ratio, measured as the ratio of the actual insolation over typical (proforma) insolation. Such Weather Performance Ratio shall only apply if the ratio is less than 1.00.

AE = Actual Electricity, as measured in total kWh, delivered by the System for the Term Year plus the estimated lost energy production during a Disruption Period.

RV = (ATP - kWh Rate)
ATP = Average tariff price, measured in $/kWh, for the Term Year paid by Purchaser with respect to the Premises. This price is determined by dividing the total cost for delivered electricity, including all charges associated with such electricity howsoever named, including, without limitation, charges for distribution, transmission, demand, and systems benefits, paid to the Local Electric Utility during the applicable Term Year by the total amount of delivered electricity by the electric utility during such Term Year.
kWh Rate = the kWh Rate in effect for the applicable Term Year(s), measured in $/kWh.

If the RV is zero or less, then no Lost Savings payment is due to Purchaser. Any Lost Savings payment shall occur no later than sixty (60) days after the end of the Term Year during which such Lost Savings occurred.

10. Allowed Disruption Time. Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 4.3 of the General Terms and Conditions to the contrary, during years 4 through 20 (but not years 1 through 3) of the Term, Purchaser shall be afforded a one-time allocation of fifteen (15) days which may be used consecutively or in separate periods of at least twenty-four (24) hours each (“Allowed Disruption Time”) during which the System shall be rendered non-operational. Purchaser shall not be obligated to make payments to Provider for electricity not received during the Allowed Disruption Time, nor shall Purchaser be required to reimburse Provider for any other lost revenue during the Allowed Disruption Time, including any lost revenue associated with any reduced sales of Environmental Attributes, and Provider shall be credited for the estimated lost production the System would have produced during such Allowed Disruption Time toward satisfaction of its Minimum Guaranteed Output, as set forth in Section 8 of the Special Conditions, such estimated lost production to be calculated in the same manner as set forth in Section 4.3 of the General Conditions.

11. Distribution Upgrades, Scope and Schedule Changes.

11.1 For any distribution upgrades required or changes to the scope of Installation Work made pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Special Conditions, the Parties may execute an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Schedule 9 detailing (i) the description of the distribution upgrades or change in scope of the Installation Work (ii) the amount of the adjustment in the kWh Rate and Early Termination Fee that corresponds to such costs, if any (iii) changes to the Estimated Annual

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
4 Production in Schedule IV, if any, and (iv) any change to the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date resulting from such upgrades or scope changes;

11.2 For any day for day extensions made pursuant to Section 2.2(b) of the General Conditions, the Parties may execute an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Schedule 9 detailing (i) the circumstances that warrant such day for day extension and (ii) the updated Guaranteed Construction Start Date and/or Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date;

11.3 For any extensions that are not made pursuant to Section 2.2(b) of the General Conditions, Provider may request extensions to the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and/or Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date to the extent that Provider can demonstrate to Purchaser that Provider is seeking such extension for good cause. Purchaser in its sole discretion may approve such extension(s) by executing an acknowledgment in the form attached hereto as Schedule 9 on which Provider details (i) the circumstances for which Provider deems good cause for such extension(s), (ii) the actions that Provider is taking to complete the System on a schedule agreeable to the Purchaser and (iii) the updated Guaranteed Construction Start Date and/or Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date.

For the avoidance of doubt, Purchaser designates [Insert Post(s) of person(s) authorized to Execute] as authorized to execute the acknowledgment form attached hereto as Schedule 9 provided the terms of such acknowledgment comply with this Section 11.

12. Sunlight Access. Purchaser will take all reasonable actions as necessary to prevent other buildings, structures or flora on property owned by Purchaser from overshadowing or otherwise blocking access of sunlight to the System.

13. Use of System. Purchaser will not use electrical energy generated by the System for the purposes of heating a swimming pool within the meaning of Section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in confirmation of their consent to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and intending to be legally bound hereby, Provider and Purchaser have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

PROVIDER:

FFP BTM SOLAR, LLC
By:___________________________
Name:

Title:

Date:

PURCHASER:

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
By:___________________________
Name:

Title:

Date:

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
5 SCHEDULES
I. Schedule 1 – Description of the Premises, System and Subsidy A. Premises 1 Black Gold Dr, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Site diagram attached: X Yes No
B. Description of Solar System
Behind the meter, grid interconnected, canopy mounted solar.

Solar System Size: 485.46 kW (DC) (this is an estimate (and not a guarantee) of the System size; Provider may update the System Size prior to the Commercial Operation Date.)
C. Anticipated Subsidy or
Rebate $0
II. Schedule 2 – Energy Services Payment
Purchaser shall pay to Provider a monthly payment (the “Energy Services Payment”) for the Energy Services provided by the System during each calendar month of the Term equal to the product of (x) Actual Monthly Production for the System for the relevant month multiplied by (y) the kWh Rate.

The “Actual Monthly Production” means the amount of energy recorded by Provider’s metering equipment during each calendar month of the Term.

The kWh Rate with respect to the System under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the following schedule:

PPA Rate Table
Term
Year
kWh Rate
($/kWh)
Term
Year
$/kWh Rate
($/kWh)
1 $0.1617 11 $0.1617
2 $0.1617 12 $0.1617
3 $0.1617 13 $0.1617
4 $0.1617 14 $0.1617
5 $0.1617 15 $0.1617
6 $0.1617 16 $0.1617
7 $0.1617 17 $0.1617
8 $0.1617 18 $0.1617
9 $0.1617 19 $0.1617
10 $0.1617 20 $0.1617

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
6 Distribution Upgrades. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice from the Local Electric Utility of distribution upgrade costs required by the Local Electric Utility, Purchaser will provide written notice (email is acceptable) to Provider of Purchaser’s election of one of the following options:
a. Purchaser will pay the entire amount of such distribution upgrade costs, and the kWh rate as stated in PPA Rate Table will remain unchanged. Purchaser shall make payments directly to the Local Electric Utility in accordance with the requirements of the Local Electric Utility. b. For every $0.01 per watt DC of such distribution upgrade costs, the kWh rate in PPA Rate Table will increase $0.00073 per kWh.

Scope Changes (ITC Eligible): If changes in project scope occur that are eligible for the Federal Investment Tax Credit (such as but not limited to adverse geotechnical conditions) and such additional scope and associated costs go beyond those contemplated as part of the development and implementation of the System in this Agreement, Provider will provide reasonable documentation demonstrating the direct and actual time and materials costs relating to such associated costs, and, within 30 days of receipt of notice from Provider reasonably substantiating the associated costs, Purchaser will provide written notice to Provider of Purchaser’s election of one of the following options:
a. Purchaser will pay the entire amount of such associated costs, and the kWh rate as stated in PPA Rate Table will remain unchanged.
b. For every $0.01 per watt DC of such associated costs, the kWh rate in PPA Rate Table will increase $0.00046 per kWh.

Scope Changes (Non-ITC Eligible): If changes in project scope occur that are not eligible for the Federal Investment Tax Credit (such as but not limited to additional required ADA upgrades) and such additional scope and associated costs go beyond those contemplated as part of the development and implementation of the System in this Agreement, Provider will provide reasonable documentation demonstrating the direct and actual time and materials costs relating to such associated costs, and, within 30 days of receipt of notice from Provider reasonably substantiating the associated costs, Purchaser will provide written notice to Provider of Purchaser’s election of one of the following options:
c. Purchaser will pay the entire amount of such associated costs, and the kWh rate as stated in PPA Rate Table will remain unchanged.
d. For every $0.01 per watt DC of such associated costs, the kWh rate in PPA Rate Table will increase $0.00061 per kWh.

If the aggregate of costs set forth above for which Purchaser has elected to pay for via increased kWh Rate exceed the maximum total kWh Rate increase of $0.02608 the Provider has the option to terminate this Agreement and to remove the System pursuant to Section 2.4 of the General Conditions. In no event shall Purchaser be responsible for costs that exceed the stated kWh Rate increase.

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
7 III. Schedule 3 – Early Termination Fee
The Early Termination Fee with respect to the System under this Agreement shall be calculated in accordance with the following:

Early
Termination
Occurs in Year:

Column 1
Early Termination Fee
where Purchaser does not
take Title to the System
($/Wdc including costs of
removal)
Purchase Date Occurs on the
91st day following:
(Each “Anniversary” below
shall refer to the anniversary
of the Commercial Operation
Date)
Column 2
Early Termination Fee
where Purchaser takes
Title to the System
($/Wdc, does not include
costs of removal)
1* $4.95 --
2 $3.84 --
3 $3.62 --
4 $3.47 --
5 $3.36 --
6 $3.26 5th Anniversary $2.76
7 $3.21 6th Anniversary $2.71
8 $3.19 7th Anniversary $2.69
9 $3.16 8th Anniversary $2.66
10 $3.14 9th Anniversary $2.64
11 $3.11 10th Anniversary $2.61
12 $3.09 11th Anniversary $2.59
13 $3.07 12th Anniversary $2.57
14 $3.04 13th Anniversary $2.54
15 $3.02 14th Anniversary $2.52
16 $3.00 15th Anniversary $2.50
17 $2.98 16th Anniversary $2.48
18 $2.96 17th Anniversary $2.46
19 $2.94 18th Anniversary $2.44
20 $2.92 19th Anniversary $2.42
At Expiration (the end of the Initial Term), the amount in Column 1 shall be deemed to be zero (0). *Includes Early Termination prior to the Commercial Operation Date.

IV. Schedule 4 – Estimated Annual Production
Estimated Annual Production commencing on the Commercial Operation Date with respect to System under this Agreement shall be as follows:

Term
Year
Estimated
Production
(kWh)
Term
Year
Estimated
Production
(kWh)
1 785,100 11 746,717
2 781,175 12 742,983
3 777,269 13 739,269
4 773,383 14 735,572
5 769,516 15 731,894
6 765,668 16 728,235
7 761,840 17 724,594
8 758,031 18 720,971

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
8 9 754,241 19 717,366
10 750,469 20 713,779
The values set forth in the table above are estimates (and not guarantees), of approximately how many kWhs are expected to be generated annually by the System assuming the System size indicated in Schedule 1 and based on initial System designs. Provider may deliver to Purchaser an updated table on or about the Commercial Operation Date based on the actual System size and design.

V. Schedule 5 – Notice Information
Purchaser:
[ ]
Provider:

FFP BTM Solar, LLC
c/o Forefront Power, LLC
Attn: Director, Energy Services
100 Montgomery St., Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94104
With a copy to
FFP BTM Solar, LLC
c/o Forefront Power, LLC
Attn: Legal Department
100 Montgomery St., Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94104
Email: [email protected]
Financing Party:
[To be provided by Provider when known]
VI. Schedule 6 – Reserved
VII. Schedule 7 – Specific Items for Scope of Work

1.1. All System structures shall be permitted through the authority having jurisdiction as carports or shade structures, as applicable. Provider shall obtain permits on behalf of the project(s), including building department, structural, grading, and/or electrical permits as required.

1.2. Provider and Purchaser are operating under the assumption that the premises will be eligible for a CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE), and that a special use, conditional use, or zoning permit will not be required. Provider assumes that Purchaser, as lead agency, will issue a Notice of Exemption for CEQA. Upon request, Provider shall provide such limited support as necessary to Purchaser to obtain the NOE, including, if necessary, biological study and associated consultant statement and summary citing exemptions applicable. Provider shall not be responsible for costs or delays associated with any unforeseen required CEQA studies, special use, conditional use, or zoning permits, or mitigations that may result from a CEQA submittal and public comment.

1.3. Solar arrays will be canopy height of 10' minimum clearance.

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
9 1.4. Provider shall be responsible for all tree trimming and tree removal in order to facilitate the installation of the Systems. Provider will remove tree such that area is flush with grade.

Purchaser shall acknowledge and approve removal of trees identified by Provider, in order to install the system and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Purchaser shall be responsible for the costs associated with afforestation or reforestation for any trees removed.

Purchaser can elect to address afforestation or reforestation itself, or require that Provider address it through the change order process described in Schedule 2. Irrigation re-routing shall not be the responsibility of the Provider.

1.5. Provider intends to interconnect the System to Purchaser-owned 480V service conductors at a mutually agreeable location. Provider assumes that the existing conductors and service equipment are sufficiently capable of accepting the additional electrical load of the System.

Provider shall not bear responsibility for any required upgrades to the pre-existing electrical system.

1.6. Provider shall be responsible for all fees associated with the interconnection application, except that Provider shall not be responsible for transmission and distribution upgrades determined necessary by the Local Electric Utility.

1.7. Provider excludes all ADA related work. Should any excluded items for ADA-compliance be required, Provider will work with Purchaser in good faith to determine a mutually-acceptable solution for Purchaser to pay the costs associated with such upgrades, including potentially an increase in the kWh rate in Schedule 2.

1.8. Provider assumes that soil conditions are not such soils that are rocky, sandy, contaminated, ground water, caving, or otherwise have problematic construction limitations. Provider assumes no required shoring or de-watering for piers or trenches, and a maximum required pier depth of 10’ and diameter of 30”. If soil conditions prove to be more adverse than these assumptions, Provider shall not be responsible for such additional expenses. Provider shall work with Purchaser in good faith to determine a mutually acceptable solution for Purchaser to pay such additional costs, including potentially an increase in the kWh rate in Schedule 2.

1.9. Provider agrees to construct the System in no more than 1 construction phase, and that Provider will be allowed ample space, to the extent that it is available, to store material on site.

1.10. Provider shall be responsible for all inspection and inspector costs associated with the installation of the system.

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
10 VIII. Schedule 8 – Site Diagram

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
11 IX. Schedule 9 – Acknowledgment of Upgrades, Schedule or Scope Change Upgrades, Scope and/or Schedule Change Acknowledgment
This Acknowledgment is made in accordance with Section 10 of the Special Conditions, as defined in that Energy Service Agreement – [Solar], between [PURCHASER] (“Purchaser”) and FFP BTM Solar, LLC (“Provider”), dated [_________, 20___] (the “Agreement”). Upon execution by both Purchaser and Provider, this Acknowledgment shall be effective as of [INSERT DATE] (the “Acknowledgment Effective Date”).

1. Type of Change:

Distribution Upgrades
Scope Changes (ITC Eligible)
Scope Changes (Non-ITC Eligible)
Day for Day Extension
Extension for Good Cause

2. Description of Change
[INSERT DESCRIPTION AND IF PROVIDER SEEKING EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE, PROVIDER

TO DETAIL CIRCUMSTANCES AND ACTIONS PROVIDER IS TAKING TO COMPLETE SYSTEM ON AGREED UPON SCHEDULE]

3. kWh Rate and Early Termination Fee [IF NO IMPACT TO RATE OR ETF THEN DELETE] [INSERT UPDATED KWH RATE AND EARLY TERMINATION FEE TABLE]

4. Estimated Annual Production [IF NO IMPACT TO ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION THEN DELETE] [INSERT UPDATED SCHEDULE 4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION TABLE]

5. Updated Guaranteed Construction Start Date and Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date [IF NO IMPACT TO CLIFF DATES THEN DELETE]
The Parties hereby agree that the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and the Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date as defined in the Agreement are updated as follows:

Guaranteed Construction Start Date: [__________]
Guaranteed Commercial Operation Date: [__________]
The Parties hereby acknowledge and confirm the terms set forth herein as of the Acknowledgment Effective Date. [PURCHASER] FFP BTM Solar, LLC
By: By:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

ABCDE
12345
6 DATE:Dec.08.2022
DRAWN BY: RP
ENGINEER: RP
APPROVED BY:

PROJECT PHASE:

SCALE: 1" : 80'
SHEET NO:

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. THIS INFROMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS TO BE USED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH WORK DESCRIBED BY FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. NO PART IS TO BE DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM FOREFRONT POWER, LLC.

STAMP:

PROJECT NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET SIZE:

NO. REVISION DATE INIT.

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
City of Yorba Linda
Community Center
4501 Casa Loma Ave,
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
CA-21-0293
CL-1

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
TABLOID 11" X 17"

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
NOTE: DESKTOP ANALYSIS OF TOPOGRAPHY

AND TREE HEIGHTS WERE ASSUMED FOR THE
DESIGNS. FINAL SYSTEM SIZE AND LOCATION

WILL VARY BASED ON FURTHER DILIGENCE
100 MONTGOMERY STREET #1400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
(855) 204-5083 www.ForeFrontPower.com
2017 FOREFRONT POWER, LLC AND ITS AFFILIATES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TILT ANGLE

AZIMUTH ANGLE

MODULE TYPE

LAT/LONG

SNOWLOAD

TREES/LIGHT POLES

INVERTERS
7°
209°;180°
Longi LR4-72HPH-435M

33.895093, -117.825560
0 PSF
~26/6
(01)Chint CPS SCA 60KTL
(05)Chint CPS SCA 50KTL
QUANTITY 882

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM SIZE (DC)

SYSTEM SIZE (AC)
383.67 kW
310.00 kW
WINDSPEED 95 MPH (7-16 ASCE)

SEISMIC CATEGORYD
ADA

SPACES/COVERED
5/0
SYSTEM SIZE (AC-CEC) 353.09 kW-CEC
CANOPY BLOCKS:
1 x 16 STRING BLOCK
1 x 10 STRING BLOCK
1 x 23 STRING BLOCK

CANOPIES HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE
OF 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
POCC:480V, 800A
Meter# 259000-076643
AC Run: ~750'

TREES ASSUMED TO BE REMOVED

TREES USED IN SHADE SCENE

ABCDE
12345
6 DATE: May.08.2023
DRAWN BY: RP
ENGINEER: RP
APPROVED BY:

PROJECT PHASE:

SCALE: 1" : 70'
SHEET NO:

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. THIS INFROMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS TO BE USED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH WORK DESCRIBED BY FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. NO PART IS TO BE DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM FOREFRONT POWER, LLC.

STAMP:

PROJECT NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET SIZE:

NO. REVISION DATE INIT.

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
City of Yorba Linda
Public Library
4852 Lakeview Ave,
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
CA-21-0294
CL-1

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
TABLOID 11" X 17"

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
NOTE: DESKTOP ANALYSIS OF TOPOGRAPHY

AND TREE HEIGHTS WERE ASSUMED FOR THE
DESIGNS. FINAL SYSTEM SIZE AND LOCATION

WILL VARY BASED ON FURTHER DILIGENCE
100 MONTGOMERY STREET #1400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
(855) 204-5083 www.ForeFrontPower.com
2017 FOREFRONT POWER, LLC AND ITS AFFILIATES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TILT ANGLE

AZIMUTH ANGLE

MODULE TYPE

LAT/LONG

SNOWLOAD

TREES/LIGHT POLES

INVERTERS
7°
180°
Longi LR4-72HPH-435M

33.890701, -117.809857
0 PSF
~16/5
(04) Solectria PVI 50TL
(01) Solectria PVI 60TL
QUANTITY 732

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM SIZE (DC)

SYSTEM SIZE (AC)
318.42 kW
260.00 kW
WINDSPEED 95 MPH (7-16 ASCE)

SEISMIC CATEGORYD
ADA

SPACES/COVERED
6/6
SYSTEM SIZE (AC-CEC) 293.04 kW-CEC
CANOPY BLOCKS:
2 x 16 STRING BLOCKS
6 x 17 + 3 x 18 STRING BLOCK (3 Mod Wide)

CANOPIES HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE
OF 14' UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
Indoor POCC: 480V, 800A
Meter# 259000-089049
Underground Trench
AC Run: ~500'

ABCDE
12345
6 DATE: Dec.08.2022
DRAWN BY: RP
ENGINEER: RP
APPROVED BY:

PROJECT PHASE:

SCALE: 1" : 80'
SHEET NO:

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. THIS INFROMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS TO BE USED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH WORK DESCRIBED BY FOREFRONT POWER, LLC. NO PART IS TO BE DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM FOREFRONT POWER, LLC.

STAMP:

PROJECT NUMBER:

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET SIZE:

NO. REVISION DATE INIT.

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
City of Yorba Linda
Black Gold GC
Parking Lot
1 Black Gold Dr,
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
CA-21-0292
CL-1

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
TABLOID 11" X 17"

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
NOTE: DESKTOP ANALYSIS OF TOPOGRAPHY

AND TREE HEIGHTS WERE ASSUMED FOR THE
DESIGNS. FINAL SYSTEM SIZE AND LOCATION

WILL VARY BASED ON FURTHER DILIGENCE
100 MONTGOMERY STREET #1400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
(855) 204-5083 www.ForeFrontPower.com
2017 FOREFRONT POWER, LLC AND ITS AFFILIATES ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TILT ANGLE

AZIMUTH ANGLE

MODULE TYPE

LAT/LONG

SNOWLOAD

TREES/LIGHT POLES

INVERTERS
7°
104°;186°;151°
Longi LR4-72HPH-435M

33.908269, -117.816672
0 PSF
~25/6
(05)Chint CPS SCA 60KTL
(02)Chint CPS SCA 50KTL
QUANTITY 1116

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

SYSTEM SIZE (DC)

SYSTEM SIZE (AC)
485.46 kW
400.00 kW
WINDSPEED 95 MPH (7-16 ASCE)

SEISMIC CATEGORYD
ADA

SPACES/COVERED
5/0
SYSTEM SIZE (AC-CEC) 446.77 kW-CEC
CANOPY BLOCKS:
1 x 18 STRING BLOCK
1 x 10 STRING BLOCK
1 x 14 STRING BLOCK
1 x 20 STRING BLOCK

CANOPIES HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE
OF 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
Indoor POCC:
480V, 1200A
Meter# V349N-003882
AC Run: ~550'

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 18, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIANNA HONEYWELL, FINANCE DIRECTOR / CITY TREASURER SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the attached list of line-item budget transfers and supplemental budget appropriations for the first three quarters of the fiscal year (Attachment 1), as required by City Council Policy F-4 – Supplemental Budget and Line-Item Transfers.

BACKGROUND
On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the Two-Year Budget for fiscal years 2021/22 and 2022/23. On June 21, 2022, the FY 2022/23 budget was updated for Mid-Term adjustments. From time to time, the City’s operating and capital improvement budgets require modification. These modifications include refinement in estimated costs and events that were unanticipated when the budget was adopted. On January 17, 2023, staff presented the first quarter budget update for FY 2022/23 and on March 7, 2023, staff presented the Mid-Year Budget Update.

DISCUSSION
Since the Mid-Term budget was adopted in June 2022, the City Council has made additional appropriations, the revenue projection for the General Fund has been revised based on new information and the City Manager has authorized several small adjustments to the budget pursuant to City Council Policy F-4. The following table includes the adjusted budget and year-to-date actuals through March 31, 2023. There are no further adjustments proposed at this time. When the budget was updated at Mid-Term, the General Fund surplus totaled $1,001,151. After previous adjustments, it is now anticipated that the General Fund surplus will be $847,556.

FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET UPDATE
P a g e | 2

ADJ BUDGET YTD ACTUALS THIRD QUARTER REVISED
3/31/2023 3/31/2023 ADJUSTMENT BUDGET

RESOURCES
Property Taxes $ 23,784,064 $ 14,021,002 $ - $ 23,784,064 Sales & Use Tax 9,000,000 5,312,197 9,000,000
Franchise Tax 2,270,611 682,235 2,270,611
Other Taxes 1,612,100 917,654 1,612,100
Fees, Charges & Permits 2,451,618 2,159,171 2,451,618
Parks & Recreation Revenue 2,542,074 1,540,522 2,542,074 Administrative Charges 1,795,484 1,356,310 1,795,484
Other Revenue 1,493,951 818,725 1,493,951
Total Operating Revenue 44,949,902 26,807,816 - 44,949,902 Interfund transfers 1,062,964 - 1,062,964
Fd Balance Reserves 9,019,952 5,985,248 - 9,019,952
Total Resources 55,032,818 32,793,063 - 55,032,818

APPROPRIATIONS
Administration $9,250,940 $7,227,452 $9,250,940
City Attorney 650,000 361,515 650,000
Community Development 3,973,112 2,566,809 3,973,112
Finance 1,322,961 923,201 1,322,961
Non-Departmental 34,800 22,625 34,800
Parks & Recreation 9,212,720 5,919,899 9,212,720
Police Services 14,230,522 10,299,589 14,230,522
Public Works 6,808,324 4,471,683 6,808,324
Vacancy Factor (241,358) - - (241,358)
Total Operating Expenditures 45,242,021 31,792,773 - 45,242,021 Transfer to Special Reserves 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 Transfer to LMAD 943,735 - - 943,735
Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 2,999,506 - - 2,999,506 Total Appropriations 54,185,262 36,792,773 - 54,185,262 Excess Resources over Appropriations $847,556 ($3,999,710) - $847,556 Fund Balance Reserves @ 7/1/2022 31,633,612 31,633,612 31,633,612 31,633,612 Less Uses of Fd Bal Reserves (9,019,952) (5,985,248) - (9,019,952) Est. Fund Balance Reserves @ 6/30/23 23,461,216 21,648,655 31,633,612 23,461,216 Uses of Fund Balance Reserves:

Transfer out - CIP $ 2,940,487 $ - $ - $ 2,940,487
Zelman Subdivision Impr Agreement 68,268 $ 68,268 - 68,268 Add'l CalPERS payment 305,679 305,679 - 305,679
Add'l OPEB Payment 426,200 426,200 - 426,200
Transfer to Special Reserves 5,000,000 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 GF Carryovers from FY 21/22 279,318 185,101 - 279,318
9,019,952 5,985,248 - 9,019,952

CITY OF YORBA LINDA

GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FY 2022/23 - THIRD QUARTER BUDGET TOTALS

FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET UPDATE
P a g e | 3

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY 2022/23 year-to-date adjustments result in a projected General Fund surplus of $847,556.

