• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Realtor-backed group challenges City of Orange housing plan

The Realtor-backed Californians for Homeownership has challenged a state-approved housing plan from the City of Orange that includes thousands of homes in areas off-limits to residential development.

The Los Angeles-based nonprofit filed a lawsuit seeking a court order that Orange revise its “housing element” plan, alleging the city included mall parking lots and other parcels with deed restrictions that forbid housing, the Orange County Register reported.

Californians for Homeownership, backed by the California Association of Realtors, has filed 21 lawsuits challenging local housing plans throughout the state, including Beverly Hills, Fullerton, La Cañada Flintridge, Claremont and La Mirada.

The prohousing group accused Orange of including nine encumbered parcels in its housing plan without proof that their current uses will end by the end of the decade.

The sites account for 3,211 of the 3,936 new homes in the city’s eight-year housing blueprint hrough 2029. At least 1,671 of those homes must be affordable for low-income residents.

“The city’s housing element relies on non-vacant sites to satisfy over 50 percent of the city’s lower-income (housing goals),” the lawsuit states. “The city did not (provide) substantial evidence that (the existing) uses are likely to be discontinued.”

The lawsuit contends that the city must prove those sites truly can be redeveloped before the current plan expires in October 2029.

“I don’t know whether these sites are good or bad. What I do know is that the city has not produced the evidence … to demonstrate whether or not (the parcels are) good or bad,” said Matthew Gelfand, an attorney for Californians for Homeownership. “And without that evidence, that housing element is not substantially compliant with state law.”

State housing officials had raised questions about the Orange plan over deed restrictions on some Orange sites last spring, but approved the plan after city officials provided “additional owner outreach (and) updated analysis,” according to state records reviewed by the Register.

The sites include parking lots at the Outlets of Orange mall at 20 City Boulevard West, subject to a recorded declaration maintaining them as parking lots through 2047.

They include parcels at the City Town Center 3743 West Chapman Avenue that a recorded declaration commits to retail for 65 years.

They also include parcels at the Stadium Promenade and Century Stadium shopping center and cinema at 1701 West Katella Avenue now subject to covenants barring residential use through 2044.

Orange City Attorney Mike Vigliotta declined to comment about ongoing litigation, as did a spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

Before the state certified the city’s housing plan on Jan. 2, developers filed four applications seeking to build 696 homes under builder’s remedy, a state housing loophole that allows developers to bypass zoning rules in cities that haven’t certified their plans if they contain at least 20 percent affordable housing.

The builder’s remedy applications include a proposal by Integral Communities to build 209 townhomes and granny flats behind the Village of Orange mall.

They also include a proposal by Stonefield Development to build 138 apartments in 11 three-story buildings, plus a self-storage building at the “Chapman-Yorba” site along Santiago Creek.

Milan REI X , an affiliate of Milan Capital Management, pitched a builder’s remedy plan to build 118 townhomes at the Mara Brandman Horse Arena on East Santiago Canyon Boulevard. It also filed a similar application to build 231 houses, townhomes and apartments at the Sully-Miller sand and gravel quarry.

City planners have pushed back with laundry lists of corrections needed for those projects. In three of those plans, the city still requires developers to get a zoning change and general plan amendment despite the builder’s remedy provision in state housing law.

The city’s assertion is similar to those struck down by Los Angeles County judges in builder’s remedy cases filed against the cities of Los Angeles and La Cañada Flintridge.

“Right now, they’re saying that we still need to file a zone change and a general plan amendment,” John Stanek, a partner at Newport Beach-based Integral Communities, told the Register. “My legal team’s preparing a response.”

— Dana Bartholomew

Read more

Los Angeles


Fullerton settles with state to produce compliant housing element
Fullerton settles with state to produce compliant housing element

Los Angeles


Builder’s remedy test case heats up in Beverly Hills
Builder’s remedy test case heats up in Beverly Hills

Los Angeles


Court issues major builder’s remedy ruling on La Cañada Flintridge 
Court issues major builder’s remedy ruling on La Cañada Flintridge 

The post Realtor-backed group challenges City of Orange housing plan appeared first on The Real Deal.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 26 April 2024
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
Morgan Group chooses Chapter 11 for Inland Empire hotel →← Swig finds new bottom with DTLA office sale at $94 a sf
  • Recent Posts

    • Hoteliers sound the alarm on looming distress  May 24, 2025
    • Growth markets see retail boom even with tariff uncertainty May 24, 2025
    • Westchester resi project gets city OK after union drops objection May 23, 2025
    • WATCH: ‘Father of CMBS’ Ethan Penner to run for governor of California May 23, 2025
    • Fashion Island office fetches $756 psf May 23, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM