Foothills Sentry - December 2023

Foothills Sentry Page 2 December 2023 YOU NEVER KNOW WHO’S LURKING! jadtec.com $ 15 95 /mo as low as SECURITY JADTEC 714 282 0828 | jadtec.com protecting your home from creepy, unwanted visitors! ING! ACO 4202 A-1 (agriculture, 0.5 units per acre), the General Plan designates it suburban residential (up to 18 units per acre). While both desig- nations (and the covenant) allow for some residential, the density difference makes the zoning in- consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the project had to be approved. Residents were apprised of the lawsuits at a neighborhood meet- ing, Nov. 5. Charles McKenna, an attorney with FitzGerald Kreditor Bolduc Risbrough LLP, the law firm representing both plaintiffs, assured project opponents that both cases were solid on their own. A cautionary tale They could be bolstered, how- ever, by a recent appellate court case that ruled in favor of a juris- diction's discretion to deny a de- velopment project. The case, Snowball West In- vestments v. City of Los Angeles, involved a 215-unit development in Verdugo Hills. The developer, Snowball, relied on the Housing Accountability Act to force the city’s approval of the project. Ranch Hills Partners did the same "Racquet Club" continued from page 1 "Revised Housing" continued from page 1 be developed for housing within the 2021-29 timeframe based on easement agreements, leases or “other declarations.” Prior to including parcels as potential residential sites, the city had discussions with those prop- erty owners regarding their inter- est in redevelopment and they had agreed to be included in Orange’s Housing Element. HCD, none- theless, heeded the complaints of the non-local letter writers and re- quired the city to produce further analysis of the viability of those sites, provide a buffer for those sites and develop mechanisms to enable development. Third time’s the charm? Orange subsequently removed three sites from its Housing El- ement, established additional owner interest in redevelopment and allowed for higher densities on mixed-use properties. The city also agreed to consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordi- nance if existing incentives failed to meet affordable housing goals. In September, the HCD again notified the city via letter that its “revised draft Housing Ele- ment meets minimum statutory requirements.” The agency added a few more demands, including ministerial processing of projects, ministerial approval of subdivi- sions, specific outreach to mall site owners, and monitoring new sites if shopping centers are not developed. With that, the agency wrote, “The housing elements will substantially comply with state Housing Element law when it has incorporated the additions noted above and is adopted, sub- mitted to and approved by HCD. That plan was adopted in Oc- tober; the city is awaiting certi- fication. “This has been a long process, and we are hopeful that HCD will move swiftly to certify our Housing Element,” Orange Community Development Man- ager Russell Bunim says. “Our goal is to create a housing plan that will serve this community long term and establish a founda- tion to support a diverse popula- tion of residents. We are feeling positive about our latest draft." in Orange County. Los Angeles denied the project and the devel- oper sued. The lower court found for the city; Snowball appealed. A reprise for local land use The appeals court found that “compliance with the HAA does not mean that every proposed project must be approved or that maximum allowable density must be allowed at every site. These arguments highlight the tensions inherent in the Legislature’s ef- forts to solve a statewide problem that lies within a realm typically controlled by local authorities. Local control has not been abro- gated by the HAA.” The defendant in that case had also cited the city’s lack of “find- ings” in denying the project. “Findings” were a showstopper for Orange County counsel be- cause, she said, there weren’t any to support a denial of the Racquet Club project. The appellate court broadened “findings” to include "hundreds of pages of written comment and attachments submitted by member of the public, and oral comments made at public meet- ings.” Those public comments, accepted by the court, included the assertion that 215 units on the site would be incompatible with the density surrounding the site. It was also noted that the Snow- ball project units were not includ- ed in the city’s forecast of future developments intended to meet Los Angeles’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA is the number of housing units the state requires a jurisdic- tion to plan for. Listen up The county received more than 400 letters and scores of public comments at both the Planning Commission hearing and Board of Supervisors meeting. Those comments cited incompatibility, traffic and fire safety concerns, and noted that units in the Rac- quet Club development, at $1.5 million each, would not address the county’s need for affordable housing. In addition, the Racquet Club site does not appear on the coun- ty’s list of projects intended to satisfy its RHNA. County coun- sel did allow, however, that the 37 units would help satisfy OCs 10,000-plus allotment. Regarding the Snowball West case, Mckenna said, “The attor- neys for Los Angeles chose to defend the city’s General Plan. The attorneys in Orange County didn’t.” The landmark north WWII blimp hangar in Tustin caught fire Nov. 7. After battling the blaze for several hours, firefighters, hampered by falling flaming debris, had to let it burn. Ash from the fire, laden with asbestos, blanketed the community and the airborne aftermath forced Tustin schools to close and residents advised to stay indoors. The U.S. Navy owns the hangar and says it will give Tustin $1 million to aid in the clean-up. The cause of the fire is still under investigation. A North Hangar Fire Resource Page was established at tustinca.org, detailing the air monitoring and deconstruction of the Hangar. A Hangar Inci- dent hotline is available from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily: (714) 426-2444. Photo by Mark Eliot