ATTACHMENTS

1. List of Budget Adjustments Through the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2022/23

ATTACHMENT B
Date Type Purpose Amount Authorization Fund Department Account No.

GENERAL FUND ADJUSTMENTS
7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - General Fund (Reserves) $ 279,318 City Council General Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - General Fund (Reserves) - Adjustment $ 193 City Council General Finance Various BUA-199 8/2/2023 Appropriation Professional Services - HF&H for organic program implementation $ 80,500 City Council General Administration 1010170-433950 BUA-248 9/21/2022 Appropriation Reimbursement to OCTA for sale of property @ 18231 Imperial Hwy $ 541,533 City Council General Public Works 101310-433950 BUA-128 11/16/2022 Appropriation Reimbursement to Zelman Development per Subdivision Agreement $ 68,268 City Council General (Reserves) Public Works 1010310-433950 BUA-82 12/6/2022 Appropriation Additional contribution to unfunded CalPERS liability - excess reserves $ 305,679 City Council General (Reserves) Finance 1010120-411120 BUA-105 12/6/2022 Appropriation Additional contribution to unfunded OPEB liability - excess reserves $ 426,200 City Council General (Reserves) Finance 1010120-411130 BUA-105 12/6/2022 Appropriation Transfer year end excess General Fund reserves to Special Reserves $ 5,000,000 City Council General (Reserves) Finance 101199-491020 BUA-105 12/20/2022 Appropriation Additional costs for weed abatement - YL Fuel Reduction Project $ 59,019 City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461640 BUA-104 12/20/2022 Transfer Additional costs for weed abatement - Should be in "Transfer" Section $ (59,019) City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461640 BUA-104 1/4/2023 Appropriation Additional cost for Police Flock Cameras $ 1,200 City Manager General Administration 1010500-461210 BUA-4 1/5/2023 Appropriation Additional cost for City claims/settlements $ 25,000 City Manager General Administration 1010150-427460 BUA-8 1/27/2023 Appropriation Neighborhood Watch signs $ 5,000 City Manager General Public Works 1010330-421640 BUA-123 3/7/2023 Appropriation FY 22/23 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments $ 1,392,681 City Council General Various Various BUA-38 Total General Fund Adjustments - Through 3Q FY2022/23 $ 8,125,572

OTHER ADJUSTMENTS/TRANSFERS
7/1/2022 Transfer Adjust FY 22/23 adopted budget to correct accounts $ 30,000 City Manager LMAD Finance Various BUA-155 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - Special Reserves Fund $ 64,770 City Council Special Reserves Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - LMAD Fund $ 21,178 City Council Library Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - Library Fund $ 2,675 City Council LMAD Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - CIP Fund $ 2,822,459 City Council CIP Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - Traffic Mitigation Fund $ 4,453 City Council Traffic Mitigation Finance Various BUA-199 7/1/2022 Appropriation FY 21/22 Carryovers - Black Gold Golf Course Fund $ 1,073,936 City Council Black Gold Golf Course Finance Various BUA-199 7/18/2022 Transfer Move budget for landscape replacement $ 3,000 City Manager Library Library 2020700-432700 BUA-78 7/20/2022 Transfer Move budget to correct object account for computer service/toner $ 19,000 City Manager General Information Tech 1010130-424150 BUA-101 7/27/2022 Appropriation Additional cost for purchase of vehicle $ 1,398 City Manager Special Reserves Parks & Recreation 1021000-461050 BUA-139 8/3/2022 Transfer Transfer budget for NAGDA conference $ 640 City Manager General Administration 1010120-426050 BUA-22 9/21/2022 Appropriation Amendment to contract with Merchants Landscaping Services $ 185,828 City Council LMAD Public Works 2010350-432950 BUA-128 9/21/2022 Appropriation Reimbursement to OCTA for sale of property @ 18231 Imperial Hwy $ 541,533 City Council Library Public Works 2021999-491010 BUA-128 10/7/2022 Transfer Move budget to correct object account for capital outlay $ 10,650 City Manager General Public Works 1010300-461150 BUA-29 10/10/2022 Transfer Move budget for staff shirt purchase $ 2,400 City Manager General Public Works 1010300-421100 BUA-31 10/11/2022 Transfer Move budget for emergency fuel purchases $ 15,000 City Manager General Public Works 1010330-421160 BUA-38 11/1/2022 Appropriation Additional appropriation for SI211001 from Measure M2 Fund $ 402,303 City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461620 BUA-166 11/10/2022 Transfer Move budget for vehicle purchase $ 25,000 City Manager General Public Works 1010330-461050 BUA-64 11/22/2022 Transfer Move budget for window washing $ 8,100 City Manager Library Library 2020700-432100 BUA-112 11/22/2022 Transfer Move budget for day porter $ 4,500 City Manager Library Library 2020700-432100 BUA-116 12/20/2022 Transfer Additional costs for weed abatement - YL Fuel Reduction Project $ 59,019 City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461640 BUA-104 12/21/2022 Appropriation Appropriate grant funds for electronic library collection $ 4,022 City Manager Library Library 2020700-427260 BUA-84 12/6/2022 Appropriation Additional contribution to unfunded CalPERS liability - excess reserves $ 61,283 City Council Library (Reserves) Finance 2020700-411120 BUA-105 12/6/2022 Appropriation Additional contribution to unfunded OPEB liability - excess reserves $ 85,400 City Council Library (Reserves) Finance 2020700-411130 BUA-105 12/6/2022 Appropriation Transfer year end excess General Fund reserves to Special Reserves $ 500,000 City Council Library (Reserves) Finance 2021999-492030 BUA-105 1/5/2023 Transfer Move budget for custodial supplies $ 1,500 City Manager General Parks & Recreation 1010500-421010 BUA-5 1/27/2023 Transfer Move budget for advertising costs $ 7,845 City Manager General Administration 1010160-424400 BUA-124 1/27/2023 Transfer Move budget for offsite storage costs $ 6,000 City Manager General Administration 1010160-430350 BUA-124 1/30/2023 Transfer Move budget for equipment/furniture $ 1,050 City Manager General Public Works 1010300-461100 BUA-128 2/6/2023 Transfer Move budget for Public Relations expenditures $ 3,750 City Manager General Administration 1010170-427100 BUA-22 2/7/2023 Appropriation Award of Contract - Adventure Playground Accessible Path of Travel $ 102,381 City Council CIP Parks & Recreation 4010050-461610 BUA-91 2/7/2023 Appropriation Emergency irrigation repair - Black Gold Golf Club $ 200,000 City Council Black Gold Golf Course Parks & Recreation 5010480-461040 BUA-180 City of Yorba Linda
Quarterly Listing of Year-To-Date Line-Item Budget Transfers and Supplemental Budget Appropriations Fiscal Year 2022/23 -Third Quarter Adjustments

ATTACHMENT B
Date Type Purpose Amount Authorization Fund Department Account No.

City of Yorba Linda
Quarterly Listing of Year-To-Date Line-Item Budget Transfers and Supplemental Budget Appropriations Fiscal Year 2022/23 -Third Quarter Adjustments
2/27/2023 Transfer Move budget from PPT to Temp PT salary costs $ 33,297 City Manager General Finance 1010600-410120 BUA-122 2/27/2023 Transfer Move budget for office supplies, printing, OT $ 5,000 City Manager General Finance 1010600-410210 BUA-122 3/7/2023 Appropriation FY 22/23 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments $ 73,600 City Council LMAD Public Works Various BUA-38 3/7/2023 Appropriation FY 22/23 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments $ 9,100 City Council Library Library Various BUA-38 3/7/2023 Appropriation FY 22/23 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments $ 73,600 City Council Grant Fund Public Works 2071999-491010 BUA-38 3/7/2023 Appropriation Appropriate CDBG funds for Small Business Relief grants $ 150,000 City Council CDBG Administration 2080173-424710 BUA-43 3/16/2023 Transfer Transfer budget from FC231001 to FC231003 $ 5,020 City Manager CIP Parks & Recreation 4010050-461610 BUA-61 3/21/2023 Appropriation Additional appropriation for APPP Zone 5/6B $ 6,436,144 City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461620 BUA-170 3/21/2023 Transfer Transfer from APPP Zone 6 to APPP Zone 5/6B $ 2,200,000 City Council CIP Public Works 4010050-461620 BUA-170 3/29/2023 Transfer Move budget for special supplies $ 2,500 City Manager General Public Works 1010340-421100 BUA-146 Total

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: JULY 18, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2023 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates to vote at the Annual Business meeting of the League of California Cities 2023 Annual Conference in September.

DISCUSSION
The League of California Cities will hold its Annual Conference on September 20 – 22 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business meeting.

At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. Consistent with League bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is a $650 conference registration fee per attendee. Funding is available under account number 1010100-426050.

ATTACHMENTS

1. League of California Cities Letter

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 2023
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023, Sacramento SAFE Credit Union Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Sept. 22, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Please complete the attached voting delegate form and email it to Cal Cities office no later than Monday, August 28.

New this year, we will host a pre-conference information session for voting delegates to explain their role. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide preconference communications with voting delegates.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council.

Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Council Action Advised by August 28, 2023

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center in Sacramento, will be open at the following times:

Wednesday, Sept. 20, 8:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 21, 7:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 22, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Monday, Aug. 28. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 18, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID BRANTLEY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: NATE FARNSWORTH, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: HOUSING POLICY RESIDENT WORKING GROUP SUMMARY REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to consider and incorporate the findings and conclusions of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group as it prepares revisions to the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element for the community’s consideration.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Policy Resident Working Group
The failure of Measure Z in November 2022 left the City on a pathway toward losing its conditional certification of its housing element, which would have other potentially negative impacts on overall land use policy in the City. In an effort to evaluate next steps and to expand overall resident engagement on this important and complex housing policy issue, the City determined that a robust and extended resident engagement effort with a broad swath of residents would be helpful.

The City Council gave no mandate pertaining to the Working Group. City staff’s concept was to talk directly with residents about the background, policy choices and tradeoffs of land use policy, and to listen deeply to their ideas and suggestions for how to best address land use in the future of Yorba Linda. Additionally, the hope was to start with a group of these residents who were willing to dedicate several hours to discussion and learning in order to gather effective feedback that recognized the policy challenges in addition to general resident sentiment.

From mid-May to late June, the City convened six meetings with a "Housing Policy Resident Working Group" made up of 17 residents. Monday, June 26 was the conclusion of six meetings with this group. Participants in the Working Group were selected by City Staff on the basis of the following criteria: 1) geographic diversity (include representatives from the entire City); 2) had previously engaged or shown interest in housing or other City issues; 3) diverse experiences and viewpoints; 4) reputation for being open-minded, thoughtful and collaborative; and 5) no prior service as either an elected or appointed City official.

HOUSING POLICY RESIDENT WORKING GROUP SUMMARY REPORT
P a g e | 2

DISCUSSION
The Group's Findings and Recommendations
The Working Group came to a unanimous consensus on six key observations and suggestions for the City Council to consider as it advances a new Housing Element approach for the City:

1. Retaining local control with a November 2024 ballot vote is important.

2. The City should pursue a November 2024 ballot measure to adopt zoning changes, and residents should seriously weigh the consequences if that ballot measure fails.

3. The City should deploy more tools to connect with residents on the need for adopting a Housing Element and perform the education necessary to ensure the public is informed on this complex subject. This may include engaging additional consulting resources to supplement the City’s outreach efforts for this acute need.

4. A resident survey on housing issues could better inform the City’s engagement efforts and should be pursued.

5. The City should leverage Savi Ranch (to a reasonable extent) to create a new residential and mixed-use Downtown-like space for Yorba Linda.

6. That the City should generally view mixed-use development as a positive and make it available where it is appropriate throughout higher density sites in the City.

Based upon numerous voices and viewpoints shared, staff assembled a model plan and presented it to the Working Group on June 26th. The net result was a more balanced RHNA allocation plan, which did not add any new sites other than within Savi Ranch and met both the income bracket requirements for housing viability while also meeting the total unit threshold required by the State. Although there was some healthy debate about certain elements of the initial model plan, clear consensus developed around the following specific recommended modifications to the housing sites/rezone plan as a starting point for guiding revisions to the Housing Element for consideration on a future ballot measure in November 2024:

1. Increase the allocation of residential units in Savi Ranch from 200 to 800 housing units.

2. Increase a Savi Ranch allowable density to 60 dwelling units per acre with a maximum five-story height limit. This density also includes a mixed-use overlay that would promote the integration of retail and high-density residential units.

3. Add an additional 8 acres of land from Bac Tran, an individual who owns several large commercial and retail properties in the Savi Ranch area, to the high-density residential zoning plan.

4. Reduce the zoning density on the site commonly known as Christmas Tree or Richfield Pines Christmas Tree Farm to 10 dwelling units per acre - a unit density reduction of over 70%.

HOUSING POLICY RESIDENT WORKING GROUP SUMMARY REPORT
P a g e | 3

5. Retain zoning on Fairmont site at RM-10 and reduce the developable land to 3 total acres and also affirm the preservation of the open space adjacent to Chino Hills State Park - a unit count reduction of over 80%.

6. Reduce zoning on Bryant Ranch Shopping Center to RM-10 which would allow up to 78 housing units on the property and retain a portion of the property to remain commercially zoned. Commercial zoning on Bryant Ranch Shopping Center was identified by the Working Group as needed given the overall lack of commercial services within this area of Yorba Linda - a unit count reduction of over 70%.

7. Remove Site S3-033 (Islamic Center), Site S3-210 (Shinnyo-En USA), and Site S4- 204A (Chabad Center) - congregational overlay sites.

8. Remove Site S3-034 (Eureka Property northwest of Islamic Center), S3-205A (Highland property), and Site S3-074 (Yorba Linda Preschool).

9. Retain existing zoning capacity from sites removed where residential zoning capacity already exists.

10.Add in additional existing zoning capacity without rezoning from certain single-family zoned properties and churches that are not part of the Congregational Lands Overlay.

11.Leave all other zoning unchanged, including the Congregational Lands Overlay District.

The findings and conclusions of the Working Group are reflected in the Housing Policy Resident Working Group Report attached hereto for the City Council’s consideration. The City’s outreach consultant and staff will be providing an overview of the Working Group efforts at the City Council meeting.

The Beginning of Public Engagement - Not the End
The Housing Element adoption process and the likely process of revisiting a modified Housing Element in the coming months requires an extensive, formal outreach process.

Staff has indicated its intent to engage in a robust, communitywide outreach program to garner feedback from all members of the community. The work of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group was intended as a starting point for public engagement. Because of the informal nature of this group, it created a more natural back-and-forth process and more of a collaborative effort than a traditional large group public hearing offers.

Importantly, the City will be conducting additional formal public hearings and less-formal workshops in the coming months to seek broader resident feedback on a potentially revised Housing Element. Communication from the City may include, but will not be limited to:
 A dedicated informational website
 A recorded "webinar"

HOUSING POLICY RESIDENT WORKING GROUP SUMMARY REPORT
P a g e | 4
 Direct mail piece(s)
 Social media posts and/or advertisements
 A scientifically valid community survey
 Educational video(s)
 Pop-up informational booths at community events
This is a tentative outline of the next steps for education and outreach around the City's revised Housing Element Plan:
 Jul - Oct 2023 — Revise the Housing Sites Inventory & Public Engagement  Nov 2023 — Final Community Workshop with Planning Commission  Dec 2023 — City Council Authorization to Submit to HCD  Dec 2023 - Apr 2024 — HCD Review Complete (assumes two rounds of review — 120 days)
 Apr 2024 — Traffic Commission Review
 May 2024 — Planning Commission Review
 Jul 2024 — City Council Policy Direction and Ballot Measure Resolution  Aug - Nov 2024 — Voter Outreach and Education Information  Nov 2024 — Ballot Measure Vote
Next Steps
Staff requests the City Council provide feedback on the findings and conclusions of the Working Group. If they are acceptable, Council may direct staff to use those findings to guide staff’s efforts to move forward with preparing draft revisions to the 2021-2029 General Plan Housing Element.

FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may wish to provide additional guidance to staff beyond the recommendations of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Housing Policy Resident Working Group Report

YORBA LINDA

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY AND FINDINGS

OF THE YORBA LINDA HOUSING POLICY

RESIDENT WORKING GROUP
Date June 19, 2023
Authored by Tripepi Smith
Reviewed and Content Affirmed by
Housing Policy Resident Working Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background on working group formation................................................................... 1 The Beginning of Public Engagement - Not the End.............................................. 1 Housing Policy Resident Working Group Membership...........................................2 Agreed-Upon Facts ...............................................................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations.....................................................................................3 Important Recent Timeline..............................................................................................10 Potential Future Timeline..................................................................................................11 Priority Planning Principles ..............................................................................................11 Ballot Measure Lessons ..................................................................................................... 12 Housing Policy 101 and RHNA.......................................................................................... 13 Frequent Questions and Common Misconceptions............................................... 15 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 17 EXHIBIT A ........................................................................................... 18 Working Group Communications and Correspondence From City..................18 Post-Meeting 1 Wrap Up ..................................................................................................20 Meeting 1: PowerPoint..................................................................................................................22 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology ...........................................................25 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element .........................................................................57 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory.................................................................................75 Meeting 1: Program Environmental Impact Report.................................................. 114 Meeting 1: General Plan Map...................................................................................................115 Meeting 1: City’s Zoning Map...................................................................................................115 Post-Meeting 2 Wrap Up ................................................................................................ 116 Meeting 2: PowerPoint ................................................................................................................117 Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines.........................................120 Post-Meeting 3 Wrap Up ............................................................................................... 166 Meeting 3: PowerPoint ...............................................................................................................168 Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document .................................................................170 Meeting 4: RHNA Unit Count Model ..................................................................................212 Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda..........................................216 Meeting 4: PowerPoint ..............................................................................................................218 Post-Meeting 5 Wrap Up ...............................................................................................220 Meeting 5: PowerPoint .............................................................................................................. 223 Post-Meeting 6 Wrap Up ...............................................................................................225

EXHIBIT B .........................................................................................227 Working Group Provided Ideas and Feedback Email Correspondence.......227 Submission 1 .......................................................................................................................228 Submission 2.......................................................................................................................230 Submission 3........................................................................................................................231 Submission 4 .......................................................................................................................231 Submission 5.......................................................................................................................232 Submission 6.......................................................................................................................232 Submission 7.......................................................................................................................233 Submission 8 ......................................................................................................................234 EXHIBIT C .........................................................................................236 Planning Principles Inventory......................................................................................236 Exhibit C: Planning Principles...............................................................................................237 EXHIBIT D .........................................................................................238 WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION DECKS .............................................................238 Meeting 1: PowerPoint...............................................................................................................239 Meeting 2: PowerPoint ..............................................................................................................242 Meeting 3: PowerPoint ..............................................................................................................245 Meeting 4: PowerPoint .............................................................................................................247 Meeting 5: PowerPoint ............................................................................................................. 248 Meeting 6: PowerPoint..............................................................................................................250 EXHIBIT E.......................................................................................... 255 DENSITY EXAMPLES.........................................................................................................255 Density Examples.........................................................................................................................256 EXHIBIT F..........................................................................................260 Low income housing in Yorba Linda ........................................................................ 260 Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda..........................................261 EXHIBIT G .........................................................................................263 Measure Z Ballot Language and Other Information ...........................................263 EXHIBIT H .........................................................................................266 LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch...............................................................266 LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch .....................................................................267 EXHIBIT I...........................................................................................273 Housing Element Comparison Maps .........................................................................273 Housing Element Comparison Maps................................................................................274

1 BACKGROUND ON WORKING GROUP FORMATION
Yorba Linda has a voter-approved “right to vote” ordinance (known as Measure B) that gives the public direct control over zoning changes in the City when a zoning change is subject to a Measure B vote. This important measure creates a potential challenge for the City to comply with State mandates for housing development and meeting RHNA allocations as any effort to rezone property for the Housing Element to comply with State law must receive voter approval. The City has recognized this issue in their Housing Element Plan implementation plan, and in accordance with Measure B’s requirements took a ballot measure (Measure Z) to the community on the November 2022 general election ballot.

Measure Z would have approved a change in City zoning to fulfill the commitment of the Conditionally Certified Housing Element. However, the Measure failed: 7,221 votes (24.77%) Yes to 21,937 votes (75.23%) No. That failed ballot measure left the City on a pathway toward losing its conditional certification of its Housing Element. Not having a Certified Housing Element can result in several negative consequences for the City that are outlined below, but broadly include Builder’s Remedy development and loss of local zoning control.

In an effort to evaluate next steps and to expand overall resident engagement on this important and complex policy issue, the City Staff determined that a robust and extended dive into housing policy with a broad swath of residents would be helpful. The idea was to talk directly with residents about the background, policy choices and tradeoffs of land use policy, and to listen deeply to their ideas and suggestions for how to best address land use in the future of Yorba Linda. Additionally, the hope was to start with a group of these residents who were willing to dedicate several hours to the discussion and to learning in order to gather effective feedback that recognized the policy challenges in addition to general resident sentiment.

Participants in the Working Group were identified by City Staff and approached to join the effort using the following criteria:

1. The resident had expressed previous interest in Housing Issues

2. The final group would represent all points of view on housing while being solutions-oriented

3. That membership would have people who were geographically distributed throughout the City

4. That there were a mix of demographics in terms of age, gender and socio-economics

5. That no prior or current elected/appointed officials were included in the Working Group The City Council gave no mandate pertaining to the Working Group. City Staff’s concept was to engage a consultant who would facilitate meetings of this group, bring the Working Group information, answer their questions and offer suggestions on possible approaches, tradeoffs and direction for the Working Group to consider.

THE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT - NOT THE END
The Housing Element adoption process and the likely process of revisiting a modified Housing Element in the coming months requires an extensive, formal outreach process. City Staff have indicated their intent to engage in a robust, communitywide outreach program to garner feedback from all members of the community. The work of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group was intended as a starting point for public engagement. Because of the informal nature of this group, it created a more natural back-and-forth process and more of a collaborative effort than a traditional large group public hearing offers. The City will be conducting additional formal public hearings and less-formal workshops in the coming months to seek resident feedback on a potentially revised Housing Element.

2 HOUSING POLICY RESIDENT WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP
The following residents volunteered their time and insights to engage in a robust resident-driven discussion about housing policy in Yorba Linda. The City Council has expressed their appreciation for giving their time to help the City navigate this challenging matter and appreciates their work. • Connor Smith
• Dave Ramocinski
• Diane Kanne
• Diane Randall
• Don LaCommare
• Greg Gianelli
• Janice Morger
• Jennifer Shepard
• Josh Schroeder
• Nancy Sallee
• Paulina Rodriguez
• Richard DeBruijn
• Russ Heine
• Shannon Stella
• Stephanie Nichols
• Tina Heath
• Tony Cordero
Working Group Guests
• Todd Litfin, City Attorney for Yorba Linda and Partner at Rutan & Tucker, LLP • Nicole Morse, T&B Planning - City’s Housing Element CEQA Consultant • Jose Alire, Urban Crossroads - City’s Traffic Engineer for CEQA Traffic Analysis • Erin Sasse, Region Public Affairs Manager, League of California Cities Working Group Support Staff
• David Brantley - Community Development Director, City of Yorba Linda • Nate Farnsworth - Planning Manager, City of Yorba Linda • Allison Estes - Assistant to the City Manager, City of Yorba Linda • Ryder Todd Smith - President, Tripepi Smith
• Jon Barilone - Principal, Tripepi Smith
• Mackenna Morrice - Junior Business Analyst, Tripepi Smith

3 AGREED-UPON FACTS
It was important to our dialogue as a group that we agreed on certain facts to underpin our understanding of the situation the City of Yorba Linda is facing, as well as the potential tradeoffs with various responses to the future of handling the City’s Housing Element.

The following facts were repeatedly noted and had unanimous consent from the group as underpinning our discussions.
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29). • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims. • November 2024 is the last opportunity for the City voters to approve a ballot measure to implement zoning that will deliver a Certified Housing Element. Failure to do so will result in the City losing its Conditionally Certified Housing Element. • Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highly likely to fail, and certainly not likely to resolve before November 2024. As such, these can not be working assumptions for this Report or as a policy response to the Housing Element adoption. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and — even if successful — will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group came to a conclusion about key observations and suggestions. Through unanimous consent, they agreed on the following suggestions for the City Council to consider as it advances a new Housing Element approach for the City.

1. Retaining local control with a November 2024 ballot vote is important.

2. The City should pursue a November 2024 ballot measure to adopt zoning changes, and residents should seriously weigh the consequences if that ballot measure fails.

3. The City should deploy more tools to connect with residents on the need for adopting a Housing Element and perform the education necessary to ensure the public is informed on this complex subject. This may include engaging additional consulting resources to supplement the City’s outreach efforts for this acute need.

4 4. A resident survey on housing issues could better inform the City’s engagement efforts and should be pursued.

5. The City should leverage Savi Ranch (to a reasonable extent) to create a new residential and mixed-use Downtown-like space for Yorba Linda.

6. The City should generally view mixed-use development as a positive and make it available where it is appropriate throughout higher-density sites in the City.

The Savi Ranch finding was the subject of a robust discussion among the Working Group. As we narrowed into details on what leveraging Savi Ranch meant, a few voices objected to some elements of the specifics, but a clear consensus in the room was supportive of each of these recommendations.

Based upon numerous voices and viewpoints being shared, City Staff assembled a model plan and presented it to the Working Group on June 26th. The following specific recommendations were made to inform a revised Housing Element as a starting point for City Staff. These recommendations represent changes to the Housing Element that would represent changes from the Measure Z ballot in November 2022:

1. Increase the allocation of residential units in Savi Ranch from 200 to 800 housing units.

2. Increase a Savi Ranch allowable density to 60 dwelling units per acre with a five story height limit. This density also includes a mixed-use overlay that would promote the integration of retail and high-density residential units.

3. Add an additional 8 acres of land from Bac Tran, an individual who owns several large commercial and retail properties in the Savi Ranch area, to the high density residential zoning plan.

4. Reduce the zoning density on the site commonly known as Christmas Tree or Richfield Pines Christmas Tree Farm to 10 dwelling units per acre - a unit density reduction of over 70%.

5. Retain zoning on Fairmont site at RM-10 and reduce the developable land to 3 total acres and also affirm the preservation of the open space adjacent to Chino Hills State Park - a unit count reduction of over 80%.

6. Reduce zoning on Bryant Ranch Shopping Center to RM-10 which would allow up to 78 housing units on the property, and retain a portion of the property to remain commercially zoned.

Commercial zoning on Bryant Ranch Shopping Center was identified by the Working Group as needed given the overall lack of commercial services within this area of Yorba Linda - a unit count reduction of over 70%.

7. Remove Site S3-033 (Islamic Center), Site S3-210 (Shinnyo-En USA), and Site S4-204A (Chabad Center) - congregational overlay sites.

8. Remove Site S3-034 (Eureka Property northwest of Islamic Center), S3-205A (Highland property), and Site S3-074 (Yorba Linda Preschool).

9. Retain existing zoning capacity from sites removed where residential zoning capacity already exists.

10. Add in additional existing zoning capacity without rezoning from certain single-family zoned properties and churches that are not part of the Congregational Lands Overlay.

11. Leave the proposed Congregational Lands Overlay zone as originally proposed with the removal of the three sites described in Point 8.

The following tables depict the new site allocations and RHNA housing calculation based upon the above noted 11 changes.

5 Draft Housing Element RHNA Calculations
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
Entitled Projects (post
6/30/2021) 181 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 (Postal Annex Site) 12 12
ADUs 400 272 120 8
Single Family Zoning
Potential
(Including S3-034 and
S3-025A + 45 SFR
sites)
237 62 18 45
Church Sites with
Existing Zoning
(Including removal of
Chabad Center,
Shinyo-En, and
Islamic Center)
198 71 28 44
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 757 272 208 278
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S6-015 Prior John Force Racing
22722 Old Canal Road 2.56 PD
PD
RM-60
standards
60 154 131 117 2 12
S6-020 Extended Stay America
22711 Oak Crest Circle 4.04 PD
PD
RM-60
standards
60 242 206 103 39 64
New
Site Savi Ranch TBD 8 PD
PD
RM-60
standards
60 480 453 300 58 95
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 790 520 99 171
RM-50 – between 20 to 60 units/acre

6 Draft Housing Element RHNA Calculations
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S1-200 SEC Rose Dr./Blake Rd 5.94 RE RM-20
with AHO 35 208 177 177
S3-082 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave 1.75 CG RM-20
with AHO 35 61 52 52
S4-075 4742 Plumosa Drive 1.62 CG RM-20
with AHO 35 57 48 48
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 277 277 0 0
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S2-008 Friendship Baptist Church
17151 Bastanchury Rd

4.92 (2.01
develo
pable)
RE
RE with CLO
35 60 60 60
S3-012 Richfield Community
Church
5320 Richfield Rd

9.48 (3.7
develo
pable)
RU
RE with CLO
35 55 55 55
S2-013
Messiah Lutheran Church
4861 Liverpool St

6.2 (2.03
develo
pable)
RU
RE with CLO
35 40 40 40
S3-024
Friends Church Overflow
Parking

17.45 (1.61
develo
pable)
RE
RE with CLO
35 48 48 48
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 203 203 0 0

7 Draft Housing Element RHNA Calculations
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S1-021 Vacant Parcel (W of 16951
Imperial Hwy)
APN 322-121-07

1.76 CG-(I)
CG-(I) with
MUO 35 62 52 26 26
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 52 26 26 0
RM – up to 10 units/acre
RM-20 – up to 20 units/acre
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S4-200 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane 2 RS RM-20 20 40 40 40
S3-074 18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 3.9 RE RM-20 20 78 66 25 41 Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 106 40 25 41
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S3-211
17651 Imperial Highway 2.32 RS
RM
10 23 20 7 12
S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd 8.83 RU RM 10 88 75 30 45 S5-008 Fairmont Blvd 3 PD RM 10 30 30 10 16
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 125 0 47 77

8 Draft Housing Element RHNA Calculations
TOTAL
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S3-203 18101-19251 Bastanchury 22.83 PD PD 10 228 194 74 120 S7-001 Bryant Ranch
Shopping Center
23611-23801 La Palma Ave

9.15 CG
PD
10 92 78 23 54
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 272 0 97 175
Poten&al on all Opportunity Sites:

Total RHNA Targets:

Total RHNA Buffer:

RHNA Buffer Minimum (10%):

TOTAL
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
2,582 1338 503 742
2415 1216 457 742
167 122 46 0
167 122 46 0
RHNA Buffer Shortfall: 0 0 0 0
PD

9 This shift to a large increase in unit allocation to Savi Ranch was rooted in the following general concepts that the Working Group discussed:

1. More density in Savi Ranch could help revitalize that area of town, as it appears retail establishments are struggling to survive and some areas of Savi Ranch clearly warrant new investment.

2. Savi Ranch density is not adjacent to any existing single-family homes and, thus, reduces concerns about adjacency between high-density housing and single-family residences.

3. Working Group members are excited at the possibility of a “Downtown” experience with mixeduse integrated into Savi Ranch, creating a retail and residence district that is similar to such developments in Anaheim, Brea, Fullerton and Westminster.

4. While the reduction in density was dramatic for three larger areas (Christmas Tree, Bryant Ranch and Fairmont), the plan still reflected that those areas “did their fair share,” and each area took on some responsibility for providing housing units. No Working Group member suggested the complete removal of these sites for rezoning.

5. There was a general sentiment among the Working Group that 800 residential units represented a reasonable number to place in Savi Ranch, while respecting that housing needed to go in several other spots in the City and those areas should still take on units. The group felt it would have been unfair to the Savi Ranch area to have put more units in that location. Additional concerns were noted by City Staff that too many units being pushed into Savi Ranch might trigger regulatory and legal concerns from HCD staff.

6. The City completed a Vision Plan for Savi Ranch in April of 2015 that outlined a broad long term vision for housing and density in the Savi Ranch area. These concepts are consistent with that Vision Plan. Details on the Vision Plan can be found Page 170.

7. Finally, it was noted that traffic concerns in Savi Ranch are an issue. While the City is already in the design phase on improvements in that area that will help with traffic, it was noted this increase in units likely will return the traffic conditions back to similar to what they are, as of June 2023. The City has obtained a memo (See Exhibit I for a copy of the memo) from its traffic consultants affirming that 850 additional units can be added to Savi Ranch and still meet City traffic condition minimums.

As a consequence of the Savi Ranch reallocation of units and shifting of sites and density in other locations, the net result was a more balanced RHNA allocation plan that both met the income bracket requirements for housing viability while also meeting the total unit threshold required by the State.

The City has previewed these changes with officials from the State of California, Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). Those non-official communications have not raised any immediate objections to the tentative plan. That said, this new approach is ultimately subject to HCD review and approval. It is entirely possible that HCD may reject this plan and a modified approach will be required.

10 IMPORTANT RECENT TIMELINE
The Working Group discussed the background and history of the complex world of housing policy in California. The following timeline of history and more recent events was discussed. • Sep 2017 – Governor Brown signs major housing reform package of 15 bills to increase housing supply and affordability
• Oct 2018 – 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment discussions begin at SCAG • Oct 2019 – HCD establishes RHNA of 1.34 million for SCAG region • Nov 2019 – SCAG approves RHNA methodology
• Oct 2020 – City appeals its draft RHNA allocation to SCAG but appeal is rejected • Mar 2021 – SCAG approves final RHNA allocation for SCAG region • Aug 2021 – City submits 1st draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet Oct 2021 deadline
• Oct 2021 – State law deadline to submit Housing Element to HCD which allows 120 day grace period
• Dec 2021 – City submits 2nd draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline
• Feb 2022 – City Council adopts Housing Element and submits 3rd draft to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline
• Apr 2022 – HCD conditionally certifies City’s Housing Element but City misses the deadline and must rezone by Oct 2022 per State law
• Jun 2022 – SB 197 passes extending the rezoning deadline for certified cities but City’s Housing Element has committed to a Nov 2022 vote
• Nov 2022 – Measure Z fails

11 POTENTIAL FUTURE TIMELINE
The City Council retains control over the policy direction on handling the City’s Housing Element.

However, to provide context to the Working Group and the Yorba Linda community at large, should the City pursue the Working Group’s recommendation for a new ballot measure in November 2024 to rezone the needed parcels to achieve compliance with HCD’s mandates, the following timeline would be most likely.
• Dec 2023 – Submit draft revised Housing Element to HCD for review • Apr 2024 – HCD recertification of revised Housing Element • Apr 2024 – Begin environmental review of revised Housing Element for CEQA compliance • Apr 2024 – Traffic Commission review of revised Housing Element • May 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing on revised Housing Element • Jul 2024 – City Council to consider adopting revised Housing Element and call for election • Nov 2024 – Potential new rezoning ballot measure vote

PRIORITY PLANNING PRINCIPLES
There was a wide array of planning principles discussed with the Working Group and surfaced by differing viewpoints. With this diversity of thought, the following principles seemed to drive the above noted prioritization of Savi Ranch units to alleviate density in other areas of the community. • No single area of the City of Yorba Linda should be immune from doing its part to create housing opportunity areas.
• Increased density on existing, developed land in infill areas would be preferred to “greenfield” development that destroys open spaces in the City.
• Being aware of and making recommendations that attempt to mitigate Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should be a part of the City’s planning - though it is not a part of the State Housing Element evaluation process. For example, proactive adoption of dual access roads as Brea is doing.
• Whenever reasonably possible, the zoning should avoid high density immediately adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods.
• Where high density is adjacent to single-family residential areas, setbacks and design standards should be used to reduce the massing of buildings against property lines of the single-family residences. For example, the second story should continue to be set back 50 feet and a third story should be set back 100 feet.
• That mixed-used development, where possible, should be accommodated to create both housing opportunities and retail spaces/services that both enhance quality of life and provide needed sales tax revenue.
• Preserve the parks and trail systems throughout the City and provide recreation spaces for new residents that encourage community gathering and social interactions. These principles are consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan and noted in the Land Use Element, Conservation Element and the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Additional planning principles were shared by the group and are outlined in Exhibit C - Planning Principles Inventory.

12 BALLOT MEASURE LESSONS
At several points during meetings with the Working Group comments were made about the need to engage and educate residents — especially voters — about the consequences of not having a Certified Housing Element. These comments generally resonated around the need to pass a rezoning ballot measure and reflected on the failure to pass Measure Z in November 2022 by a large margin.

Working Group members were asked for their insights as to why Measure Z failed and the following areas were denoted:
• There is a big desire to keep Yorba Linda rural or less dense. • There was a lack of extensive education and engagement on the issue. • There is distrust of the traffic study data versus the reality that people feel. As a result, there is distrust of the whole Housing Element. Generally, people see traffic as a problem and the rezoning is not going to make traffic better. Other residents who face wildfire risk see increased traffic as a public safety hazard due to evacuation routes. • Residents had concerns about the increased infrastructure and services costs such as water delivery, utilities, public safety, and schools to support increased housing. • The locations where the density was going in was a concern for many, especially those living near the new density.
• Compared to the impacts of rezoning, the impacts of not having a certified housing element were abstract, long term, and not well understood by the public. This usually meant a no vote • Some residents were concerned that higher density housing near their single family residences would reduce their backyard privacy.
• There was no urgency from the public about the consequences of not having a Certified Housing Element as a result of the time extension granted by SB 197. Fundamentally, residents did not know the full consequences of the State taking over zoning in Yorba Linda. • On a related point, some voters were ready to “wait and see” if the law or court cases would change the course of State housing mandates, and there was a concern the City was moving “too fast” on implementing State mandates.
• There is fear of “affordable housing” and what that means for quality of life and property values for some residents. See discussion later on misconceptions about affordable housing. • The language of Ballot Measure Z was confusing and sounds like a huge amount of change. In such a circumstance, if that were all a voter read, they were going to vote no.

Working Group members consistently noted the wide gap in the “No” vote on Measure Z was rooted in both concerns with the zoning plans and voters not understanding the totality of the tradeoffs of voting yes or no. To address these concerns, Working Group members noted both a need to significantly revise the zoning plans and that a substantial outreach effort would be required to ensure the public is fully aware of the consequences of a repeat failure of a zoning measure that implements a revised Housing Element.

City Staff reminded Working Group members that as a public agency, the City can not advocate for a particular vote outcome on a specific ballot measure, but that the City can and will do its best to provide education materials and resources to the public to ensure they are well-informed. In this case, a good outreach effort to inform residents would both address the consequences of losing a Certified Housing Element status with the State and would identify the upside benefits of the new Housing Element. Several Working Group members acknowledged the important role they could play in ensuring their neighbors were aware of all the facts that were at play on any future ballot measure vote.

13 HOUSING POLICY 101 AND RHNA
Well over an hour of Working Group time was committed to just understanding how housing policy works in California and explaining key terminology such as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

This discussion was prioritized with a core belief that if the Working Group had the depth of understanding on the complex issues the City was facing, it would better inform their ideas on how to develop a Housing Element approach that would meet the community’s goals and achieve compliance with State mandates.

While a much longer document could be assembled and delivered on this subject, for the purposes of the public who read this report, the following general points and facts are being noted to provide context and information about the need for a certified Housing Element and why the City Council has such a huge policy interest in this matter.

Land use in cities is accomplished through zoning. Zoning can restrict how a land owner can use their land. Commercially zoned land can have retail and offices. Residential low density zoning allows for single family homes. High density residential allows for condos and apartments. Zoning for residential is often measured in terms of dwelling units per acre - more dwelling units per acre means more density. By State standards, more density should also translate into more affordable housing, so in the context of creating zoning for affordable housing, that simply means creating zoning for more density. Specifically, zoning 20 dwelling units per acre or more is considered by the State as zoning for affordable housing.

Cities have been compelled by the State of California to zone for more housing over the last several decades. The general process works as follows (see Page 25 for more details).. The State of California Department of Housing and Community Development creates a goal number for a period of time. The State then goes to regional governing bodies that cover the state that are amalgamations of counties and cities to have them create the details on how they will allocate zoning goals for housing units. Yorba Linda resides in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region that consists of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. This SCAG region was assigned

1.34 million units. Leadership of SCAG consists of city council members and county officials who are placed on the SCAG Regional Council through an appointments process or serve ex-officio depending on the position. SCAG’s Regional Council ultimately establishes a formula for allocating housing units to each government entity within the SCAG footprint. It was the Regional Council that adopted a housing allocation formula (over the objections of many other cities and regions including Yorba Linda and Orange County generally) that determined the Regional Housing Needs Assessment number for Yorba Linda at 2,415 units.

14 Once a number has been assigned to Yorba Linda, the City must take steps to adopt a Housing Element plan that demonstrates how the City’s zoning will accommodate the number of assigned units. Importantly, the City does not build housing. The market and market influences, such as certain subsidies, determine what housing gets built. The City’s role is to create zoning that would theoretically allow that number of housing units to be built over the RHNA period, in this case 2021 to 2029.

To further complicate this high-level overview, the zoning must not only accommodate the assigned number of housing units, but it must also have zoning that allows for an array of types of housing to be built that will provide housing for a range of incomes. In the context of RHNA, this is often where residents hear about “low-income housing.” For purposes of RHNA calculations, creating zoning for low-income housing simply means the zoning density on the land is 20 dwelling units or more per acre. Meaning a developer could build a sixty-unit apartment complex on a three-acre site zoned for 20 dwelling units per acre, and then charge $2,000 for a studio apartment in that complex if that is what the market demands.

So, in that example, while it was zoned “low-income housing” based on density, the market may make the actual units quite expensive.

The subject of housing policy, the fairness of the RHNA allocation, the base assumption of over three million housing units for the whole state are all subjects of discussion and policy debate for their merits and actual impact on the housing market. However, what is not up for debate is that the City must develop a Housing Element and implement zoning to enable the development of those units to take place from 2021 to 2029 or else the City is not in compliance with State law and a wide array of negative impacts are highly-likely to be felt by Yorba Linda residents. For more details see Frequent Questions and Common Misconceptions.

15 FREQUENT QUESTIONS AND COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
Throughout the discussions at Working Group meetings there were either notations that residents were surprised by some fact or confused by some other policy matter. The following is a compilation of some of those issues that were raised and some helpful answers that could assist a resident who is learning about the City’s Housing Element process and background.

Won’t the State Legislature change course on housing policy when it becomes clear that cites are getting pushback and many have not complied with State Housing mandates?
While Sacramento policy decisions are hard to predict, it is pretty clear from Sacramento policy experts that the legislature is even more bullish on housing mandates and that, rather than rolling back recent policy requirements, the State Legislature is adding on more mandates or expanding the applicability of mandates. The housing advocates in Sacramento reportedly have the ear of elected officials and are driving policy while local governments are attempting to defend and retain their diminished local control.

The November 2022 election results only strengthened the housing advocates political power.

Aren’t there lawsuits that are going to overturn these State housing mandates? Can’t that alleviate the 2,415 RHNA housing allocation? Yes, there are lawsuits in action now by cities. Indeed, Yorba Linda is a member of the Orange County Council of Government (OCCOG), which has sued the State over the RHNA number for the SCAG region.

Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach is on the front line of challenging the State and the Attorney General. There are several other lawsuits that are also in play across the State. The viability of those lawsuits winning and reducing the incursion of state mandates remains unclear at best. Preliminary results have certainly broken in favor of the State and housing advocates and not local governments.

I hear there are citizen initiatives being drafted that would return local control to cities and roll back many State housing policies. Can’t we wait for those to win before we commit to this new housing?
First: if those initiatives are successful, they will not reduce or change the current RHNA housing allocation. They may affect future ones, but all cities are obligated under existing law to address their RHNA housing allocation.

Second: the viability of those initiatives appears low at this time. While there is enthusiasm among local elected leaders and some outspoken members of the public, getting these initiative to the ballot will be very challenging

16 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis on the Housing Element seemed to just accommodate the growth rather than indicate the negative impacts. Don’t the negative impacts of more housing prevent the City from having to accept more housing?
No. A Housing Element has never been rejected because the environmental impacts were too negative.

CEQA analysis generally notes what environmental impacts there are, then attempts to identify how those impacts can be mitigated. While concerns like increased traffic, wildfires, or water availability are valid, and the City of Yorba Linda is working to address these impacts, the negative consequences of these issues will not provide a reason for the City to not fulfill its RHNA requirements.

Does zoning for “affordable housing” mean that Section 8 supported housing or other housing that some might view as having a detrimental impact be built on those sites?
Any residential unit in Yorba Linda, including new units built on the higher density “low income qualifying” sites would be available for Section 8 support if the owner chooses to accept Section 8 vouchers. “Affordable housing” is a term that has taken on some negative connotations for some community members and the mere term can raise their concerns. It is notable that there are already several “lowincome” developments in Yorba Linda, and there is no evidence of any negative repercussions from those developments. See Exhibit F in this report for an inventory of those developments. Residents are encouraged to drive by those developments and observe for themselves if they see negatives with these developments.

Affordable housing also means different things in different contexts. For purposes of RHNA housing and housing designed to be affordable for low- and very-low-income residents, that only means that the zoning on a site must be 20 dwelling units per acre or more. The theory of that formula is that, if you spread the cost of land over more housing units, then the cost per housing unit can drop and become more affordable. That said, there is also ample evidence of many high-density developments in Orange County where the per unit rent or purchase price is still quite high.

Finally, affordability is calculated using certain income assumptions and that 30% of the household income is spent on housing. In this formula, and using the more recent data inputs from HUD, a “Very-LowIncome” qualifying household with a family of four would have an annual income of up to $71,750 and spend $1794/month on rent. And “Low-Income” for a family of four would have an annual income of up to $114,800 and spent $2,870/month on rent.

Why don’t we just reject the changes in zoning and battle the State? What is the worst they can do to the City of Yorba Linda?
There are diverse views on the battle to maintain local control, but the general trend is that State mandates preempt local control and the State politics on this are trending toward more State control.

Under current law and threats made by the State, here are a few likely outcomes if we fail to adopt a Certified Housing Element.

17 1. Builder’s Remedy. Builder’s Remedy allows a builder to take any residential property in a city and, if they commit to a certain percentage of affordable units, can build high density on that land and the city will have little to no authority on the design or amount of density of that development. As an example of this threat, see this article about a developer who proposed a swath of tall apartment towers directly adjacent to single family residences in Santa Monica. https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/. There also are a growing number of Builder’s Remedy projects occurring in Orange County cities, including the cities of Orange and La Habra.

2. Elimination of Grants and other State Funds. The City applies for and receives grant funds from the State of California and other regional governments. If the City does not have a Certified Housing Element, the City can be prevented from receiving State grants such as SB 1 funding that helps pay for local streets or funding that is used by Yorba Linda to contribute to our regional homeless solutions. It would have a significant impact on the City’s operating budget.

Yes, it is unfair that Yorba Linda residents pay taxes to the State, then have those taxes held back from the City to benefit taxpayers who paid them; but, at this time, that is State policy.

3. State Moratorium on Permits. The State of California can literally take over permitting in the City and place a moratorium on all construction permits until the City is in compliance with State law.

4. The State can fine the city up to $400,000 a month through an escalating series of fine increases.

The Working Group looked deep into these risks and concluded that achieving a Certified Housing Element is the best course of action for the community.

CONCLUSION
The Housing Policy Resident Working Group has completed more than 12 hours of meetings over six nights. The group arrived with different viewpoints and having voted differently on Measure Z, but shared a common hope for a future Yorba Linda that maintained its high quality of life and expanded resident amenities. In a society where community engagement is a constant challenge and trust in institutions is at an all-time low, the meetings and conversations were rooted in transparency, good intent and respect for differing viewpoints. While likely that no member of the Working Group left the meeting 100% thrilled with the compromise positions that were recommended, there was genuine respect for the diverse viewpoints and a sense of shared mission that progress had been made by the group.

The Working Group members have an urgency for seeing a Housing Element formally certified by the State so the City can retain local control and design standards and avoid the risks and consequences of having no certified Housing Element. Indeed, particularly as it relates to mixed-use development, there is some excitement for targeted density that may bring new experiences and amenities to Yorba Linda while revitalizing some retail centers.

Yorba Linda is not alone in trying to navigate between resident demands to resist State mandates while facing the reality that non-compliance is a huge risk with dire consequences. The City Council should take pride in how this Working Group comported itself to listen, learn and be gracious to one another. Now, it is time to turn ideas into action.

18 EXHIBIT A

WORKING GROUP COMMUNICATIONS

AND CORRESPONDENCE FROM CITY

19 These communications were conveyed to all Working Group members and are being provided here for transparency purposes. The invitation email provides more direct context on the initial invitation to community members. Following each meeting of the Working Group a summary email was sent and resource links were provided. Those emails offer a form of “minutes” from each meeting that may be helpful to provide context for the work of each meeting.

Invitation to Join the Working Group
Dear xxxxx,
The City of Yorba Linda is working hard to deliver for the residents of the community and maintain our “Land of Gracious Living” lifestyle. We are doing this work in the context of a complex series of State laws that, to be blunt, are inconsistent with our history of housing policy and land use plans.

A few things are clear at this time. Land use policies that have been passed in Sacramento are not going to ease up any time soon. A complex legal environment has the potential to shake up the law. Inaction on the part of the City could have grave consequences for sustaining some semblance of local control.

We are inviting community members with diverse viewpoints and curious minds to engage in conversation and learning to help our City and community navigate these complex issues. Our vision is to create a space for effective conversation, collaborative learning and a facilitated process that leverages resident insights to help the City address this complex housing issue.

City leadership has identified you as a committee candidate, and we hope you will agree to join the committee. At the direction of the City Council, the City is prepared to invest resources in this Resident Committee to ensure it is both intellectually stimulating and an effective use of your time. The duration of the work could last for several months, but the nature of the work and its direction is not written in stone.

It is subject to the viewpoints and feedback of the very residents we are looking to engage in this process.

As such, I can’t affirm how much time or how many meetings this may involve. I do foresee there will likely be at least three to five meetings lasting 1.5 to 2 hours each over the course of the next three months. The meetings will be from 6:00-8:00 PM on the following days:
• Monday, May 15: Yorba Linda Cultural Arts Center (Arts Studio), 4802 Lakeview Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
• Wednesday, May 31: Yorba Linda Public Library (Community Room), 4852 Lakeview Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
• Monday, June 5: Yorba Linda Public Library (Community Room), 4852 Lakeview Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
• Monday, June 12: Yorba Linda Cultural Arts Center (Arts Studio), 4802 Lakeview Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Yorba Linda is a better community because of the passion our residents have for their neighborhoods and the community at large. I hope you will join us in this important effort. We would appreciate your RSVP at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,

DAVID BRANTLEY
Community Development Director

20 POST-MEETING 1 WRAP UP
Dear Resident Housing Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for our first meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (RHWG). Our team hopes you learned a lot, came away feeling like you were getting answers to your questions and that you feel more empowered to evaluate the state of housing policy both in California and in Yorba Linda.

Many of you were engaged in healthy chatter and community discussions before and after the meeting, and we hope that trend continues. We encourage you to arrive early to the meetings if you want to visit with your fellow engaged residents and talk through life outside of government policy… or government policies. Your choice. Either way, conversation is the start of our important work.

In follow-up to our meeting, I am providing additional documents:
• A link to a PDF of the PPT deck that we reviewed:
• A link to a memo that explains the SCAG methodology in great detail for how they formulate allocated RHNA housing numbers to each jurisdiction: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/ file-attachments/scag-final-rhna-methodology-030520.pdf?1602189316 with more information available at https://scag.ca.gov/rhna.
• Pages 81-98 of the conditionally approved Housing Element provides a good summary of the approach to accommodate our RHNA allocation, including our use of entitled housing projects, use of ADUs, and rezoning properties. It also provides an explanation of each of the zones: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/_files/ugd/ b90adb_72f774e8743b407b92b209308dc7d759.pdf.
• Appendix C (starting on page 73) of the conditionally approved Housing Element shows the housing sites that were approved by HCD: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/_files/ugd/ b90adb_15058cb9c49149cdaff91b05eacc43f0.pdf. It is important to note that the City Council unanimously supported the removal of Sites S4-053, S4-060, S4-201, and S7-005. These sites will be removed from the revised Housing Element that is resubmitted to HCD. • A link to the Program Environmental Impact Report approved by the City Council, including all appendices: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents • A link to the City’s General Plan Map, which shows residential densities by zone: https://www. yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/465
• A link to the City’s Zoning Cide for reference: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/466
If we have missed another follow-up request regarding additional information that you seek as a member of the Working Group, please let us know. We will try to quickly get that to you.

At our next meeting, we are going to cover these general areas:
• Agreeing on the facts of the current situation our community must face. • Hearing from a League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) representative to discuss the policy realities of Sacramento and state initiatives, plus housing priorities for Cal Cities. • Discussion on specific sites identified in the Housing Element for rezoning. • A discussion with the Working Group on the next meeting and agenda for that meeting.

21 If you have constructive feedback for us on the resources or meeting format, we are ready to hear from you to ensure we are providing an effective experience.

As a team at City Hall, we felt really positively about your engagement, constructive conversation and commitment to civil and civic engagement. Breaking bread together and engaging in high-level policy discussions to understand the issues and help City Staff make Yorba Linda a great community is important to everyone.

As a reminder, our next meeting is Wednesday, May, 31 at the Yorba Linda Public Library (Community Room), 4852 Lakeview Ave, Yorba Linda, CA 92886. Dinner will again be served.

Regards,

NATE FARNSWORTH
Planning Manager

22 Meeting 1: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s MingleandBe
Friendly
ThankYou!
Meet Your Neighbors Ask Questions Ponder the Future
Tonight’sGoals Howdidwegethere?
• Measure Z Fails
• 7,221 – Yes 25%
• 21,937 – No 75%
• City Continued Working with
Housing and Community
Development
• City Determined Residents
Need to Get Involved Directly
• You Were Invited to Committee
WhyYou?
• Diverse Viewpoints
• Diverse Geography
• Diverse Experiences
• A reputation for being
thoughtful, open-minded and
collaborative
YourNeighborhoods

23 Meeting 1: PowerPoint
Family Man, Ladera
Ranch Resident
Ryder’s Day Job Communications and City Consulting
WhoisthisRyderguy?
Transparency of Intent BuildingTrust
• 1969 – State mandates that all jurisdictions must plan for its housing needs • This process is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) • This is a planning requirement and not a construction requirement • Currently in the 6th Housing Cycle of RHNA (2021-2029) • HCD establishes a “regional determination” for each region • OC is part of SCAG along with Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial and Ventura • SCAG was assigned 1.34 million units for the 6th cycle • SCAG determines how to equitably distribute the regional determination throughout the region
• Focus for the 6th cycle was on proximity to regional transit and jobs instead of availability of land which shifted a significant portion of the RHNA to Los Angeles and Orange Counties • Yorba Linda was assigned 2,415 units (669 units assigned in the 5th cycle) • Jurisdictions must determine how to accommodate their RHNA through rezoning HousingElement101
• Sep 2017 – Governor Brown signs major housing reform package of 15 bills to increase housing supply and affordability • Oct 2018 – 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment discussions begin at SCAG • Oct 2019 – HCD establishes RHNA of 1.34 million for SCAG region • Nov 2019 – SCAG approves RHNA methodology
• Oct 2020 – City appeals its draft RHNA allocation to SCAG but appeal is rejected • Mar 2021 – SCAG approves final RHNA allocation for SCAG region • Aug 2021 – City submits 1st draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet Oct 2021 deadline • Oct 2021 – State law deadline to submit Housing Element to HCD which allows 120 day grace period • Dec 2021 – City submits 2nd draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline • Feb 2022 – City Council adopts Housing Element and submits 3rd draft to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline • Apr 2022 – HCD conditionally certifies City’s Housing Element but City misses the deadline and must rezone by Oct 2022 per State law • Jun 2022 – SB 197 passes extending the rezoning deadline for certified cities but City’s Housing Element has committed to a Nov 2022 vote • Nov 2022 – Measure Z fails
CriticalRecentTimeline
• Dec 2023 – Submit revised Housing Element to HCD for review • Apr 2024 – HCD recertification of revised Housing Element • Apr 2024 – Begin revised environmental review of Housing Element for CEQA • Apr 2024 – Traffic Commission review of revised Housing Element • May 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing on revised Housing Element • Jul 2024 – City Council to consider adopting revised Housing Element and call for election
• Nov 2024 – Potential new rezoning ballot measure vote AFutureTimeline?
• Loss of state funding
• Housing and Community Development has a big new enforcement arm • Opens up a city to significant legal action by pro-housing groups • “Loss of Local Control”
• State takeover the permitting authority for the City
ConsequencesofNoCertifiedHousing
Element

24 Meeting 1: PowerPoint
• What legal actions has the City taken on these State mandates? • What is the status of the Huntington Beach lawsuit?
• What about lobbying efforts by the City to address State policy? • What is the state of affairs with Builder’s Remedy claims? LegalUpdate
Why Informal Matters
AnInformalResidentHousingWorking Group
WhyDidMeasureZ Fail?
NextMeetingDates
YorbaLindaPublicLibrary CommunityRoom
Wednesday,May31st
6:00PM
YLPublicLibrary CommunityRoom
Monday,June5th
6:00PM
YLCulturalArts
Center–ArtsStudio
Monday,June12th
6:00PM
Homework
ReadUponPrior
HousingPlanElements
TalktoNeighbors
andAboutThis
WorkingGroup

25 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
1 Final RHNA Allocation Methodology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCAG is required to develop a final RHNA methodology to distribute existing and projected housing need for the 6th cycle RHNA for each jurisdiction, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029. Following extensive feedback from stakeholders during the proposed methodology comment period and an extensive policy discussion, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Draft RHNA Methodology on November 7, 2019, as described below, and provide it to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their statutory review.  On January 13, 2020, HCD completed its review of the draft methodology and found that it furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA and on March 4, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Final RHNA Methodology. The overall framework for this methodology is included in the table below and further described in the rest of this document.

Projected need Existing need Income categories
Household growth 2020‐
2030
Transit accessibility (HQTA
population 2045)
150% social equity
adjustment minimum
Future vacancy need Job accessibility
0‐30% additional adjustment
for areas with lowest or
highest resource
concentration
Replacement need Residual distribution within
the county

HOUSING CRISIS
There is no question that there is an ongoing housing crisis throughout the State of California. A variety of measures indicate the extent of the crisis including overcrowding and cost‐burdened households, but the underlying cause is due to insufficient housing supply despite continuing population growth over recent decades.

As part of the RHNA process SCAG must develop a final RHNA methodology, which will determine each jurisdiction’s draft RHNA allocation as a share of the regional determination of existing and projected housing need provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). There are several requirements outlined by Government Code Section 65584.04, which will be covered in different sections of this packet:
 Allocation methodology, per Government Code 65584.04(a)  How the allocation methodology furthers the objectives State housing law, per GC 65584.04(f)

26 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
2  How local planning factors are incorporated into the RHNA methodology, per GC 65584.04(f)
 Furthering the objectives of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), per GC 65584.04(d)
 Public engagement, per GC 65584.04(d)
Additionally, SCAG has developed a dynamic estimator tool and data appendix that contains a full set of various underlying data and assumptions to support the methodology. Due to the size of the appendix, a limited number of printed copies are available. SCAG has posted the dynamic estimator tool and full methodology appendix, on its RHNA webpage: www.scag.ca.gov/rhna.

Per State housing law, the RHNA methodology must distribute existing and projected housing need to all jurisdictions. The following section provides the final methodology for distributing projected and existing need to jurisdictions from the RHNA regional determination provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.01.

Guiding Principles for RHNA Methodology
In addition to furthering the five objectives pursuant to Government Code 65585(d), there are several guiding principles that SCAG staff has developed to use as the basis for developing the distribution mechanism for the RHNA methodology. These principles are based on the input and guidance provided by the RHNA Subcommittee during their discussions on RHNA methodology between February 2019 and June 2019.

1. The housing crisis is a result of housing building not keeping up with growth over the last several decades. The RHNA allocation for all jurisdictions is expected to be higher than the 5th RHNA cycle.

2. Each jurisdiction must receive a fair share of their regional housing need. This includes a fair share of planning for enough housing for all income levels, and consideration of factors that indicate areas that have high and low concentration of access to opportunity.

3. It is important to emphasize the linkage to other regional planning principles to develop more efficient land use patterns, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve overall quality of life.

The jurisdictional boundaries used in the recommended RHNA methodology will be based on those as of August 31, 2016. Spheres of influence in unincorporated county areas are considered within unincorporated county boundaries for purposes of RHNA.

Proposed RHNA Allocation Methodology
The proposed RHNA methodology, which was released for public review on August 1, contained three (3) options to distribute HCD’s regional determination for existing and projected need for the

27 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
3 SCAG region. HCD provided SCAG a final regional determination of 1,341,827 units for the 6th cycle RHNA on October 15, 2019.1
The three options were developed based on RHNA Subcommittee feedback on various factors at their meetings between February and June 2019 and feedback from stakeholders. SCAG solicited formal public comment on the three options and any other factors, modifications, or alternative options during the public comment period, which commenced on August 1 and concluded on September 13, 2019.

Four public hearings were conducted to formally receive verbal and written comments on the proposed RHNA methodology, in addition to one public information session with a total participation of approximately 250 people.  Almost 250 written comments were submitted to SCAG specifically on the proposed methodology and over 35 verbal comments were shared at four (4) public hearings held in August 2019.

Draft and Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
Based on comments received during the public comment period, staff recommended a combination of the three options in the proposed methodology further enhanced by factors specifically suggested by stakeholders.

On November 7, 2019, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve the Draft RHNA Methodology.

The approved draft methodology included modifications to the staff‐recommended draft methodology for calculating existing housing need to more closely align the methodology with job and transit accessibility factors.

On January 13, 2020, HCD completed their statutory review and found that SCAG’s Draft RHNA Methodology furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA, which allows SCAG to finalize the RHNA methodology and issue draft RHNA allocations to each individual jurisdiction.  HCD’s comment letter, which can be found at www.scag.ca.gov/rhna, notes:
“HCD has completed its review of the methodology and finds that the draft SCAG RHNA methodology furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA.  HCD acknowledges the complex task of developing a methodology to allocate RHNA to 197 diverse jurisdictions while furthering the five statutory objectives of RHNA.  This methodology generally distributes more RHNA, particularly lower income RHNA, near jobs, transit, and resources linked to long term improvements of life outcomes.  In particular, HCD applauds the use of objective factors specifically linked the statutory objectives in the existing need methodology.”
Following this finding, staff recommended the draft RHNA methodology as the final RHNA methodology.  On March 5, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved Resolution No. 20‐619‐2

1 On September 5, 2019, the SCAG Regional Council voted to object to HCD the regional determination of 1,344,740, per Government Code Section 65584.01, that was provided on August 15, 2019. After review of SCAG’s objection letter, HCD provided a final regional determination of 1,341,827 units on October 15, 2019.

28 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
4 adopting the Final RHNA Methodology for the Sixth Housing Element Cycle.  Following the formal distribution of draft RHNA allocations based on the Final RHNA methodology and a separate appeals phase described in Government Code 65584.05 et seq., RHNA allocations will be finalized in approximately October 2020.

The next section describes the final RHNA methodology mechanism to distribute the 1,341,827 housing units determined by HCD to all SCAG jurisdictions.

Determining Existing Need and Projected Need
SCAG’s final RHNA methodology starts with the total regional determination provided by HCD and separates existing need from projected need.

Projected need is considered as household growth for jurisdictions between the RHNA projection period between July 1, 2021 and October 1, 2029, in addition to a calculated future vacancy need and replacement need. For projected household growth, SCAG’s Connect SoCal growth forecast for the years 2020‐2030 is used as the basis for calculating projected housing unit need for the region.

The anticipated growth in households over this period is multiplied by 0.825 to approximate growth during the 8.25‐year RHNA projection period of July 1, 2021 to October 1, 2029.

For several jurisdictions, SCAG’s growth forecast includes projected household growth on tribal land.  For these jurisdictions, SCAG’s estimate of household growth on tribal land from July 1, 2021 to October 1, 2029 is subtracted from the jurisdictional projected household growth (see note in the accompanying dynamic estimator tool).  A vacancy adjustment of 1.5% for owner‐occupied units and 5% for renter‐occupied units representing healthy‐market vacancy will be applied to projected household growth to determine future vacancy need. Next a replacement need is added, which is an estimate of expected replacement need over the RHNA period. Based on these components, the regional projected need is 504,970 units.

Existing need is considered the remainder of the regional determination after projected need is subtracted. Based on this consideration, the regional existing need is 836,857 units.

Determining a Jurisdiction’s RHNA Allocation (Existing and Projected Need) In determining the existing need and projected need for the region, the methodology applies a three‐step process to determine a jurisdiction’s RHNA allocation by income category:

1. Determine a jurisdiction’s projected housing need
a. Assign household growth to jurisdictions based on SCAG’s Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Growth Forecast between 2020 and 2030
b. Calculate a jurisdiction’s future vacancy need by applying a healthy market vacancy rate separately to the jurisdiction’s owner and renter households c. Assign a replacement need to jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s share of regional net replacement need based on information collected from the replacement need survey submitted by local jurisdictions

29 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
5 2. Determine a jurisdiction’s existing housing need
a. Assign 50 percent of regional existing need based on a jurisdiction’s share of region’s population within the high quality transit areas (HQTAs) based on future 2045 HQTAs b. Assign 50 percent of regional existing need based on a jurisdiction’s share of the region’s jobs that can be accessed within a 30‐minute driving commute c. For extremely disadvantaged communities (hereafter “DACs,” see definition below), identify residual existing need, which is defined herein as total housing need in excess of household growth between 2020 and 20452
.  DACs are jurisdictions with more than half
of the population living in high segregation and poverty or low resource areas as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD Opportunity Index Scores further described in the document.
d. Reallocate residual existing need by county to non‐DAC jurisdictions within the same county based on the formula in (a) and (b) above, i.e. 50% transit accessibility and 50% job accessibility.

3. Determine a jurisdiction’s total housing need
a. Add a jurisdiction’s projected housing need from (1) above to its existing housing need from (2) above to determine its total housing need.

4. Determine four RHNA income categories (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) a. Use a minimum 150% social equity adjustment
b. Add an additional percentage of social equity adjustment to jurisdictions that have a high concentration of very low or very high resource areas using the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)’s index scoring
i. Add a 10% social equity adjustment to areas that are designated as 70‐80% very high or very low resource area
ii. Add a 20% social equity adjustment to areas that are designated as 81‐90% very high or very low resource area
iii. Add a 30% social equity adjustment to areas that are designated as 91‐100% very high or very low resource area
Methodology Component Assigned units
Projected need: Household
growth
466,958
Projected need: Future
vacancy need
14,467
Projected need: Replacement
need
23,545
Projected need subtotal 504,970

2 Since HCD’s regional determination of 1,341,827 exceeds SCAG’s 2020‐2045 household growth forecast of 1,297,000 by 3.46 percent, for the purposes of existing need allocation, exceeding “local input” or more accurately, Connect SoCal Growth Forecast, household growth shall mean exceeding 1.0368 times household growth.

30 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
6 Percentage of Existing Need Assigned units
Existing need: Transit
accessibility
50% 418,429
Existing need: Job
accessibility
50% 418,428
Existing need subtotal 836,857
Total regional need 1,341,827
Step 1: Determine Projected Housing Need
The first step of the RHNA methodology is to determine a jurisdiction’s projected need. From the regional determination, projected need is considered to be regional household growth, regional future vacancy need, and regional replacement need.

To determine a jurisdiction’s projected need, the methodology uses a three‐step process:
a. Determine the jurisdiction’s regional projected household growth based on local input b. Determine future vacancy need based on a jurisdiction’s existing composition of owner and renter households and apply a vacancy rate on projected household growth based on the following:
a. Apply a 1.5% vacancy need for owner households
b. Apply a 5.0% vacancy need for renter households
c. Determine a jurisdiction’s net replacement need based on replacement need survey results Step 1a: Projected Household Growth
SCAG’s Connect SoCal regional growth forecast reflects recent and past trends, key demographic and economic assumptions, and local, regional, state, and national policy. SCAG’s regional growth forecasting process also emphasizes the participation of local jurisdictions and other stakeholders.

The growth forecast process kicked off on May 30, 2017 with a panel of experts meeting wherein fifteen academic scholars and leading practitioners in demographics and economics were invited to review key input assumptions for the growth forecast including expected job growth, labor force

31 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
7 participation, birth rates, immigration and household formation rates.  SCAG staff then incorporated the recommendations of the panel of experts into a preliminary range of population, household, and employment growth figures for 2016, 2020, 2030, 2035, and 2045 for the region and six counties individually.

SCAG further projects jurisdiction‐level and sub‐jurisdiction‐level employment, population, and households using several major data sources, including:
- California Department of Finance (DOF) population and household estimates; - California Employment Development Department (EDD) jobs report by industry; - 2015 existing land use and General Plans from local jurisdictions; - 2010 Census and the latest ACS data (2013‐2017 5‐year samples); - County assessor parcel databases;
- 2011 and 2015 Business Installment data from InfoGroup; and - SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS growth forecast.

On October 31, 2017, the preliminary small area (i.e. jurisdiction and sub‐jurisdiction) growth forecasts were released to local jurisdictions for their comments and input.  This kicked off SCAG’s Bottom‐Up Local Input and Envisioning Process which provided each local jurisdiction with their preliminary growth forecast information as well as several other data elements both produced by SCAG and other agencies which are related to the development of Connect SoCal.  Data map books were generated and provided electronically and in hard copy format and included detailed parcel‐ level land use data, information on resource areas, farmland, transportation, geographical boundaries and the draft growth forecast.  Complete information on the Data map books and the Bottom‐Up Local Input and Envisioning Process can be found at http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/DataMapBooks.aspx.  Over the next eight months, SCAG staff conducted one‐on‐one meetings with all 197 local jurisdictions to explain methods and assumptions behind the jurisdiction and sub‐jurisdiction growth forecast as well as to provide an opportunity to review, edit, and approve SCAG’s preliminary forecast for population, employment, and households for 2016, 2020, 2030, 2035, and 2045.

Between October 2018 and February 2019, SCAG reviewed local input on the growth forecast and other data map book elements.  The local input growth forecast was evaluated at the county and regional level for the base year of 2016 and the horizon year of 2045 and was found to be technically sound.  Specifically, as it relates to SCAG’s local input household forecast:
- The forecast generates a 2045 regional unemployment rate of 4.7 percent which is reasonable based on past trends and ensured that the forecast is balanced, i.e. there are not too many jobs for the number of anticipated workers
- The forecast generates a 2045 population‐to‐household ratio of 2.9 which is consistent with the preliminary forecast and reflects expert‐anticipated decreases in this ratio, ensuring that there are not too many people for the anticipated number of households region‐wide - From 2020‐2045, the forecast anticipates household growth of 21 percent and population growth of 15 percent, indicating an alleviation of the region’s current housing shortage over this future period.

32 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
8 SCAG's growth forecast for the years 2020‐2030 is used as the basis for calculating projected housing unit need.  Because the 6th cycle RHNA projection period covers July 1, 2021 through October 15, 2029, it is necessary to adjust reported household growth between 2020 and 2030 and adjust it to an

8.25 year projection period. The anticipated growth in households over this period is multiplied by

0.825 to approximate growth during the 8.25‐year RHNA projection period (July 1, 2021 to October 15, 2029).

Step 1b: Future Vacancy Need
The purpose of a future vacancy need is to ensure that there are enough vacant units to support a healthy housing market that can genuinely accommodate projected household growth. An undersupply of vacant units can prevent new households from forming or moving into a jurisdiction.

Formulaically, future vacancy need is a percentage applied to the jurisdiction’s household growth by tenure type (owner and renter households). While individual jurisdictions may experience different vacancy rates at different points in time, future vacancy need is independent of existing conditions and instead is a minimum need to support household growth.

To calculate a jurisdiction’s future vacancy need, its proportion of owner‐occupied units and renter‐ occupied units are determined using American Community Survey (ACS) 2013‐2017 data—the most recent available at the time of the draft methodology’s development. The percentages are applied to the jurisdiction’s projected household growth from the previous step, which results in the number of projected households that are predicted to be owners and those that are predicted to be renters.

Next, two different vacancy rates are applied based on the regional determination provided by HCD.

The recommended methodology uses 1.5 percent for owner‐occupied units and a rate of 5 percent for renter‐occupied units. The difference is due to the higher rates of turnover generally reported by renter unitsin comparison to owner‐occupied units. The vacancy rates are applied to their respective tenure category to determine how many future vacant units are needed by tenure and then added together to get the total future vacancy need.

Step 1c: Replacement Need
Residential units are demolished for a variety of reasons including natural disasters, fire, or desire to construct entirely new residences. Each time a unit is demolished, a household is displaced and disrupts the jurisdiction’s pattern of projected household growth. The household may choose to live in a vacant unit or leave the jurisdiction, of which both scenarios result in negative household growth through the loss of a vacant unit for a new household or subtracting from the jurisdictions number of households.

Forthese reasons,replacement need is a required component of the regional determination provided by HCD. The methodology’s replacement need will be calculated using a jurisdiction’s net replacement need based on data submitted for the replacement need survey, which was conducted between March and April 2019.

Each jurisdiction’s data on historical demolitions between reporting years 2008 and 2018, which was collected from the California Department of Finance (DOF), was tabulated and provided to

33 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
9 jurisdictions in the replacement need survey. Jurisdictions were asked to provide data on units that replaced the reported demolished units. A net replacement need was determined based on this information for each jurisdiction.

After determining each of the projected housing need components, they are combined to determine a jurisdiction’s projected housing need.

Step 2: Determine Existing Housing Need
After determining a jurisdiction’s projected need, the nextstep isto determine a jurisdiction’s existing need. Following the above discussion and based on HCD’s determination of total regional housing need, existing need is defined asthe total need minusthe projected need—approximately 62 percent of the entire regional determination. SCAG’s Regional Council determined that the regional existing need be split into two parts:
 Fifty (50) percent on population near transit (HQTA), or 31 percent of total need  Fifty (50) percent on job accessibility, or 31 percent of total need Step 2a: Share of Regional HQTA Population
The next step involves the consideration of proximity to transit to distribute fifty (50) percent of the region’s existing housing need, in an effort to better align transportation and housing planning.

For several years, SCAG has developed a measure called High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) which are areas within a half‐mile of transit stations and corridors with at least a fifteen (15) minute headway during peak hours for bus service.  HQTAs are based on state statutory definitions of high‐ quality transit corridors (HQTCs) and major transit stops.  For the development of Connect SoCal, freeway‐running HQTCs have been excluded from HQTAs to better reflect the level of service they provide to nearby areas.

Planned HQTCs and major transit stops for future years are improvements that are expected to be implemented by transit agencies by the Connect SoCal horizon year of 2045.   SCAG updates its inventory with the quadrennial adoption of each RTP/SCS; however, planning and environmental

34 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
10 impact studies may be completed by transit agencies more frequently.  Therefore, HQTAs in future years reflect the best information currently available to SCAG regarding the location of future high‐ quality transit service accessibility.   More detailed information on HQTA‐related definitions is available in the data appendix.

50 percent of the regional existing housing need will be distributed based on a jurisdiction’s share of regional residential population within an HQTA, based on the HQTA boundaries used in the final Connect SoCal Plan anticipated to be adopted by SCAG in April 2020.  Not all jurisdictions have an HQTA within their jurisdictional boundaries and thus may not receive existing need based on this factor.

Step 2b: Job Accessibility
The concept behind job accessibility isto further the statewide housing objective and SCAG’s Connect SoCal objective of improving the relationship between jobs and housing. While none of the three options presented in the proposed RHNA methodology included a factor directly based on job accessibility, an overwhelming number of public comments expressed support for the methodology to include this specific component.

The methodology assigns fifty (50) percent of regional existing need based on job accessibility. Job accessibility is based on the share of the region’s jobs accessible by a thirty (30) minute commute by car in 2045.  Importantly, the RHNA methodology’s job access factor is not based on the number of jobs within a jurisdiction from SCAG’s Connect SoCal Plan or any other data source.  Rather, it is a measure based on of how many jobs can be accessed from that jurisdiction within a 30‐minute commute, which includes jobs in other jurisdictions.  Since over 80 percent of SCAG region workers live and work in different jurisdictions, genuinely improving the relationship between jobs and housing necessitates an approach based on job accessratherthan the number of jobsin a jurisdiction.

These job accessibility data are derived at the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) level from travel demand modelling output from SCAG’s final Connect SoCal Plan. SCAG realizes that in many jurisdictions, especially larger ones, job access many not be uniform in all parts of the city or county.

However, since the RHNA process requires allocating housing need at the jurisdictional‐level, staff reviewed several waysto measure the typical commuter’s experience in each jurisdiction.  Ultimately, the share of the region’s jobs that could be accessed by a jurisdiction’s median TAZ was found to be the best available measure of job accessibility for that jurisdiction.  Based on this measure, in central parts of the region, residents of some jurisdictions can access as much as 23 percent of the region’s jobs in a 30 minute car commute, while the average across all the region’s jurisdictions was 10.5 percent.

This measure is multiplied by a jurisdiction’s share of total population in order to allocate housing unit need to jurisdictions.  This important step ensures that the potential beneficiaries of greater accessibility (i.e., the population in a jurisdiction with good job access) are captured in the methodology.  Based on this approach, jurisdictions with limited accessibility to jobs will receive a smaller RHNA allocation based on this component.

Step 2c: “Residual” Adjustment Factor for Existing Need

35 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
11 In many jurisdictions defined as “disadvantaged communities (DACs)”, the calculated projected and existing need is higher than its household growth between 2020 and 2045, as determined by the SCAG Growth Forecast used in the final Connect SoCal regional plan. Those DAC jurisdictions that have a need as determined by the RHNA methodology as higher than its 2020 to 2045 household growth3 will be considered as generating “residual” existing need. Residual need will be subtracted from jurisdictional need in these casesso that the maximum a DAC jurisdiction will receive for existing need is equivalent to its 2020 to 2045 household growth. Not all DAC jurisdictions will have a residual existing need.

A county total ofresidual existing need will be calculated and then redistributed with the same county to non‐DAC jurisdictions. The redistribution will be assigned to jurisdictions based on transit accessibility (50%) and job accessibility (50%), and will exclude DAC jurisdictions which have over 50% of their populations in very low resource areas using California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD Opportunity Indices.

Very low resource areas are areas that have least access to opportunity as measured by indicators such as poverty levels, low wage job proximity, math and reading proficiency, and pollution levels.

This mechanism will help to further AFFH objectives since residual existing RHNA need, which includes additional affordable units, will be assigned to areas that are not identified as those with the

3 Since HCD’s regional determination of 1,341,827 exceeds SCAG’s 2020‐2045 household growth forecast of 1,297,000 by 3.68 percent, for the purposes of existing need allocation, exceeding “local input” or “Connect SoCal” household growth shall mean exceeding 1.0368 times household growth.

36 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
12 lowest resources, which will increase accessto opportunity. A full discussion on the TCAC opportunity indicators is provided in the following section on social equity adjustment. Data relating to the TCAC opportunity indicator categories for each jurisdiction can be found in the RHNA methodology data appendix and in the accompanying RHNA allocation estimator tool on the RHNA webpage:
www.scag.ca.gov/rhna.

37 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
13 Step 3: Determining Total Housing Need
After determining a jurisdiction’s projected housing need from step 1 and its existing housing need from step 2, the sum of the projected and existing need becomes a jurisdiction’s total housing need.

Step 4: Determining Four Income Categories through Social Equity Adjustment After determining a jurisdiction’s total RHNA allocation, the next step is to assign the total into four RHNA income categories. The four RHNA income categories are:
 Very low (50 percent or less of the county median income);  Low (50‐80 percent);
 Moderate (80 to 120 percent); and
 Above moderate (120 percent and above)
The fourth RHNA objective specifically requires that the RHNA methodology allocate a lower proportion of housing need in jurisdictions that already have a disproportionately high concentration of those households in comparison to the county distribution. Additionally, the fifth objective, affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), requires that the RHNA methodology further the objectives of addressing significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity in order to overcome patterns of segregation.

To further these two objectives, the RHNA methodology includes a minimum 150 percent social equity adjustment and an additional 10 to 30 percent added in areas with significant populations that are defined as very low or very high resource areas, referred to as an AFFH adjustment.  This determines the distribution of four income categories for each jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction’s
projected housing
need
Jurisdiction’s
existing housing
need
Jurisdiction’s
Total Housing
Need

38 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
14 A social equity adjustment ensures that jurisdictions accommodate their fair share of each income category. First, the percentage of each jurisdiction’s distribution of four income categories is determined using the county median income as a benchmark. For example, in Los Angeles County, a household earning less than $30,552 annually, or 50 percent of the county median income, would be considered a very low income household. A household in Los Angeles County earning more than $73,218 annually, or 120 percent of the county median income, would be counted in the above moderate category. The number of households in each category is summed and then a percentage of each category is then calculated.

For reference, below is the median household income by county.  Imperial County: $44,779
 Los Angeles County: $61,015
 Orange County: $81,851
 Riverside County: $60,807
 San Bernardino County: $57,156
 Ventura County: $81,972
 SCAG region: $64,114
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2013‐2017 5‐year estimates Once a jurisdiction’s household income distribution by category is determined, the percentage is compared to the county’s percentage of existing household income distribution. For example, if a jurisdiction has an existing distribution of 30 percent of very low income households while the county is 25 percent, the jurisdiction is considered as having an overconcentration of very low income households compared to the county. A social equity adjustment ensures that the jurisdiction will be assigned a smaller percentage of very low income households for its RHNA allocation than both what it and the county currently experience.

If the jurisdiction is assigned a social equity adjustment of 150 percent, the formula to calculate its very low income percentage is:

Household Income Level Formula to Calculate City A Social Equity Adjustment of 150% Very Low Income 30%‐[(30%‐25%)x1.5] = 22.5%
In this example, 22.5 percent of the jurisdiction’s total RHNA allocation would be assigned to the very low income category. This adjustment is lower than both its existing household income distribution (30 percent) and the existing county distribution (25 percent).

The inverse occurs in higher income categories. Assuming 20 percent of a jurisdiction’s households are above moderate income while 25 percent of the county’s households are above moderate income, the jurisdiction will be assigned a distribution of 27.5 percent for above moderate income need.

Household Income Level Formula to Calculate City A Social Equity Adjustment of 150% Above moderate income 20%‐[(20%‐25%)x1.5] = 27.5%

39 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
15 If the adjustment was 100 percent a jurisdiction’s distribution would be exactly the same as the County’s distribution. Conceptually a 150 percent adjustment means that the City meets the County distribution and goes beyond that threshold by 50 percent, resulting in a higher or lower distribution than the County depending on what existing conditions are in the City. The higher the adjustment, the more noticeable the difference between the jurisdiction’s existing household income distribution and its revised distribution.

The RHNA methodology recommends a minimum of 150 percent social equity adjustment with an additional 10, 20, or 30 percent added depending on whether the jurisdiction is considered a very low or very high resource area based on its Opportunity Index score.

In 2015 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed a set of “Opportunity Indices” to help states and localities identify factors that contribute to fair housing issues in their region and comply with the federal Fair Housing Act. In late 2017, a Task Force convened by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) released an “Opportunity mapping” tool based on these HUD indices to identify areas in California that can “offer low‐income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.”4
The TCAC and HCD Opportunity mapping tool includes a total of eleven (11) census‐tract level indices to measure exposure to opportunity in local communities. The indices are based on measures of economic, environmental, and educational opportunities within communities. Regional patterns of segregation are also identified based on this tool. Below is a summary table of the 11 indices sorted by type:

Economic Environment Education
Poverty CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators
 Ozone
 PM2.5
 Diesel PM
 Drinking water
contaminates
 Pesticides
 Toxic releases from
facilities
 Traffic density
 Cleanup sites
 Groundwater threats
 Hazardous waste
 Impaired water bodies
 Solid waste sites
Math proficiency
Adult education Reading proficiency
Employment High school graduation rates
Low‐wage job proximity   Student poverty rate
Median home value

4 California Fair Housing Taskforce Revised opportunity Mapping Technology, Updated November 27, 2018:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/final‐opportunity‐mapping‐methodology.pdf

40 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
16 Based on its respective access to opportunity, each census tract is given a score that designates it under one of the following categories:
 High segregation & poverty
 Low resource
 Moderate resource
 High resource
 Highest resource
Tract‐level indices were summed to the jurisdictional‐level by SCAG using area‐weighted interpolation.  Using 2013‐2017 American Community Survey population data, SCAG determined the share of each jurisdiction’s population in each of these five categories.  For example:

Lowest Resource Very High
Resource
Opportunity
Indicator
Category
High
segregation &
poverty
Low resource Moderate
resource
High
resource
Highest
resource
City A
Percentage of
population
10% 10% 30% 30% 20%
City B
Percentage of
population
90% 5% 5% 0% 0%
City C
Percentage of
population
0% 0% 10% 15% 75%
The recommended methodology determines high resource concentration using the “very high” resource area score.   The recommended methodology determines “lowest” resource areas by combining the two lowest measures.  In the above table, City B would be considered to have a much higher concentration of lower resource areas than City A. City C would be considered to have a much higher concentration of highest resource areas. 5
 High segregation & Poverty + Low Resource = Lowest Resource  Highest Resource
Jurisdictions that are identified as having between 70 and 100 percent of the population within a lowest or very high resource area are assigned an additional 10 and 30 percent social equity adjustment:

5 As a cross‐reference, if City B has both a high job and transit accessibility it would be exempt from the redistribution of residual existing need from the RHNA methodology’s Step 2d because more than 50 percent of its population is within a very low resource area. On the other hand City A and City C, if they have a high job and transit access, would not be exempt from receiving regional residual need because they have only 20 percent and 0 percent of their respective population within a very low resource area.

41 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
17 Concentration of population within very low or
very high resource area
Additional social equity adjustment
70‐80% +10%
80‐90% +20%
90‐100% +30%
In the example table, City B would receive an additionalsocial equity adjustment of 30% because 95% of its population is within a lowest resource area (sum of high segregation & poverty and low resource measures). City C would receive an additional social equity adjustment of 10% because 75% of its population is within a very high resource area. City A would not receive a further adjustment because it does not have a high enough concentration of population within either the lowest or very high resource categories.

Assigning a higher social equity adjustment based on Opportunity Indices will result in a higher percentage of affordable housing unitsto areasthat have higherresources. Concurrently, it will assign a lower percentage of affordable housing in areas where they is already an overconcentration.

Because Opportunity Indices consider factors such as access to lower wage jobs, poverty rates, and school proficiency, the social equity adjustment in the RHNA methodology will result in factors beyond simply household income distribution. This additional adjustment will help to adjust the disparity in access to fair housing across the region, furthering the AFFH objective required in State housing law.

Once the social equity adjustment is determined, it is used to assign need to the four income categories.

Final Adjustments
On a regional level the final RHNA allocation plan must be the same as the regional determination, by income category, provided by HCD. The final RHNA methodology will result in slight differences, among income categories, since income categories are required to use county distributions as benchmarks and the HCD determination does not include county‐level benchmarks. For this reason, after the initial income categories are determined for jurisdictions, SCAG will apply a normalization adjustment to the draft fsRHNA allocation to ensure that the regional total by income category is maintained.

42 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
18 Additionally, in the event that a jurisdiction receives an allocation of zero (0) units under the RHNA methodology a minimum RHNA allocation of eight (8) units would be assigned. Government Code Section 65584.04(m)(2) requires that the final RHNA allocation plan ensure that each jurisdiction receive an allocation of units for low‐ and very low income households. Under these circumstances, SCAG will assign those jurisdictions a minimum of four (4) units in the very low income category and four (4) units in the low income category for a draft RHNA allocation of eight (8) units.

43 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
19 Meeting the Objectives of RHNA
Government Code Section 65584.04(a) requires that the RHNA methodology furthers the five objectives of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment:
(1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low‐ and very low income households. (2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.
(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low‐wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low‐wage workers in each jurisdiction.
(4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent American Community Survey.
(5) Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
(e) For purposes of this section, “affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

On January 13, 2020, HCD completed its review of SCAG’s draft RHNA methodology and found that it furthers the five statutory objectives of RHNA.

44 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
20 Local Planning Factors
As part of the development of the proposed RHNA methodology, SCAG must conduct a survey of planning factors that identify local conditions and explain how each of the listed factors are incorporated into the RHNA methodology. This survey, also known as the “Local Planning Factor” survey, is a specific requirement for the RHNA methodology process and is separate from the local review process of the Growth Forecast used asthe basisfor determining future growth in the Connect SoCal plan.

The survey was distributed to all SCAG jurisdictionsin mid‐March 2019 with a posted due date of May 30, 2019. One‐hundred and nine (109) jurisdictions, or approximately 55%, submitted a response to the local planning factor survey. To facilitate the conversation about local planning factors, between October 2017 and October 2018 SCAG included these factors as part of the local input survey and surveyed a binary yes/no as to whether these factors impacted jurisdictions. The formal local planning factor survey was pre‐populated with the pre‐survey answers to help facilitate survey response. The full packet of local planning factor surveys can be downloaded at www.scag.ca.gov/rhna.

SCAG staff reviewed each of the submitted surveys to analyze planning factors opportunities and constraints across the region. The collected information was used to ensure that the methodology will equitably distribute housing need and that underlying challenges as a region are collectively addressed.
(1)Each member jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and housing relationship. This shall include an estimate, based on readily available data, of the number of low‐wage jobs within the jurisdiction and how many housing units within the jurisdiction are affordable to low‐ wage workers as well as an estimate, based on readily available data, of projected job growth and projected household growth by income level within each member jurisdiction during the planning period.

The RHNA methodology directly considers job accessibility and determines a portion of housing need for each jurisdiction based on this factor. Using transportation analysis zones as a basis, the percentage of jobs accessible within a 30 minute drive for a jurisdiction’s population is determined and then weighted based on the jurisdiction’s population size to determine individual shares of regional jobs accessible. Based on a review of other potential mechanisms to factor in jobs into the RHNA methodology, SCAG staff has determined that this mechanism most closely aligns with the goals of State housing law.

A supplemental analysis of the impact of the draft RHNA methodology’s impact on jobs‐ housing relationships and low‐wage jobs‐housing relationships was provided to the Regional Council on February 5, 2020.

45 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
21 (2)The opportunities and constraints to development of additional housing in each member jurisdiction, including all of the following:
(A) Lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to federal or state laws, regulations or regulatory actions, or supply and distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service provider other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing necessary infrastructure for additional development during the planning period. (B) The availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential densities. The council of governments may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a locality, but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. The determination of available land suitable for urban development may exclude lands where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources has determined that the flood management infrastructure designed to protect that land is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding. (C) Lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs, or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources on a long‐term basis, including land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to non‐ agricultural uses.
(D) County policies to preserve prime agricultural land, as defined pursuant to Section 56064, within an unincorporated and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts its conversion to non‐agricultural uses.

Consideration of the above planning factors have been incorporated into the Growth Forecast process and results by way of analysis of aerial land use data, general plan, parcel level property data, open space, agricultural land and resource areas, and forecast surveys distributed to local jurisdictions. The bottom‐up Local Input and Envisioning Process, which is used as the basis for both RHNA and SCAG’s Connect SoCal (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) started with an extensive outreach effort involving all local jurisdictions regarding their land use and development constraints. All local jurisdictions were invited to provide SCAG their respective growth perspective and input.

The RHNA methodology directly incorporates local input on projected household growth, which should be a direct reflection of local planning factors such as lack of water or sewer capacity, FEMA‐designated flood sites, and open space and agricultural land protection.

Prior RHNA cycles did not promote direct linkage to transit proximity and the methodology encourages more efficient land use patterns by utilizing existing as well as future planned transportation infrastructure and preserves areas designated as open space and agricultural

46 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
22 lands. In particular the inclusion of transit proximity places an increased emphasis on infill opportunities and areas that are more likely to support higher residential densities. (3)The distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of a comparable period of regional transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and existing transportation infrastructure.

As indicated above, the Growth Forecast used as the basis for the Connect SoCal Plan is also used as the basis for projected household growth in the RHNA methodology. The weighting of a jurisdiction’s population share within an HQTA directly maximizes the use of public transportation and existing transportation infrastructure. (4)Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct growth toward incorporated areas of the county, and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of the jurisdiction that prohibits or restricts conversion to nonagricultural uses.

This planning factor has been identified through the local input process and local planning factor survey collection as affecting growth within Ventura County. The urban growth boundary, known as Save Our Agricultural Resources (SOAR), is an agreement between the County of Ventura and its incorporated cities to direct growth toward incorporated areas, and was recently extended to 2050. Based on the input collected, SCAG staff has concluded that this factor is already reflected in the RHNA methodology since it was considered and incorporated into the local input submitted by jurisdictions. (5)The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 that changed to non‐low‐income use through mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions.

The conversion of low income units into non‐low income units is not explicitly addressed through the distribution of existing and projected housing need. Staff has provided statistics in the RHNA methodology appendix on the potential loss of units in assisted housing developments. The loss of such units affects the proportion of affordable housing needed within a community and the region as a whole.

Local planning factor survey responses indicate that the impact of this factor is not regionally uniform. Many jurisdictions that replied some units are at‐risk for losing their affordability status in the near future have indicated that they are currently reviewing and developing local resources to address the potential loss. Based on this, SCAG staff has determined that at‐risk units are best addressed through providing data on these units as part of the RHNA methodology and giving local jurisdictions the discretion to address this factor and adequately plan for any at‐risk unit loss in preparing their housing elements.

47 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
23 (6)The percentage of existing households at each of the income levels listed in subdivision (e) of Section 65584 that are paying more than 30 percent and more than 50 percent of their income in rent.

An evaluation of survey responses reveals that cost‐burdened households, or those who pay at least 30 percent of their household income on housing costs, is a prevalent problem throughout the region. The RHNA methodology also includes in its appendix data from the ACS 2013‐2017 on cost‐burdened statistics for households who pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing by owner and renter, and for renter households who pay 50 percent or more of their income on housing. The general trend is seen in both high and low income communities, suggesting that in most of the SCAG region high housing costs are a problem for all income levels.

Nonetheless a large number of jurisdictions indicated in the survey that overpaying for housing costs disproportionately impacts lower income households in comparison to higher income households. This issue is exacerbated in areas where there is not enough affordable housing available, particularly in higher income areas. For this reason, the RHNA methodology incorporates not only a 150 percent social equity adjustment, but also uses the TCAC Opportunity Indices to distribute the RHNA allocation into the four income categories in areas identified as being the highest resource areas of the region. The Opportunity Indices include a proximity to jobs indicator, particularly for low‐wage jobs, which identifies areas with a high geographical mismatch between low wage jobs and affordable housing. Increasing affordable housing supply in these areas can help alleviate cost‐burden experienced by local lower income households because more affordable options will be available.

The reason for using social equity adjustment and opportunity indices to address cost‐ burden households rather than assigning total need  is because it is impossible to determine through the methodology how and why the cost‐burden is occurring in a particular jurisdiction. Cost‐burden is a symptom of housing need and not its cause. A jurisdiction might permit a high number of units but still experiences cost‐burden because other jurisdictions restrict residential permitting. Or, a jurisdiction might have a large number of owner‐occupied housing units that command premium pricing, causing cost‐burden for high income households and especially on lower income households due to high rents from high land costs. An analysis of existing need indicators by jurisdiction, which is part of the RHNA methodology data appendix, does not reveal a single strong trend to base a distribution methodology for cost‐burden and thus the RHNA methodology distributes this existing need indicator regionally using social equity adjustment and Opportunity Indices rather than to where the indicators exist.
(7)The rate of overcrowding.

An evaluation of survey responses indicates that there is a variety of trends in overcrowding throughout the region. Overcrowding is defined as more than 1.01 persons per room (not bedroom) in a housing unit. Some jurisdictions have responded that overcrowding is a severe issue, particularly for lower income and/or renter households, while others have

48 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
24 responded that overcrowding is not an issue at all. At the regional determination level HCD applied an overcrowding component, which is a new requirement for the 6th RHNA cycle.

Because
Similar to cost‐burden, overcrowding is caused by an accumulated housing supply deficit and is considered an indicator of existing housing need.  The reason for not assigning need directly based on this indicator is because it is impossible to determine through the methodology how and why the overcrowding is occurring in a particular jurisdiction. A jurisdiction that has an overcrowding rate higher than the regional average might be issuing more residential permits than the regional average while the surrounding jurisdictions might not have overcrowding issues but issue fewer permits than the regional average. An analysis of existing need indicators by jurisdiction, which is part of the RHNA methodology data appendix, does not reveal a single strong trend to base a distribution methodology for overcrowding and thus the methodology distributes this existing need indicator regionally rather than to where the indicators exist.

While not specifically surveyed, several jurisdictions have indicated that density has affected their jurisdictions and have requested that the methodology should consider this as a factor.

While density is not directly addressed as a factor, the social equity adjustment indirectly addresses density particularly for lower income jurisdictions. In housing elements, jurisdictions most demonstrate that a site is affordable for lower income households by applying a “default density”, defined in State housing law as either 20 or 30 dwelling units per acre depending on geography and population. In other words, a site that is zoned at 30 dwelling units per acre is automatically considered as meeting the zoning need for a low income household.

However there is not a corresponding default density for above moderate income zoning.

Assigning a lower percentage of lower income households than existing conditions indirectly reduces future density since the jurisdiction can zone at lower densities if it so chooses.

While this result does not apply to higher income jurisdictions, directing growth toward less dense areas for the explicit purpose of reducing density is in direct contradiction to the objectives of state housing law, especially for promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development pattern.
(8)The housing needs of farmworkers.

The RHNA methodology appendix provides data on agricultural jobs by jurisdiction as well as workers by place of residence. The survey responses indicate that most jurisdictions do not have agricultural land or only have small agricultural operations that do not necessarily require designated farmworker housing. For the geographically concentrated areas that do have farmworker housing, responses indicate that many jurisdictions already permit or are working to allow farmworker housing by‐right in the same manner as other agricultural uses are allowed. Jurisdictions that are affected by the housing needs of farmworkers can be assumed to have considered this local factor when submitting feedback on SCAG’s Growth

49 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
25 Forecast. A number of jurisdictions reiterated their approach in the local planning factor survey response.

Similar to at‐risk units, the RHNA methodology does not include a distribution mechanism to distribute farmworker housing. However, SCAG has provided data in its RHNA methodology appendix related to this factor and encourages local jurisdictions to adequately plan for this need in their housing elements.
(9)The housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California within any member jurisdiction.

SCAG staff has prepared a map outlining the location of four‐year private and public universities in the SCAG region along with enrollment numbers from the California School Campus Database (2018). Based on an evaluation of survey responses that indicated a presence of a university within their boundaries, SCAG staff concludes that most housing needs related to university enrollment are addressed and met by dormitories provided by the institution both on‐ and off‐campus. No jurisdiction expressed concern in the surveys about student housing needs due to the presence of a university within their jurisdiction.

However, some jurisdictions have indicated outside of the survey that off‐campus student housing is an important issue within their jurisdictions and are in dialogue with HCD to determine how this type of housing can be integrated into their local housing elements.

Because this circumstance applies to only a handful of jurisdictions, it is recommended that housing needs generated by a public or private university be addressed in the jurisdiction’s housing element if it is applicable.
(10)The loss of units during a state of emergency that was declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately preceding the relevant revision pursuant to Section 65588 that have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the analysis.

Replacement need, defined as units that have been demolished but not yet replaced, are included as a component of projected housing need in the RHNA methodology. To determine this number, HCD reviewed historical demolition permit data between 2008 and 2017 (reporting years 2009 and 2018) as reported by the California Department of Finance (DOF), and assigned SCAG a regional replacement need of 0.5% of projected and existing need, or 34,010 units.

There have been several states of emergency declared for fires in the SCAG region that have destroyed residential units, as indicated by several jurisdictions in their local planning factor survey responses. Survey responses indicate that a total of 1,785 units have been lost regionally from fires occurring after January 1, 2018. Units lost from fires that occurred prior to January 1, 2018, have already been counted in the replacement need for the 6th RHNA cycle.

50 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
26 In spring 2019, SCAG conducted a replacement need survey with jurisdictions to determine units that have been replaced on the site of demolished units reported. Region wide 23,545 of the region’s demolished units still needed to be replaced based on survey results. The sum of the number of units needing to be replaced based on the replacement need survey and the number of units reported as lost due to recent states of emergency, or 25,330, is lower than HCD’s regional determination of replacement need of 34,010. One can reasonably conclude that units lost based on this planning factor are already included in the regional total and distributed, and thus an extra mechanism to distribute RHNA based on this factor is not necessary to meet the loss of units. (11)The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080.

An assessment of survey responses indicate that a number of jurisdictions in the SCAG region are developing efforts for more efficient land use patterns and zoning that would result in greenhouse gas emissions. These include a mix of high‐density housing types, neighborhood based mixed‐use zoning, climate action plans, and other local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the regional level.

The RHNA methodology includes a distribution of 50 percent of regional existing need based on a jurisdiction’s share of regional population within an HQTA. The linkage between housing planning and transportation planning will allow for a better alignment between the RHNA allocation plan and the Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. It will promote more efficient development land use patterns, encourage transit use, and importantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will in turn support local efforts already underway to support the reduction of regional greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover the RHNA methodology includes the Growth Forecast reviewed with local input as a distribution component, particularly for projected housing need. Local input is a basis for SCAG’s Connect SoCal Plan, which addresses greenhouse gas emissions at the regional level since it is used to reach the State Air Resources Board regional targets. An analysis of the consistency between the RHNA and Connect SoCal Plan is included as an attachment to this document.
(12)Any other factors adopted by the council of governments that further the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584, provided that the council of governments specifies which of the objectives each additional factor is necessary to further. The council of governments may include additional factors unrelated to furthering the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584 so long as the additional factors do not undermine the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584 and are applied equally across all household income levels as described in subdivision (f) of Section 65584 and the council of governments makes a finding that the factor is necessary to address significant health and safety conditions.

No other planning factors were adopted by SCAG to review as a specific local planning factor.

51 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
27 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Among a number of changes due to recent RHNA legislation isthe inclusion of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) as both an addition to the listed State housing objectives of Government Section 65588 and to the requirements of RHNA methodology as listed in Government Code Section 65584.04(b) and (c), which includes surveying jurisdictions on AFFH issues and strategies and developing a regional analysis of findings from the survey.

AFFH Survey
The AFFH survey accompanied the required local planning factor survey and was sent to all SCAG jurisdictions in mid‐March 2019 with a posted due date of May 30, 2019. Ninety (90) of SCAG’s 197 jurisdictions completed the AFFH survey, though some jurisdictions indicated that they would not be submitting the AFFH survey due to various reasons. The full packet of surveys submitted prior to the development of the proposed methodology packet can be downloaded at www.scag.ca.gov/rhna.

Jurisdictions were asked various questionsregarding fair housing issues,strategies and actions. These questions included:
 Describe demographic trends and patterns in your jurisdiction over the past ten years. Do any groups experience disproportionate housing needs?
 To what extent do the following factors impact your jurisdiction by contributing to segregated housing patterns or racially or ethnically‐concentrated areas of poverty?  To what extent do the following acts as determinants for fair housing and compliance issues in your jurisdiction?
 What are your public outreach strategies to reach disadvantaged communities?  What steps has your jurisdiction undertaken to overcome historical patterns of segregation or remove barriers to equal housing opportunity?
The survey questions were based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Analysis of Impedimentsto Fair Housing Choice survey that each jurisdiction, or their designated local Housing Authority, must submit to HUD to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. For the AFFH survey, jurisdictions were encouraged to review their HUD‐submitted surveys to obtain data and information that would be useful for submitting the AFFH survey.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.04(c), the following is an analysis of the survey results.

Themes
Several demographic themes emerged throughout the SCAG region based on submitted AFFH surveys. A high number of jurisdictions indicated that their senior populations are increasing and many indicated that the fixed income typically associated with senior populations might have an effect on housing affordability. Other jurisdictions have experienced an increase in minority populations, especially among Latino and Asian groups. There is also a trend of the loss of young adults (typically younger than 30) and a decrease in the number of families with children in more suburban locations due to the rise in housing costs.

52 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
28 Barriers
There was a wide variety of barriers reported in the AFFH survey, though a number of jurisdictions indicated they did not have any reportable barriers to fair access to housing. Throughout the SCAG region, communities of all types reported that community opposition to all types of housing was an impediment to housing development. Sometimesthe opposition occurred in existing low income and minority areas. Some jurisdictions indicated that high opportunity resource areas currently do not have a lot of affordable housing or Section 8 voucher units while at the same time, these areas have a fundamental misunderstanding of who affordable housing serves and what affordable housing buildings actually look like. Based on these responses, it appears that community opposition to housing, especially affordable housing and the associated stigma with affordable housing, is a prevalent barrier throughout the SCAG region.

Other barriers to access to fair housing are caused by high land and development costs since they contribute to very few affordable housing projects being proposed in higher opportunity areas. The high cost of housing also limits access to fair housing and is a significant contributing factor to disparities in access to opportunity. Increasing property values were reported across the region and some jurisdictions indicated that they are occurring in existing affordable neighborhoods and can contribute to gentrification and displacement. Additionally, during the economic downturn a large number of Black and Latino homeowners were disproportionately impacted by predatory lending practices and therefore entered foreclosure in higher numbers than other populations.

Other barriers reported in the AFFH survey include the lack of funding available to develop housing after the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2012. Moreover, some jurisdictions indicated that the lack of regional cooperation contributes to segregation.

Strategies to Overcome Barriers
All submitted AFFH surveys indicated that their respective jurisdictions employed at least a few strategies to overcome barriers to access fair housing. These strategies ranged from local planning and zoning tools to funding assistance to innovative outreach strategies.

In regard to planning and zoning tools, a number of jurisdictions indicated they have adopted inclusionary zoning ordinances or an in‐lieu fee to increase the number of affordable units within their jurisdictions. Others have adopted an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance with accommodating standards to allow for higher densities in existing single‐family zone neighborhoods.

A few jurisdictions indicated that they have adopted an unpermitted dwelling unit (UDU) ordinance, which legalizes unpermitted units instead of removing them provided that the units meet health and safety codes. In addition to ADU and UDU ordinances, some jurisdictions have also adopted density bonuses, which allow a project to exceed existing density standards if it meets certain affordability requirements. Some responses in the survey indicate that the establishment of some of these tools and standards have reduced community opposition to projects. In addition, some jurisdictions responded that they have reduced review times for residential permit approvals and reduced or waived fees associated with affordable housing development.

To combat gentrification and displacement, some jurisdictions have established rent‐stabilization ordinances while others have established a rent registry so that the jurisdiction can monitor rents

53 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
29 and landlord practices. Some jurisdictions have adopted relocation plans and others are actively seeking to extend affordability covenants for those that are expiring.

In regard to funding, SCAG jurisdictions provide a wide variety of support to increase the supply of affordable housing and increase access to fair housing. A number of jurisdictions provide citywide rental assistance programs for low income households and some indicated that their programs include favorable home purchasing options. Some of these programs also encourage developers to utilize the local first‐time homebuyer assistance program to specifically qualify lower income applicants.

Other jurisdictions indicate that they manage housing improvement programs to ensure that their existing affordable housing stock is well maintained. Some AFFH surveys describe local multiple rental assistance programs, including Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers and financial support of tenant/landlord arbitration or mediation services.

Some jurisdictions indicated that they have focused on mobile homes as a way to increase access to fair housing. There are programs described that assist households that live in dilapidated and unsafe mobile homes in unpermitted mobile home parks by allowing the household to trade in their mobile home in exchange for a new one in a permitted mobile park. Other programsinclude rental assistance specifically for households who live in mobile homes.

In regard to community outreach, a large number of jurisdictions in the SCAG region have established or are seeking to establish innovative partnerships to increase access to fair housing and reduce existing barriers. Many jurisdictions work with fair housing advocacy groups such as the Housing Rights Center, which provide community workshops, counseling, and tenant‐landlord mediation services. Other jurisdictions have established landlord‐tenant commissions to resolve housing disputes and provide servicesto individuals with limited resources. Some jurisdictions have partnered with advocacy groups, such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), to hold community‐based workshops featuring simultaneous multi‐lingual translations. Other innovative partnerships created by jurisdictions include those with local schools and school districts and public health institutions to engage disadvantaged groups and provide services to areas with limited resources.

A large number of jurisdictions have also indicated that they have increased their social media presence to reach more communities. Others have also increased their multi‐lingual outreach efforts to ensure that limited‐English proficiency populations have the opportunity to engage in local fair housing efforts.

Based on the AFFH surveys submitted by jurisdictions, while there is a wide range of barriers to fair housing opportunities in the SCAG region there is also a wide range of strategies to help overcome these barriers at the local level.

54 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
30 Meeting AFFH Objectives on a Regional Basis
To work towards the objective of AFFH, several benchmarks were reviewed as potential indicators of increasing access to fair housing and removing barriers that led to historical segregation patterns.

Opportunity Indices
The objectives of affirmatively furthering fair housing are to not only overcome patterns of segregation, but to also increase access to opportunity for historically marginalized groups, particularly in racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. In 2015 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed a set of indices, known as “Opportunity Indices” to help states and jurisdictions identify factors that contribute to fair housing issues in their region and comply with the federal Fair Housing Act.

In 2015 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed a set of indices, known as “Opportunity Indices” to help states and jurisdictions identify factors that contribute to fair housing issues in their region and comply with the federal Fair Housing Act. In late 2017, a Task Force convened by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) released an “Opportunity mapping” tool based on these HUD indices to identify areas in California that can “offer low‐income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.”
The TCAC and HCD Opportunity mapping tool includes a total of eleven (11) census‐tract level indices to measure exposure to opportunity in local communities. Regional patterns of segregation can be identified based on this tool. The indices are based on indicators such as poverty levels, low wage job proximity, pollution, math and reading proficiency. Below is a summary table of the 11 indices sorted by type:

Economic Environment Education
Poverty CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators
 Ozone
 PM2.5
 Diesel PM
 Drinking water
contaminates
 Pesticides
 Toxic releases from
facilities
 Traffic density
 Cleanup sites
 Groundwater threats
 Hazardous waste
 Impaired water bodies
 Solid waste sites
Math proficiency
Adult education Reading proficiency
Employment High school graduation rates
Low‐wage job proximity   Student poverty rate
Median home value
To further the objectives of AFFH, SCAG utilizes the Opportunity indices tool at multiple points in the RHNA methodology. Jurisdictions that have the highest concentration of population in low resource areas are exempted from receiving regional residual existing need, which will result in fewer units

55 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
31 assigned to areas identified as having high rates of poverty and racial segregation. Additionally, jurisdictions with the highest concentration of population within highest resource areas will receive a higher social equity adjustment, which will result in more access to opportunity for lower income households.

Public Engagement
The development of a comprehensive RHNA methodology requires comprehensive public engagement. Government Code Section 65584.04(d) requires at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the proposed methodology, and also requires SCAG to distribute the proposed methodology to all jurisdictions and requesting stakeholders, along with publishing the proposed methodology on the SCAG website. The official public comment period on the proposed RHNA methodology began on August 1, 2019 after Regional Council action and concluded on September 13, 2019.

To maximize public engagement opportunities, SCAG staff hosted four public workshops to receive verbal and written comment on the proposed RHNA methodology and an additional public information session in August 2019:
 August 15, 6‐8 p.m. Public Workshop, Los Angeles (View‐only webcasting available)  August 20, 1‐3 p.m. Public Workshop, Los Angeles (Videoconference at SCAG regional offices and View‐only webcasting available)
 August 22, 1‐3 p.m., Public Workshop, Irvine
 August 27, 6‐8 p.m., Public Workshop, San Bernardino (View‐only webcasting available)  August 29, 1‐3pm Public Information Session, Santa Clarita Approximately 250 people attended the workshops in‐person, at videoconference locations, or via webcast. Over 35 individual verbal comments were shared over the four workshops.

To increase participation from individuals and stakeholders that are unable to participate during regular working hours, two of the public workshops were be held in the evening hours. One of the workshops was held in the Inland Empire. SCAG will worked with its Environmental Justice Working Group (EJWG) and local stakeholder groups to reach out to their respective contacts in order to maximize outreach to groups representing low income, minority, and other traditionally disadvantaged populations.

Almost 250 written comments were submitted by the comment deadline and included a wide range of stakeholders. Approximately 50 percent were from local jurisdictions and subregions, and the other 50 percent were submitted by advocacy organizations, industry groups, residents and resident groups, and the general public. All of the commentsreceived, both verbal and written, were reviewed by SCAG staff, and were used as the basis for developing the RHNA methodology.

The increased involvement by the number of jurisdictions and stakeholders beyond the municipal level compared to prior RHNA cycles indicate an increased level of interest by the public in the housing crisis and its solutions, and the efforts of SCAG to meet these interests. As part of its housing

56 Meeting 1: Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
32 program initiatives, SCAG will continue to reach out to not only jurisdictions, but to advocacy groups and traditionally disadvantaged communities that have not historically participated in the RHNA process and regional housing planning. These efforts will be expanded beyond the RHNA program and will be encompassed into addressing the housing crisis at the regional level and ensuring that those at the local and community level can be part of solutions to the housing crisis.

Additional RHNA Methodology Supporting Materials
Please note that additional supporting materials for the RHNA Methodology have been posted on SCAG’s RHNA website at www.scag.ca.gov/rhna including Data Appendix, Local Planning Factor Survey Responses and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Survey Responses.

57 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-1 HOUSING RESOURCES
IV. HOUSING RESOURCES
This section presents the various resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Yorba Linda. This includes the availability of land resources, financial resources available to support housing in the community; administrative resources available to assist in implementing Yorba Linda’s housing programs; and resources for energy conservation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A. AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING
This section documents the availability of sites for future development and the adequacy of these sites to address Yorba Linda’s regional housing needs for the 2021-2029 planning period. The City plans to fulfill its share of regional housing needs using a combination of the methods below, which are further described in the following narrative:
➢ Residential projects with development entitlements with occupancy post 6/30/2021 ➢ Sites with zoning in place (Town Center Specific Plan and RM-30 zoned sites) ➢ Provision of accessory dwelling units
➢ Rezoning of multi-family opportunity sites and designation of select sites with an Affordable Housing Overlay
➢ Designation of a key shopping center site and vacant commercial parcel with a MixedUse Housing Overlay ➢ Designation of congregational sites with a Congregational Land Overlay Table IV-1 on the following page summarizes the residential unit potential from the above methods and provides a comparison with Yorba Linda’s 2021-2029 RHNA. Parcel specific site inventories and maps are included in Appendix C to the Element.

58 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-2 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV-1: Potential Housing Units during 2021-2029 Planning Period Income Levels Very
Low
Low Moderate Above
Mod
Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 7651 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 129 209 338
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,724 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
1 One-half of the City’s Very-Low Income housing needs are for Extremely-Low Income households.

As shown in Table IV-1, the City has a total capacity for 624 units with zoning in place, reflecting a shortfall in 1,791 units needed to address the RHNA. The City has conducted extensive community outreach and meetings with property owners to identify those sites most suitable for rezoning to multi-family use at 10+ units per acre to address this shortfall. To specifically address the need for housing to address the needs of lower income households, the City is proposing to establish several new Housing Overlay zones: an Affordable Housing Overlay, a Mixed-Use Housing Overlay, and a Congregational Land Overlay, each described later in this section. Sites recommended for re-designation were selected based on several factors: existing land use and feasibility for redevelopment within the planning period; property owner interest; neighborhood compatibility and community context; and an overriding goal to disperse affordable housing opportunities throughout the community. The Housing Element includes a rezoning program (Program 8) for these sites. Prior to implementation of the rezoning, a ballot measure will be required to obtain voter approval, as stipulated by Measure B.

In terms of evaluating the adequacy of these sites to address the affordability targets established by the RHNA, Housing Element statutes provide for the use of “default densities” to assess affordability. Based on its population and location within Orange County, Yorba Linda falls within the default density of 30 units per acre for providing sites affordable to very low and low income households; sites suitable for moderate density households can be provided at 10 units per acre. The City has used these default density thresholds as a guide

59 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-3 HOUSING RESOURCES
in allocating its sites inventory by income category, as presented in Table IV-1. A comparison of the site’s inventory income distribution under the proposed rezoning program with the City’s RHNA identifies sufficient sites at appropriate densities to accommodate Yorba Linda’s regional housing needs.

It is to Yorba Linda’s benefit that its residential site capacity exceeds the minimum RHNA required within each income category to help offset any sites that may be developed with fewer units or to a lesser affordability than assumed in the Housing Element sites inventory.

A healthy buffer above the required RHNA therefore provides a “margin of safety” from having to rezone additional sites during the 2021-2029 planning period of the element.

1. Projects with Entitlements
Yorba Linda has two projects with development entitlements that will contribute towards addressing its future RHNA needs, as described below:
➢ ETCO Homes. This approximately 5-acre site located at Mariposa and Lakeview was identified in the prior Housing Element and upzoned to RM-30. On July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission approved a senior, continuing care community on the site consisting of 82 independent living units, 76 assisted living units, and 82 units for residents with memory care needs. Construction on the project is anticipated to start the end of summer 2021.
➢ West Bastanchury. This 13.1 acre site located south of Bastanchury between Casa Loma and Eureka is being developed by Shea Homes with 23 homes on 15,000 square foot parcels. Building permits are anticipated in late 2021.

2. Sites with Zoning in Place
Of the 14 sites that were rezoned as part of Yorba Linda’s 4th cycle Housing Element, just one remains to be developed. The ½ acre Postal Annex and self-serve car wash site was previously rezoned to RM-30, providing for development of 14 units. Recent discussions with the property owner indicate a strong interest in moving forward with housing on the site, along with the parcel immediately to the west, which has been included in the 6th cycle Housing Element for upzoning as a means of creating a larger parcel for development.12 The Town Center Specific Plan, adopted in 2011, provides some limited opportunities for residential mixed use. Within the Historic Town Center District along Main and Olinda Street, the Specific Plan allows development to incorporate apartments above or behind ground floor retail. Densities of up to 10 units/acre and heights of up to 35 feet are permitted in this district.

Staff has evaluated the parcels in this area, and identified the potential for 31 residential units. 12 Because this site has not been identified to accommodate a lower income RHNA need, it is not subject to byright development approval under AB 1397.

60 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-4 HOUSING RESOURCES

3. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are small, self-contained dwelling units that provide a kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. The unit can be attached to the main home with a separate entrance or can be a small detached unit in the rear yard or above a garage. Because of their small size, ADUs typically rent for less than apartments, and can provide affordable rental options for smaller households, and can provide rental income for the homeowner.

Between 2018-2020, the City has approved 31 ADUs or approximately 10 ADUs per year; however, in 2021, the City has seen a trend of approximately one ADU application per week (or nearly 50 per year). In fact, the City has approved 27 ADU permits in 2021, an increase of 65% over the previous average three-year history from 2018-2020. Based on the growth trends over the past three years (2019-2021), the City anticipates approving 50 ADU permits in 2022.

As shown in the chart above, upon adoption of the City’s ADU Ordinance in March 2020, the City began seeing a significant increase in the number of ADU applications. Furthermore, with adoption of the fee waiver pilot program ADU permit and plan check fees in June 2021, the City saw a 2.5 times increase in applications from the prior year. As the City has become more efficient in processing ADU applications, including eliminating the requirement for internal review by the City’s Planning Review Committee, the time between application submittal and permit issuance has narrowed significantly. Pursuant to AB 671, the Housing Element includes a program to further incentivize the production of affordable ADUs, including a pilot program to waive ADU plan check and permit fees; pre-approved ADU plans to streamline the project application and review process and reduce upfront project costs; promotion of ADUs through handouts, simplified application forms and an ADU website page; and exploration of a program to provide ADU funding assistance to homeowners that provide affordability covenants.
5 5 6 7 6 10 11
18 44
73 120
1 5 4 4 1
7 4 6
27 45
74 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
ADU Application and Permit Approval History/Trends
Applications Approved

61 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-5 HOUSING RESOURCES
Yorba Linda has a number of unique characteristics that make the realistic development capacity of ADUs significantly higher than in many other parts of the region. These characteristics include:
1) Large lot sizes – Yorba Linda’s minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet, with the majority of residential properties having a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. These are extremely large lots compared to much of the rest of suburban neighborhoods.

Furthermore, residential lots in Yorba Linda have a minimum 75 foot lot width and 100 foot lot depth; however, the majority of residential properties have a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. Clearly, these are large lots in comparison to most residential lots in California, resulting in multiple options available for attached, detached, or conversion for ADUs & JADUs.
2) Development Standards – Yorba Linda’s development standards for residential zones are set up in order to allow for ample setbacks and building separation between neighbors in order to encourage privacy and openness. These development standards create significant opportunities for ADUs to be constructed in comparison to most other cities with less restrictive development standards. Given that ADUs up to 800 SF are exempt from most local development standards, the City of Yorba Linda provides many opportunities for ADU construction. Furthermore, an incentive could be considered that would exempt all ADUs from certain development standards.
a. Lot coverage – Yorba Linda has a maximum lot coverage of between 35%- 40% in residential zones. ADUs less than 800 SF are not subject to lot coverage restrictions.
b. Setbacks – Even the most restrictive residential zones require 20 foot rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks of approximately 10 feet. However, the majority of Yorba Linda parcels have between 30-40 foot rear setbacks with side yard setbacks between 10-20 feet.
3) Most homes in Yorba Linda have at least three car garages, with many homes having more than four garage spaces. This additional space is ripe for being converted into ADU or JADU space. Furthermore, most Yorba Linda homes have a driveway capable of accommodating at least three vehicles, whereas most other jurisdictions can only accommodate one or two vehicles in the driveway.
4) Yorba Linda has one of the highest median household incomes in the SCAG region.

This high level of disposable income can facilitate ADU construction based on the ability to self-finance development. The UC Berkeley ADU study13 confirms that property owners with a new ADU on their property are more affluent than the typical homeowner in California, suggesting that there may not be adequate financing option for lower to moderate income households to construct an ADU. 5) Nearly the entire City of Yorba Linda is located in high opportunity areas based on the latest TCAC maps. Therefore, ADU development is one of the best ways for the City to support affirmatively furthering fair housing.
6) The City’s local ADU ordinance provides for some opportunities to relax some standards, making it even easier to get approval.
13 Chapple, K., Ganetsos, D., Lopez, E. (April 22, 2021). Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners. Retrieved from https://Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf (aducalifornia.org)

62 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-6 HOUSING RESOURCES
7) Yorba Linda’s Measure B (Citizen’s Right to Vote Initiative) puts housing approvals in the hands of the voters, whereas ADUs are already by-right opportunities. 8) HCD has also approved an ADU affordability analysis prepared by SCAG. For Orange County, this allows jurisdictions to assume ADUs to be counted towards its lower income RHNA as follows: 15% as very low income, 57% as low income, and 28% as moderate income. Additionally, the City requests that all ADU applicants fill out an affordability survey to identify how the ADU is intended to be used. The vast majority of ADU surveys submitted in Yorba Linda demonstrate that these units are being utilized to provide for intergenerational housing within the family.

Given these characteristics and Yorba Linda’s growing track record in providing ADUs, combined with the additional incentives of fee waivers, pre-approved plans, ADU promotion and outreach, and potential ADU development assistance program for rent-restricted units, the sites inventory projects a minimum of 50 new ADUs to be produced annually, or 400 over the 2021-2029 planning period. The projected affordability of these ADUs is based on SCAGs Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis (December 2020). The City will annually monitor ADU production and affordability as part of the Annual Performance Report (APR) on the Housing Element, and conduct reviews in 2024, 2026 and 2028 to evaluate if ADU production levels are being achieved. If ADU production is falling short, the City will ensure adequate sites are available to address the lower income RHNA, or will commit to rezoning additional sites within one year (as necessary) to offset any shortfall.

4. Sites for Rezoning
Government Code section 65583.2(h) requires sites that are identified for rezoning to accommodate a lower income RHNA shortfall fulfill the following requirements:
• 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. • Permit the development of at least 16 units per site. • Ensure sites permit a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. • Ensure a) at least 50% of the shortfall of low- and very low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses, or b) if accommodating more than 50% of the low- and very low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed-uses, all sites designated for mixed-uses must allow 100% residential use and require residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

A rezone program has been included in the Housing Element (Program #8) to fulfill the above requirements. As presented in Table IV-2, the City has identified a total of 27 Opportunity Sites for rezoning to accommodate the RHNA growth for Yorba Linda. More than half of Yorba Linda’s shortfall in its lower income RHNA will be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential use, therefore the City will not be subject to requirements to allow 100 percent residential on mixed use sites.

A more detailed table and photo exhibits of the Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning is presented in Appendix C to the Element. As a means of documenting how these sites can

63 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-7 HOUSING RESOURCES
realistically be assembled and developed during the planning period, a narrative description of factors supporting development has been prepared for each of the sites. This analysis further details existing conditions, including the presence of economically marginal uses, underutilized parking lots, common ownership of adjacent parcels, and City owned parcels, as well as where there has been recent property owner interest in upzoning and development on the sites.

64 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-8 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV- 2: Housing Element Rezone Sites
Site
ID Site Description and Address Acres Current Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Action
Total
Net Unit
Potential
Realistic
Unit
Potential
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S1-
200 SEC Rose Dr/Blake Rd 5.94 RE RM-20 with AHO 208 178 S3-
207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd 9.7 RU RM-20 with AHO 340 291 S3-
074
Yorba Linda Preschool
18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 0.42 CG RM-20 with AHO 15 13
S3-
082 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave 1.75 CG RM-20 with AHO 61 53 S4-
075 4742 Plumosa Drive 1.62 CG RM-20 with AHO 57 48
S6-
015
Prior John Force Racing
22722 Old Canal Road 2.56 PD PDwith AHO 89 77
S6-
020
Extended Stay America
22711 Oak Crest Circle 10.35 PD PDwith AHO 143 122
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 782
Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S2-
008
Friendship Baptist Church
17151 Bastanchury Rd

4.92 (2.01 developable) RE RE with CLO 60 60
S3-
012
Richfield Community Church
5320 Richfield Rd

9.48 (3.7 developable) RU RU with CLO 55 55
S2-
013
Messiah Lutheran Church 4861
Liverpool St

6.2 (2.03 developable) RU RU with CLO 40 40
S3-
024
Friends Church Overflow Parking 17.45
(1.61 developable) RE RE with CLO 48 48
S4-
204A
Chabad Center
19045 Yorba Linda Blvd

1.85 (0.93 developable) RE RE with CLO 17 17
S3-
033
Islamic Center of Yorba Linda
4382 Eureka Ave

3.88 (1.58 developable) RS RS with CLO 30 30
S3-
210
Shinnyo-En USA
18021-18111 Bastanchury Rd

9.23 (4.09 developable) PD-26 PD-26 with CLO 105 105
Realistic Unit Potential on CLO Sites: 355
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre
S1-
021
Vacant Parcel (W of 16951
Imperial Hwy)
APN 322-121-07

1.76 CG-(I) CG-(I)
with MUO 62 53
S7-
001
Bryant Ranch Shopping Center
23611-23801 La Palma Ave 9.15 CG CG withMUO 320 272
Realistic Unit Potential on MUO Sites: 325
RM-20 – up to 20 units/acre
S4-
200 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane 2.0 RS RM-20 40 40
S4-
204B 19081-19111 Yorba Linda Blvd 3.90 RE RM-20 78 66
Realistic Unit Potential on RM-20 Sites: 106

65 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-9 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV- 2: Housing Element Rezone Sites (cont’d)
Site
ID Site Description and Address Acres Current Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Action
Total
Net Unit
Potential
Realistic
Unit
Potential
RM – up to 10 units/acre
S3-
034 4341 Eureka Avenue 2.19 RS RM 22 19
S3-
205A 5225-5227 Highland Ave 7.08 RE RM 71 60
S3-
211 17651 Imperial Highway 2.32 RS RM 23 20
S4-
053
SWC Kellogg Dr/
Grandview Ave 0.98 RE RM 10 9
S4-
060 5541 South Ohio St 0.96 RE RM 10 9
S4-
201 5531 South Ohio St 1.82 RE RM 18 15
S5-
008 Fairmont Blvd 23.01 PD RM 230 196
S7-
005
NWC Camino de Bryant/
Meadowland 3.06 RU RM 30 10
Realistic Unit Potential on RM Sites: 338
PD
S3-
203 18101-19251 Bastanchury 22.83 PD PD 228 194
Realistic Unit Potential on PD Sites: 194
Realistic Potential on all Opportunity Sites: 2,100
A key tenet of Yorba Linda’s approach to providing sites to address its lower income housing needs will be through the creation of several new Housing Overlay zones: an Affordable Housing Overlay, a Mixed-Use Housing Overlay, and a Congregational Land Overlay. The contracted with an urban design consultant to conduct site visits and create site development concepts as a foundation for establishing recommended development standards for each of the overlay zones such as height limits, parking requirements, setbacks and transitional height requirements. While this detailed work is currently in process, the following summarizes the basic parameters of each of the overlay zones.

Affordable Housing Overlay: As part of the Housing Element sites inventory, the City has identified six sites for rezoning to RM-20, and one to maintain its PD zoning, and designation with an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). The overlay would layer on top of the base zoning regulations, leaving in place the option to develop under the base zoning, but providing the opportunity to develop to a greater intensity, and in the case of the commercial and industrial sites, the opportunity to develop with a higher value residential use, without a General Plan amendment or zone change.

The AHO would provide the following incentives in exchange for providing 20% affordable units (10% very low and 10% low income) on these sites:
• Ministerial review

66 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-10 HOUSING RESOURCES
• Increased densities
• Increased height limits
• Increased floor area ratios
• Reduced project-specific open space standards
As an additional incentive, developers can access state density bonus law, including by right alternative parking standards, in addition to using the densities allowed in the Overlay. In order to encourage lot consolidation for sites with multiple parcels, the City will structure the Overlay with tiered incentives for larger lot sizes.

Congregational Land Overlay: Yorba Linda contains 25 religious congregations that practice various forms of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist religions. Most of the City’s congregations date from the 1970’s or later during a period of suburban growth, and many possess large land resources. All but two of the Yorba Linda’s congregations have more than one acre of land, and eight (32%) have over five acres. These congregations typically have large parking lots which are sized for full occupancy of sanctuaries. Congregations which are not at full capacity likely have unused parking areas. Some also have buildings which are nearing the end of their functional life and are candidates for turnover to other uses. The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected these congregations in manners which are not entirely clear at this point. Conversations with church leaders revealed that attendance ranged from 30-80% of pre-pandemic levels. It is possible that the pandemic will permanently decrease regular attendance at services, as sometimes-tenuous connections with other church members have faded and people make greater use of online services.

Within this context, affordable housing development can be an attractive option for congregations to off-load excess land, use proceeds to support existing ministries, and live out their mission to love thy neighbor. Many local and state governments, including California’s, are seeking to promote this type of development, not only for the reasons mentioned above, but because religious-use parking spaces are among the least utilized spaces in urbanized areas being typically used to their maximum capacity only once a week.

As the affordable housing crisis and homelessness continues to worsen, more and more congregations and faith-based groups have sought ways to provide housing for those most in need. In Making Housing Happen: Faith-Based Affordable Housing Models,14 Dr Jill Shook presents a range of case studies of how congregations across the country are successfully providing affordable housing through a variety of models: land lease of church properties; adaptive reuse of church buildings; community land trusts, and more. The Congregational Land Subcommittee15 in Pasadena indicates they are continuing to see more and more examples of congregations partnering with non-profit developers to provide affordable housing on excess land, several of which are highlighted in Table IV-3 below:
14 Shook, J. (2012). Making Housing Happen: Faith-Based Affordable Housing Models (2nd ed). Wipf and Stock Publishers.
15 CONGREGATIONAL LAND | Making Housing and Community Happen | United States (makinghousinghappen.org)

67 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-11 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV-3: Examples of Housing on Congregational Land
Congregation # Housing Units Other Site Improvements Developer Project Status St. Joseph’s
Episcopal Church,
Buena Park
66 low income
senior units
New 3,000 sq.ft. community
center, common open space
National CORE Received planning
entitlements
Church of Blessed
Sacrament,
Placentia
65 low income
senior units
New Parish Hall,
improvements to church
facilities, community garden
National CORE Received planning
entitlements
Garden Grove
United Methodist
Church
47 very low/low
income family
and senior units
Space for community clinic
and other service agencies
Jamboree
Housing
Operational since
2015
Bethel AME, San
Diego
16 permanent
supportive
housing units
Yes in God’s
Backyard
(YIGBY)
Under Construction
New Life Holiness
Church,
Pasadena
52 very low/low
income family
units
Gangi
Development
Pursuing
entitlements
West Angeles
Church of God in
Christ, Los
Angeles
70 very low/low
income senior
units
Community retail space Related
Companies
Operational since
2020
First United
Methodist Church,
Los Angeles
66 low income
family units
Child care center 1010
Development
Operational since
2000s
Immanuel Church,
Long Beach
25 low income
senior units
Church closed Thomas Safran
& Associates
Operational since
late 2010s
Inglewood First
United Methodist
Church
64 low income
units for seniors/
local workforce
Adaptive reuse Berg Predevelopment
Source: The Arroyo Group, 2021.

City staff began reaching out to pastors and religious leaders in the community in the fall of 2020 to explore the concept of adding an affordable housing overlay to Yorba Linda’s religious sites. On January 26, 2021, staff hosted a virtual workshop for leaders of the 25 religious’ sites in Yorba Linda, and invited members of the Greater Pasadena Affordable Housing Group Congregational Land Subcommittee to discuss the process involved in developing affordable housing on their properties. Nearly 20 participants were in attendance, representing 12 different congregations, and participants were generally in favor of the affordable housing overlay concept. Staff and the design consultant have conducted numerous site visits and are in the process of drafting viable development standards for a Congregational Land Overlay Zone. Key features of the Overlay will include:
• Allowing congregations to decrease on-site parking and remove nonessential buildings in order to accommodate housing
• Requiring a minimum percentage and level of deed-restricted affordable housing • Ensuring that conversion of auxiliary congregational areas such as parking lots to housing will not require a discretionary approval process to amend the religious institution’s existing CUP

68 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-12 HOUSING RESOURCES
• Allowing congregations, in certain circumstances, to transfer their development rights under the Congregational Land Overlay to adjacent properties which have a lower density zoning
The Housing Element sites inventory has identified seven religious congregations as most viable for development within the planning period, though all congregations in Yorba Linda will be eligible to take advantage of the additional development rights conferred by the Overlay zone. The City’s urban design consultant determined the potential development area on each of the City’s religious congregations based on development of half the parking area (or the entire parking area for congregations smaller than 2.5 acres), along with any available vacant land. Development potential was calculated using a base density of 30 units/acre (though up to 35 units/acre will be permitted), with densities and building heights tapering down based on the adjacency of single-family zoned parcels. Table IV-4 shows the estimated development capacities on all 25 congregational sites in the City, with more refined analysis and site layouts conducted for the seven sites included the Housing Element sites inventory.

Table IV-4: Development Potential on Religious Congregation Sites Congregation Address
Site
Capacity
(units)
Max
Development
Area1
Parking
(ac)
Open
Space
(ac)
Total
Site
Acreage
1st Church of Christ
Science 18341 Lemon Drive 4 0.11 0.11 - 0.28
Agape Christian
Church of OC 4572 Rose Drive 31 1.05 1.05 - 2.44
Calvary Chapel of
Yorba Linda
18821 Yorba Linda Blvd
4982 Avocado Ave 21 0.69 1.38 - 7
Canyon Hills Friends
Church 20400 Fairmont Connector 18 0.59 1.17 - 4.73
Chabad Center2 19045 Yorba Linda Boulevard 17 0.93 0.35 0.58 1.85 Community Messiah
Lutheran2 4861 Liverpool Street 40 2.03 2.93 0.57 6.2
Faith Community
Church Nazarene
16800 Imperial Hwy
16892 Roxdale Drive
4032 Sesame Street 58 1.93 1.48 1.19 4.83
First Baptist Church
of Yorba Linda
4858 Main Street
4802 Main Street
18372 East Lemon Dr 19 0.63 0.35 0.28 2
Friends Church
Overflow Parking2
Adjacent
18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 48 1.61 1.61 0 17.45
Friendship Baptist
Church2 17141-17151 Bastanchury Rd 60 2.01 1.55 1.23 4.92 Grace Lutheran
Church 6550 Fairmont Blvd 29 0.98 1.01 0.48 3.15
Islamic Center of
Yorba Linda2 4382 Eureka Avenue 30 1.58 1.13 1.02 3.88
LDS Church 17142 Bastanchury Road 98 3.26 1.89 2.31 5.46 LDS Church 5550 Ohio Street 26 0.86 1.73 - 3.05

69 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-13 HOUSING RESOURCES
Congregation Address
Site
Capacity
(units)
Max
Development
Area1
Parking
(ac)
Open
Space
(ac)
Total
Site
Acreage
Pope John Paul II
Polish Center 16692 Golden Avenue 18 1.22 1.22 - 1.76
Richfield
Community Church2 5320 Richfield Road 55 3.70 4.46 1.47 9.48 Rose Drive Friends
Church
4221 Rose Drive
16611-16631 Bastanchury Rd 154 5.15 4.46 2.92 14.08
St Mary & St Verena
Coptic Orthodox 5401 Fairmont Blvd 20 0.68 0.68 0.34 3.18 Shinnyo-En USA2
18021 - 18111 Bastanchury
Road 105 4.09 2.92 2.63 9.23
St. Clara de Asis
Church 22005 Avenida de la Paz 116 3.87 3.26 2.24 15.23 St. Martin's De Porres
Church 19767 Yorba Linda Boulevard 37 1.22 1.99 0.23 3.95 The Church in Yorba
Linda 3812 N Rose Drive 19 0.64 0.64 - 0.45
The Danish Church
and Cultural Center 16881 Bastanchury Road 19 0.63 0.63 - 1.5 Yorba Linda
Methodist Church 19002 Yorba Linda Boulevard 44 1.46 1.54 0.69 4.78 Yorba Linda
Presbyterian Church 19301 Yorba Linda Boulevard 24 0.79 1.57 - 3.38 Total 1,110 41.71 41.11 18.18 134.26
1 Development area for congregations > 2.5 acres based on use of 50% of parking area + available open space. Development area for congregations with < 2.5 acres based on use of 100% of parking + available open space. 2 Congregation included in Housing Element sites inventory.

Mixed-Use Housing Overlay: The Mixed-Use Housing Overlay is designed to apply to two commercial properties where housing could benefit the existing or future retail use. It is currently being proposed for the nine-acre Bryant Ranch Shopping Center that has been struggling to maintain tenants and contains large areas of underutilized parking. The concept is to allow for a predominately residential development on this site, with a requirement to integrate a minimum of 10,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses to service nearby neighborhoods. The Mixed-Use Overlay is also being proposed for a 1.75 acre vacant commercially zoned property on Imperial Highway. The overlay will allow development of at least three stories in height and 35 dwelling units per acre, and similar to the Affordable Housing Overlay, will require at least 20 percent affordable units Commercial floor area (FAR) will be separately regulated from residential density, so that the permitted residential density is not impacted by the inclusion of commercial square footage.

In terms of the likelihood of predominately commercial development occurring on these two Mixed Use Sites, the Mixed Use Overlay will require at least 50 percent of the square footage be dedicated to residential use. In addition, the real estate market in Yorba Linda favors residential over commercial uses, as evidenced by the prompt redevelopment of the seven non-residential 5th cycle Housing Element sites with housing (refer to Table IV-5), as well as strong property owner interest in redeveloping the Bryant Ranch shopping center as

70 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-14 HOUSING RESOURCES
predominately residential. Regional market trends further support the integration of residential on commercial sites, such as the proposed Brea Plaza project which would redevelop the commercial center’s surface parking area with 189 units, the Brea Mall project which proposes development of 383 apartments on 12 acres of surface parking, and the Streetlights at Fullerton which proposes integrating 329 units within the Fullerton Town Center.

Sites Inventory Methodology and Assumptions
This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to develop the Housing Element Adequate Sites Inventory (Appendix C). It provides justification for development on non-vacant sites and review of the factors used in estimating the realistic housing potential during the 2021-2029 planning period. The section concludes with a discussion of development on small and large sites, and use of sites from the prior Housing Element.

Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites: Because non-vacant sites comprise more than half of Yorba Linda’s site inventory, Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2) requires that the City analyze the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period of the housing element. As part of the resolution adopting the Housing Element, the City Council will make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue during the planning period. These findings will be based on a variety of factors including development trends, property owner interest, structure age, property valuation, and development capacity.

Each of the opportunity sites was selected based on a combination of factors rendering it suitable and likely to redevelop during the planning period. These factors include: physical underutilization of the site; economic obsolescence of the existing use (as measured by an improvement-to-land value ratio of < 1.0); dilapidated condition of the existing use; developer and/or property owner interest in development. The sites inventory spreadsheet in Appendix C details these factors for each site, supplemented by a photo exhibit of each site describing various factors that support development.

Yorba Linda has a strong track record in redesignating non-vacant residential and commercial properties for residential development. In order to provide adequate sites for its 4th cycle, 2008-2014 Housing Element, the City rezoned 14 sites RM-10, RM-20 and RM-30. As discussed earlier in this chapter, all but one of these sites has since been developed or is in the process of being developed, and the property owner of the last remaining site is now interested in moving forward with development.

Table IV-5 presents residential development trends in Yorba Linda under the 5th cycle Housing Element and documents that the majority of development involves redevelopment of existing uses. The market for residential development in Yorba Linda is robust, as evidenced by development on all its prior Housing Element sites. The creation of various zoning overlays with regulatory incentives and by-right development opportunities will render the 6th cycle Housing Element sites all the more attractive for development.

71 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-15 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV-5
Yorba Linda Development Projects and Trends
Housing
Element
Site
No.

Site
Description/
Location
Prior
Zoning
Prior Land
Use(s) Acres
Max.

Buildout
Potential
Actual Buildout
Status
%
Developed
to Max
Density
R-M-30 Sites
3 Yorba
Linda/Prospect
Commercial
General
Large Medical
Office
Complex

4.08 acres
122 units 80-unit, 3-story
townhome project by
DR Horton
66%
4 Bastanchury &
Lakeview
(middle parcel)
RE and RS Commercial
Nursery

8.51 acres
248 units
(between
sites 4 &
12 which
merged)
Merged with Site 12
for 192-unit
townhome project by
Melia Homes and
Lennar Homes.
77%
5 Old Canal Road
Annex
Savi Ranch
PD/
Office
Commercial
Vacant
Manufacturing
Industrial

2.8 acres
84 units 54-unit, 3-story
townhome project by
National Core
64%
6 Mitsubishi
Motors Site
Savi Ranch
PD/
Office
Commercial
Underutilized
Manufacturing
Industrial

3.2 acres
96 units 69-unit, 3-story
townhome project by
National Core
72%
14 Lakeview &
Mariposa
APN# 343-671-
01, 02,03,04,05
RE (1.8
du/ac)
Former
Oil Field

4.98 acres
149 units Entitled for Senior
Apartments by
ETCO Homes with
82 units of
independent living,
76 units of assisted
living and 82
memory care beds.
106%
R-M-20 Sites
7 Lakeview/
Strawberry-Field
Commercial
General
3 SFRs and
Agriculture

4.7 acres
94 units New City Library Site NA
8 Lakeview/
Altrudy
RS (3.0
du/ac)
Vacant 2.4
acres
48 units 48-unit, 1- and 2-
story senior
apartment project by
C&C Development/
Orange Housing
100%
NA 18602 Altrudy TCSP 2 single-family
homes

2.0 acres
40 units Pending Measure B
election
100%
R-M-10 Sites
1 Prospect
(Greenhouse)
Commercial
General
Large
Commercial
Greenhouse/
Agricultural
Facility

5.5 acres
55 units 48-unit, 2-story
townhome project by
Pulte Homes
87%
2 Wabash & Rose Commercial
General
3 SFRs plus
RV storage
and repair
facility

1.85 acres
18 units 18-unit, 2-story
townhome project by
City Ventures
100%

72 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-16 HOUSING RESOURCES
Table IV-5
Yorba Linda Development Projects and Trends
Housing
Element
Site
No.

Site
Description/
Location
Prior
Zoning
Prior Land
Use(s) Acres
Max.

Buildout
Potential
Actual Buildout
Status
%
Developed
to Max
Density
9 Bastanchury &
Lakeview
(eastern parcel)
RE (1.8
du/ac) and
RS (3.0
du/ac
2 SFRs plus
commercial
equestrian
stable and
riding
academy

4.08 acres
40 units 40-unit, 2-story
paired home project
by Melia Homes
100%
11 Nixon Archive RE 5 SFRs 5.9
acres
59 units 51-unit, 2-story
townhome project by
Brandywine Homes
86%
12 Bastanchury &
Lakeview
(western parcel)
RE and RS Commercial
Nursery

8.51 acres
248 units
(between
sites 4 &
12 which
merged)
Merged with Site 4
for 192-unit
townhome project by
Melia Homes and
Lennar Homes.
77%
Average Developed Density to Maximum Density 85.8%
1 The project's entitlements classify it as a Community Care Facility which is not regulated by density.

In addition to the development trends supporting redevelopment presented in Table IV-5, Appendix C includes a detailed narrative describing the factors supporting redevelopment of each opportunity site and provides evidence that the existing use does not serve as an impediment to residential development over the next eight years. It shows that there is interest among the current property owners and developers for residential projects in the highly-sought after Yorba Linda community.

Realistic Development Capacity Analysis
As required by Housing Element statute, local governments must analyze available sites based on their realistic residential development capacity. In other words, the development density that can actually be achieved on a site might be less than the maximum residential densities permitted by the underlying General Plan land use and Zoning. Therefore, to establish realistic capacity, jurisdictions must consider cumulative development standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, on-site improvements (sidewalks or easements), and floor area ratios in the calculations.

As discussed earlier in the Governmental Constraints chapter (see Land Use Controls), the City’s urban design consultant conducted “density testing” in conjunction with creation of the City’s new RM 10, RM 20 and RM 30 development standards to ensure cumulative standards supported development at the top end of the density range. As shown in Table IV-5, while several projects have developed at 100% of the maximum permitted density, on average, recent projects in Yorba Linda have developed to 85.8% of the maximum permitted density under zoning. Development capacities for Housing Element sites have thus been adjusted downwards to 85% of total capacity under zoning, despite development standards that facilitate achievement of 100% of permitted densities.

73 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-17 HOUSING RESOURCES
For example, for purposes of identifying typical densities on the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), Congregational Land Overlay, and Mixed Use Overlay sites, sites are assumed to develop at 85% of the base Overlay density of 35 dwelling units per acre (30 units/acre), with property owners utilizing the Overlay automatically eligible for a minimum 35% density increase under State density bonus law. Affordable housing projects typically build out to the top end of the permitted density range, and can be expected to take advantage of additional incentives and reduced parking standards available under State density bonus law.

Site Size
Per State law, sites smaller than half an acre or larger than 10 acres are not considered adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless it can be demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period, or other evidence is provided that the site can be developed as lower income housing. No opportunity sites over 10 acres are included in the lower income Sites Inventory.

While the City’s site inventory does not include any opportunity sites that total less than onehalf acre, individual parcels that comprise several sites are less than one-half acre. To ensure housing units in these opportunity sites are credited as lower income units, a Lot Consolidation Program is included in the Housing Element. As part of the program, the City will first conduct outreach to property owners to identify meaningful incentives to facilitate lot consolidation and redevelopment. The City will then develop specific incentives such as flexible development standards and a streamlined permit processing.

Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) specifies that a non-vacant site identified in the previous planning period or a vacant site that has been included in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower income RHNA unless the site is subject to a policy in state housing element law requiring rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.

One site included in this Housing Element Site Inventory was also in the previous Yorba Linda Housing Element (5th Cycle), a ½ acre parcel located at 4822 Eureka Avenue developed with a car wash and small retail center. However, given the small size of the site, it has not been allocated towards addressing the City’s lower income RHNA needs, and is thus not subject to Government Code Section 65583.2(c).

5. Housing Resulting from Duplexes and Lot Splits in SingleFamily Zones (SB 9) Senate Bill 9 will allow property owners to split a single-family zoned lot into two lots and/or place up to two housing units on a single-family zoned lot. Eligibility for lot splits include:
• The parcel must be located in a single-family residential zone; • The two new parcels must be relatively equal in size (60%/40% maximum split); • The two new parcels must be no smaller than 1,200 square feet; and • The property owner must occupy one of the housing units created by the lot split for a minimum of three years.

74 Meeting 1: Yorba Linda Housing Element
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT IV-18 HOUSING RESOURCES
The creation of duplexes and/or lot splits on single-family parcels under SB 9 are subject only to ministerial review, and are exempt from environmental review under CEQA. City Planning staff have been receiving numerous inquiries from property owners about the ability to add additional housing under SB 9. On January 18, 2022, the City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance to implement SB 9 housing developments and urban lot splits consistent with State law. The second reading is scheduled for February 1, 2022, and the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after the second reading.

UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation16 has conducted a study to assess the potential impact of SB 9 on housing supply. Through use of an economic model to test market feasibility on existing parcels with detached single-family homes, the Terner Center study indicates that approximately ten percent of Orange County’s single-family parcels would be financially feasible to develop under SB 9's provisions, equating to approximately 47,000 new market-feasible units. Within the City of Yorba Linda, the study identifies approximately 2,600 additional units that would become market feasible under SB 9. While it is premature to forecast production, the increase in development capacity under SB 9 will certainly contribute to addressing a portion of Yorba Linda’s housing needs. The City will monitor production under SB 9 as part of the Annual Performance Report on the Housing Element, including contribution of towards meeting its RHNA goals.

Development under SB 9 will help to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) in Yorba Linda by providing the opportunity to integrate smaller-scale housing within higher-resource, singlefamily neighborhoods. The ability to convey new units under separate ownership will afford a wider range of financing options for property owners than are available for ADU construction.

According to the Terner Center study,
17 there are few loan products available to finance the construction of ADUs, and those that are available often do not cover the entire cost of development. Development under SB 9 will expand homeownership opportunities for modest income households who will be able to apply for a traditional mortgage for home purchase

6. Availability of Infrastructure and Public Services
Yorba Linda is a younger community with the necessary infrastructure in place to support future development in the established areas. The utility infrastructure is relatively new with the majority of public service capacity not yet in need of repair or replacement. One exception is in portions of the Yorba Linda Water District’s (YLWD) westerly service area where approximately 24,000 feet of waterline was constructed in the 1920s through 1950s.

According to YLWD, the majority of these waterlines will be replaced over the 2022 to 2024 period. All sites are adjacent to existing public roadways and are serviceable by police and fire departments, as well as private companies that provide phone, cable, gas, and electric service. Existing water delivery and wastewater collection infrastructure is available to all properties located in the residential sites inventory and the City has adequate water and wastewater capacity to accommodate the RHNA of 2,415 units. In summary, no sites included within the sites inventory for the 2021-2029 Housing Element are constrained by infrastructure availability.
16 Metcalf, B., et. al. (2021). “Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes?” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. 17 Ibid.

75 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Appendix C
Residential Sites Inventory

76 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Housing Element Rezone Sites
Site
ID Site Description and Address Acres Current Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Action
Total
Net Unit
Potential
Realistic
Unit
Potential
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S1-
200 SEC Rose Dr/Blake Rd 5.94 RE RM-20 with AHO 208 178 S3-
207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd 9.7 RU RM-20 with AHO 340 291 S3-
074
Yorba Linda Preschool
18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 0.42 CG RM-20 with AHO 15 13
S3-
082 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave 1.75 CG RM-20 with AHO 61 53 S4-
075 4742 Plumosa Drive 1.62 CG RM-20 with AHO 57 48
S6-
015
Prior John Force Racing
22722 Old Canal Road 2.56 PD PDwith AHO 89 77
S6-
020
Extended Stay America
22711 Oak Crest Circle 10.35 PD RM-20 with AHO 143 122
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 782
Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre S2-
008
Friendship Baptist Church
17151 Bastanchury Rd

4.92 (2.01 developable) RE RE with CLO 60 60
S3-
012
Richfield Community Church
5320 Richfield Rd

9.48 (3.7 developable) RU RU with CLO 55 55
S2-
013
Messiah Lutheran Church 4861
Liverpool St

6.2 (2.03 developable) RU RU with CLO 40 40
S3-
103
Friends Church and
Overflow Parking

17.45 (1.61 developable) RE RE with CLO 48 48
S4-
204A
Chabad Center
19045 Yorba Linda Blvd

1.85 (0.93 developable) RE RE with CLO 17 17
S3-
033
Islamic Center of Yorba Linda
4382 Eureka Ave

3.88 (1.58 developable) RS RS with CLO 30 30
S3-
210
Shinnyo-En USA
18021-18111 Bastanchury Rd

9.23 (4.09 developable) PD-26 PD-26 with CLO 105 105
Realistic Unit Potential on CLO Sites: 355
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre
S1-
021
Vacant Parcel (W of 16951
Imperial Hwy)
APN 322-121-07

1.76 CG-(I) CG-(I)
with MUO 62 53
S7-
001
Bryant Ranch Shopping Center
23611-23801 La Palma Ave 9.15 CG CG withMUO 320 272
Realistic Unit Potential on MUO Sites: 325
RM-20 – up to 20 units/acre
S4-
200 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane 2.0 RS RM-20 40 40
S4-
204B 19081-19111 Yorba Linda Blvd 3.90 RE RM-20 78 66
Realistic Unit Potential on RM-20 Sites: 106

77 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site
ID Site Description and Address Acres Current Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Action
Total
Net Unit
Potential
Realistic
Unit
Potential
RM – up to 10 units/acre
S3-
034 4341 Eureka Avenue 2.19 RS RM 22 19
S3-
205A 5225-5227 Highland Ave 7.08 RE RM 71 60
S3-
211 17651 Imperial Highway 2.32 RS RM 23 20
S4-
053
SWC Kellogg Dr/
Grandview Ave 0.98 RE RM 10 9
S4-
060 5541 South Ohio St 0.96 RE RM 10 9
S4-
201 5531 South Ohio St 1.82 RE RM 18 15
S5-
008 Fairmont Blvd 23.01 PD RM 230 196
S7-
005
NWC Camino de Bryant/
Meadowland 3.06 RU RM 30 10
Realistic Unit Potential on RM Sites: 338
PD
S3-
203 18101-19251 Bastanchury 22.83 PD PD 228 194
Realistic Unit Potential on PD Sites: 194
Realistic Potential on all Opportunity Sites: 2,100

78 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory

79 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S1-021 – West of 16951 Imperial Highway
Site Acreage: 1.76 acres
Current Zoning: CG
Proposed Zoning:

Commercial Mixed Use
Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 62
Realistic Unit
Development: 53
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This flat, vacant parcel is located immediately west of an existing LA Fitness.

The proposal would create a commercial mixed use overlay zone to apply to the property to incentivize housing production while still allowing for potential commercial development.

80 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S1-200 – SEC Rose Dr/Blake Rd
Site Acreage: 5.94 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning:

RM-20 with Affordable
Overlay
Total Net Unit Potential:
208
Realistic Unit Potential:
178
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This site is comprised of 12 parcels encompassing 5.94 acres at the southeast corner of Rose Drive and Blake Road. It is zoned as Residential Estate and is located immediately west of a mobile home park and south of a 1,100 unit housing development planned in the City of Brea. Homes are all over 60 years in age and are modest in size, averaging 1,700 square feet, (with the exception of one home developed in 1998), and all are on septic systems. Improvement-to-land value ratios are well below 1.0, with the exception of several parcels that haven’t been reassessed in at least 30 years and whose land values are inaccurately identified by the County Assessor as ranging between $32,000 - $64,000 for ½ acre+ parcels. Eight of the current owners have expressed an interest in having their property rezoned in order to allow for redevelopment of the site; three property owners have not yet responded; and one property owner has stated they are not interested. Based on past experience, the City anticipates that several more property owners will be supportive with more outreach from the City and from adjacent neighbors. The total development capacity on the site is 208 units, with the realistic capacity calculated at 85% of the maximum, or 178 units.

81 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S2-008 – 17151 Bastanchury Road
Site Acreage: 4.92 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning:

Congregational Land Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 60
Realistic Unit Potential: 60
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development: Friendship Baptist Church owns the property at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway/ Bastanchury Road. The church property itself has approximately 2.5 acres of vacant land and parking area that could potentially be developed for housing purposes pursuant to Assembly Bill 1851. The church began construction on an accessory structure over a decade ago, but never completed the project. The church pastor sees this as an opportunity to have a housing developer help complete the accessory building and in exchange the church would provide the land for development of affordable housing on their property. The 2.5 acre undeveloped portion of the site could accommodate approximately 60 housing units, with all existing structures to remain.

82 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-012 – 5320 Richfield Road
Site Acreage: 9.48 acres
Current Zoning: RU
Proposed Zoning: Congregational
Land Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 55
Realistic Unit Potential: 55
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Site S2-012 is currently home to the Richfield Community Church and comprises 9.48 acres on the east side of Richfield Road south of YorbaLinda Blvd. The property has approximately 3 acres of underutilized land and parking lot area which could be utilized for housing purposes in compliance with Assembly Bill 1851. The site could accommodate approximately 55 housing units, with all existing structures to remain.

83 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
S3-207 – 5300-5392 Richfield Road
Site Acreage: 9.83 acres
Current Zoning: RU
Proposed Zoning: RM-20 with
Affordable Overlay
Total Net Unit Potential: 340
Realistic Unit Potential: 291
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Site S3-207 is comprised of multiple parcels under single ownership totaling 9.8 acres in size. Although the southeastern portion of the parcel is constrained by hillside topography, the City calculates density based on the overall project size and not the developable area. Therefore, the developable portion of a project site may appear to be higher density; however, the overall project density would be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Existing conditions consist of a Christmas tree farm and several older single-family homes/structures. The property owner is very interested in having the property rezoned to allow for higher density housing, and would discontinue the existing agricultural and residential uses on the site to allow for redevelopment. The total development capacity on the site is 340 units, with the realistic capacity calculated at 85% of the maximum, or 291 units.

84 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S2-013 – 4861 Liverpool Street
Site Acreage: 6.2 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This site currently home to the Messiah Lutheran Church and comprises 6.2 acres on the northwest corner of Yorba Linda Blvd and Liverpool St. The property has approximately 1.5 acres of underutilized land and parking lot area which could be utilized for housing purposes in compliance with Assembly Bill 1851. The site could accommodate approximately 40 housing units, with all existing structures to remain.

Current Zoning: RU
Proposed Zoning: Congregational
Land Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 40
Realistic Unit Potential: 40

85 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-074 – 18132 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Site Acreage: 0.42 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently being utilized as the Yorba Linda Preschool. It is located at the southwest corner of Yorba Linda Blvd and Mountain View. The 2,000 square foot, single-story preschool building was developed in 1952, and has an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.06 and lot coverage of 15%, indicative of the economic obsolescence of the structure and significant underutilization of the site.

The property owner is interested in having the site rezoned for multi-family housing.

The property on its own could yield 15 housing units under the Affordable Housing Overlay; however, if combined with the 1.61-acre parking lot to the south, which is utilized as overflow parking by Friends Church, the combined project site could yield a far greater number of units (refer to Site S3-103 which follows). If the adjacent parking lot were to remain, it could present an opportunity for the housing developer to arrange for a shared parking arrangement where all the parking for the preschool redevelopment would be located on the adjacent site, allowing for a more feasible housing development opportunity.

Current Zoning: CG
Proposed Zoning: RM-20
with Affordable Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 15
Realistic Unit Potential: 13

86 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3- – Friends Church
Site Acreage:

17.45 acres (church site)

1.61 acres (overflow parking)
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently home to the Friends Church and comprises

17.45 acres primarily on the east side of Mountain View south of Yorba Linda Blvd. The church has a 1.61 acre overflow parking lot on the west side of Mountain View which could yield 48 housing units under the Congregational Land Overlay; however, if combined with the 0.42 adjacent Yorba Linda Preschool, the combined project site could yield a greater number of units (refer to prior Site S3-074).

Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning: Congregational
Land Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 48
Realistic Unit Potential: 48

87 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-033 – 4382 Eureka Avenue
Acreage: 3.88 acres
Current Zoning: RS
Proposed Zoning:

Congregational Housing
Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 30
Realistic Unit Potential: 30
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently home to the Islamic Center of Yorba Linda and comprises

3.88 acres primarily on the east side of Eureka. It is zoned as Residential Suburban and is proposed to have an affordable housing overlay placed on the property to allow for approximately 1.5 acres of underutilized land and parking lot area to be utilized for housing purposes in compliance with Assembly Bill 1851. The site could accommodate approximately 30 housing units.

88 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-210 – 18111 Bastanchury Road
Acreage: 9.23 acres
Current Zoning: PD
Proposed Zoning:

Congregational Housing
Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 105
Realistic Unit Potential:
105
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently home to the Shinnyo-En USA and comprises 9.23 acres located on the north side of Bastanchury Rd and east of Eureka Ave. It is part of the West Bastanchury Planned Development and is proposed to have an affordable housing overlay placed on the property to allow for approximately 4.09 acres of underutilized land and parking lot area to be utilized for housing purposes in compliance with Assembly Bill 1851. The site could accommodate approximately 105 housing units.

This site is also located adjacent to Site S3-203.

89 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-082 – 4791 and 4811 Eureka Avenue
Site Acreage: 1.75 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: CG These two properties totaling 1.75 acres are currently developed with commercial uses dating from 1959 and 1967. Both property owners have reached out to the City to express their interest in having their property rezoned to allow for multi-family residential uses at up to 35 units/acre. The property located at 4811 Eureka, sold most recently in 2020, consists of a mini-warehouse occupied by Yorba Linda Equipment Rentals with an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.5. The property located at 4791 Eureka has been used primarily as a flooring store with other ancillary uses in the large yard area; this property also sold in 2020, and has an improvement-to-land value ratio of 0.12, indicative that the existing industrial use is significantly undervalued relative to the value of the property. Rezoning these properties RM-20 with an Affordable Housing Overlay would allow for 61 units, with the realistic capacity calculated at 85% of the maximum, or 53 units.

Proposed Zoning: RM-20
with Affordable Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 61
Realistic Unit Potential: 53

90 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-075 – 4742 Plumosa Drive
Site Acreage: 1.62 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This underutilized site is currently developed with an older, single-family home. City staff have met with the property owner who is very interested in having their property rezoned for multi-family residential use. The location of this parcel in the Town Center makes it ideal for introducing housing in the downtown area, a key goal of the Town Center Specific Plan. The site is flat, and while it does contain several large trees, none of these are protected species. Rezoning this parcel to RM-20 with the Affordable Housing Overlay would yield a net 57 dwelling units at 35 units/acre, or 48 units at the realistic density of 30 units/acre.

Current Zoning: CG
Proposed Zoning: RM-20
with Affordable Overlay
Total (Net) Unit Potential: 57
Realistic Unit Potential: 48

91 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S6-015 – 22722 Old Canal Road
Site Acreage: 2.56 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This 34,000 square foot industrial building developed in 1991 is the prior John Force Racing Headquarters whose business operations have been relocated to the facility in Indiana and the building is currently for lease. This underutilized building is located across the street from a successful housing element development from the 5th Cycle. This 2.56 acre site is flat, has good access, and with application of the affordable housing overlay could accommodate approximately 89 housing units.

The property owner is supportive of being designated with an affordable housing overlay (AHO). A residual land analysis conducted in December 2021 estimates the value of the land under the AHO zoning to be $17.3 million, whereas the annual rental income on the existing structure is estimated at $567,000, requiring approximately 20 years to exceed the proceeds of a potential sale. As such, the property owner could obtain a higher rate of return by selling the property under the AHO zoning as opposed to leasing the structure.

Current Zoning: PD
Proposed Zoning: Affordable
Housing Overlay
Net Unit Potential: 89
Realistic Unit Potential: 77

92 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S6-020 – 22711 Oak Crest Circle
Site Acreage: 4.04 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: PD This parcel is currently being used as an Extended Stay America with 117 existing rooms. The property’s improvement-to-land value ratio is just 0.56, meaning the existing use is undervalued relative to the value of the land. The property has a history of code enforcement violations and calls for police service related to occupants breaking into cars, doing and selling drugs, and domestic disputes. In fact, the Sheriff’s Department maintains a proactive police presence at this location due to the volume of calls. The immediately adjacent Old Canal Road Annex and nearby Mitsubishi Motors site are both examples of the City rezoning for multi-family residential, and subsequent redevelopment of the existing non-residential use with affordable housing. Applying the Affordable Housing Overlay to this site would allow for redevelopment with up to 143 units, with the realistic capacity calculated at 85% of the maximum, or 122 units.

Proposed Zoning: PD with
Affordable Housing
Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 143
Realistic Unit Potential: 122

93 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S7-001 – Bryant Ranch Shopping Center
Site Acreage: 9.15 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: CG The Bryant Ranch Shopping Center is located at the east end of the City near Savi Ranch. The anchor tenant is an ice skating rink (“The Rinks Yorba Linda”), who took over the 45,000 square foot space after two failed grocery stores. The Rinks is only expected to remain at this location for another year as their lease has expired, and there are no other anchor tenants looking at the site. Most of the other 21 tenants at the center are service related, such as salons, gyms, veterinarian and dentist offices, and just one has a lease extending beyond 2022.

There have been a number of inquiries with the City about potentially redeveloping the center either partially or completely for residential use, and the property owner has recently submitted preliminary conceptual plans to the City for development of 160 townhome units on the site. The City is proposing to overlay a mixed use zone on this site, allowing for up to 320 units with a requirement to integrate a minimum of 10,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses to service neighborhoods located in the eastern end of Yorba Linda.

Realistic capacity is calculated at 85% of the maximum, or 272 units.

Proposed Zoning: Commercial
Mixed Use Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 320
Realistic Unit Potential: 272

94 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-034 – 4341 Eureka Avenue
Site Acreage: 2.19 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is an equestrian property and is developed with a single family home with a number of accessory structures. The property owner has expressed interest in having the property rezoned to allow for higher density.

City staff has met several times with the property owner to discuss rezoning the property. The property owner has also attended all of the City’s Housing Element workshops since being notified of being considered as a potential candidate housing site. The most appropriate density given the surrounding land uses would be Residential Medium Density, which would allow for up to 10 dwelling units per acre. This would yield approximately 22 units on this parcel.

Current Zoning: RS
Proposed Zoning: RM
Total (Net) Unit Potential: 22
Realistic Unit Potential: 19

95 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-080 – 4822 Eureka Avenue
Site Acreage: 0.49 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: RM-30 This property was rezoned during the last Housing Element Cycle to Proposed Zoning: No RM-30. It currently is developed as a small commercial retail center. The change property owner has expressed interest in having this property remain as a Total Unit Potential: 14 housing opportunity. This property owner also owns the property Realistic Unit Potential: 12 immediately across the street on the west side of Eureka and is interested in having that property included as a housing site. This property is discussed as Site S3-082.

96 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-203 – 18101-18251 Bastanchury Road
Acreage: 22.83 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: PD This project site consists of eight separate properties; however, three of the Proposed Zoning: PD largest parcels are all under the same ownership. This property owner’s three Total (Net) Unit Potential: 228 adjacent parcels consist of approximately 15.6 acres. This property owner has Realistic Unit Potential: 194 expressed interest in having their property rezoned for higher density development opportunity. The other five adjacent properties are already developed with a single-family home; however, could potentially add acreage to the project areas. Several of these property owners have been participating in the City’s Housing Element workshops and have met with the City to discuss the possibility of having their property rezoned. The main property owner would yield approximately 156 housing units and the additional properties would yield an additional 72 housing units.

97 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-205A – 5225 and 5227 Highland Avenue
Site Acreage: 7.08 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: RE This project site consists of approximately 7.1 acres and is accessible via Proposed Zoning: RM Eureka Ave and via Highland Ave. The project site consists of two single family Total (Net) Unit Potential: 71 homes. The site was subdivided in 2016 through Tentative Tract Map 17928 to Realistic Unit Potential: 60 allow for 12 single family homes; however, the project was never developed and the subdivision expired in 2019. The City is proposing to upzone this area to allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre, which would yield approximately 71 units. This property has also been listed for sale recently.

98 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-200 – 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane
Site Acreage: 2 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: RS In 2019, C&C Development received approval for the development of a 48-unit Proposed Zoning: RM-20 senior affordable housing project located on the 1.5-acre vacant parcel east of Total (Net) Unit Potential: 40 Lakeview on Altrudy Lane. This project is part of the 5th Housing Element Realistic Unit Potential: 40 Cycle. The City acquired two additional parcels at 18597 and 18602 Altrudy Lane for the purposes of expanding the senior affordable housing project, which would yield an additional 40 affordable housing units. The City is under contract with C&C Development for development of this site.

99 Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-204A – 19045 Yorba Linda Boulevard
S4-204B – 19081-19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard
Site S4-204A Acreage:

1.85 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning:

Congregational Land Overlay
Total Unit Potential: 17
Realistic Unit Potential: 17
Site S4-204B Acreage:

3.9 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning: RM-20
Total (Net) Unit Potential: 78
Realistic Unit Potential: 66
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently home to the Chabad Center and comprises 1.85 acres.

The Chabad is very interested in providing parsonage units on their property.

Applying an Affordable Housing Overlay to the site would allow for approximately

0.5 acres of underutilized land and parking lot area to be utilized for housing purposes, accommodating 17 housing units.

To augment the unit capacity, the Chabad site could also be combined with the adjacent Site S4-204B, which is currently underdeveloped with two detached single-family units. The units were developed in the early 1950s, and have an improvement-to-land value ratio under 1.0. This parcel has been on the market recently and the City has been receiving many inquiries about potential housing development on the site. The Congregational Land Overlay allows for transfer of development rights to adjacent properties, providing an opportunity to develop housing on this underutilized parcel in partnership with the Chabad.

100
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-205 – Yorba Linda Town Center
Site Acreage: 2.97 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

The Historic District of the Town Center consists of Main Street and Olinda Street. This area already allows for the development of no more than 30 dwelling units. No additional rezone efforts would be required to include this area within the housing sites inventory.

Current Zoning: Town
Center Specific Plan
Proposed Zoning: Town
Center Specific Plan
Total (Net) Unit Potential: 30
Realistic Unit Potential: 30

101
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S3-211 – 17651 Imperial Highway
Site Acreage: 2.32 acres
Current Zoning: RS
Proposed Zoning: RM
Total Unit Potential: 23
Realistic Unit Potential: 20
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This property is currently home to the Vinjon’s Kennel and comprises 2.32 acres located on the north side of Imperial Highway. This site could potentiallybe upzoned to allow for 10 dwelling units per acre and yield approximately 23 housing units. This property owner has expressed interest in rezoning.

102
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-053 – Vacant Land Located at Southwest Corner of Kellogg Drive and Grandview Avenue
Site Acreage: 0.98 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning: RM
Total Unit Potential: 10
Realistic Unit Potential: 9
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This is a vacant approximately one-acre parcel. The property owner has expressed desire to have the property upzoned and has committed to develop the site with at least 10% of the units at a moderate income level of affordability, as documented in written correspondence to the City.

103
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S4-060 – 5541 South Ohio Street
Site S4-201 – 5531 South Ohio Street
Site S4-60 Acreage:

0.96acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning: RM
Total (Net) Unit Potential: 10
Realistic Unit Potential: 9
Site S4-201 Acreage:

1.82 acres
Current Zoning: RE
Proposed Zoning: RM
Net Unit Potential: 18
Realistic Unit Potential: 15
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

The property owner for Site S4-201 has expressed interest in having their property rezoned. The site currently has a single-family home. The property owner for S4-060 has asked questions about the City’s outreach efforts related to rezoning the property, but has not expressly stated that they are interested in rezoning their property. Site S4-201 on its own could yield 18 housing units if rezoned to 10 dwelling units per acre. If S4-060 were included, the two sites combined could yield approximately 28 housing units.

104
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S5-008 – Vacant Parcel on Fairmont Boulevard
Site Acreage: 23.01 acres Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

Current Zoning: PD This site is currently owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Proposed Zoning: RM Saints; however the property has been on the market recently. The City has Total Unit Potential: 230 received many inquiries about potential housing development on the site.

Realistic Unit Potential:
196
The upper portion of the property is constrained by topography, though the unit potential from the non-developable portions of the site could be transferred to the flatter, more developable areas of the site. At 10 units/acre, the site could yield 230 units, with a realistic capacity of 196 units (85% of total capacity).

105
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Site S7-005 – Vacant Parcel Located at the Northeast Corner of Camino de Bryant and Meadowland
Site Acreage: 3.06 acres
Current Zoning: RU
Proposed Zoning: RM
Total Unit Potential: 30
Realistic Unit Potential: 10
Description of Site and Factors Supporting Development:

This is a vacant approximately 3-acre parcel. The property owner has expressed a desire to have the property upzoned and has committed to develop the site with at least 10% of the units at a moderate income level of affordability, as documented in written correspondence to the City.

Given the hillside constraints on this property, the City has assumed a development potential of 10 units, rather than the 30 units that would be permitted under RM zoning.

106
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 Jurisdiction
Name
Site
Address/Intersection
5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation
(Current)
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size (Acres) Existing
Use/Vacancy
Infrastructur
e Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional
Information1
Optional
Information2
YORBA LINDA 4822 EUREKA AV 92886 334-441-53 Area Plan RM-30 0 30 0.49 Car Wash and General Retail Uses YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 14 14 Property owner is very interested in moving forward with housing on thProject Site S3-080

YORBA LINDA
N. OF BASTANCHURY BTWN
CASA LOMA & EUREKA 92886 323-151-03 A R - MEDIUM LOW RE 0 1.8 7.678153732 Vacant YES - Planned NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 13 13 Property entitled to allow for 23-unit single family detached product. CoProject Site S3-201

YORBA LINDA
N. OF BASTANCHURY BTWN
CASA LOMA & EUREKA 92886 323-161-06 A R - MEDIUM LOW RE 0 1.8 5.156597132 Vacant YES - Planned NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 9 9 Property entitled to allow for 23-unit single family detached product. CoProject Site S3-201

YORBA LINDA
N. OF BASTANCHURY BTWN
CASA LOMA & EUREKA 92886 323-161-08 A R - MEDIUM LOW RE 0 1.8 0.255950196 Vacant YES - Planned NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Property entitled to allow for 23-unit single family detached product. CoProject Site S3-201 YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-304-02 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114852758 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4821 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-23 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.1148596 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4866 OLINDA ST 92886 323-304-07 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114936925 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 18291 IMPERIAL HWY 92886 323-304-09 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.078716433 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4893 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-14 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057468509 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 18293 IMPERIAL HWY 92886 323-304-10 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.038153463 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4900 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-11 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.11711893 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4901 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-11 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.13022415 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4802 OLINDA ST 92886 323-304-01 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.172242302 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 18322 LEMON DR 92886 323-304-25 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.172263166 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4815 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-24 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057427046 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-304-03 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057432986 Parking Lot YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-304-04 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114872392 Parking Lot YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-304-05 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114900175 Parking Lot YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4845 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-20 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114880992 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4862 OLINDA AV 92886 323-304-06 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114917936 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-304-19 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.114891217 Parking Lot YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4861 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-18 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.05744968 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4865 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-17 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057451481 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4876 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-15 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.063282755 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4872 OLINDA ST 92886 323-304-08 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.172364121 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4881 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-16 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.171807161 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4884 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-20 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.125959046 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4889 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-15 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.058040694 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4894 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-12 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.070789056 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4895 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-13 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.0574712 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4897 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-12 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057472615 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4835 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-21 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057467527 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4829 MAIN ST 92886 323-304-22 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.057403053 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4910 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-21 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.094018972 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 YORBA LINDA 4910 MAIN ST 92886 323-324-21 B Area Plan TCSP 0 10 0.072111957 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 1 1 Project Site S4-205 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements